Template talk:Edit fully-protected/Archive 1

message: :Add issues below as you see fit, sign with ~~~~
 
=== Examples? ===
Could someone show some examples of how this can be used? Is it currently being used anywhere? AucamanTalk 17:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is particularly useful for the proposed Wikipedia:Stable versions. Its purpose also overlaps and is somewhat easier than Requests for Unprotection. -- 13:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What are you talking about? -- Omniplex 13:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: See above -- Omniplex 13:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. --CBDunkerson 15:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, also to Syrthiss who migrated the rest of this zoo. -- Omniplex 17:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: Could someone show some examples of how this can be used? Is it currently being used anywhere? AucamanTalk 17:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is particularly useful for the proposed Wikipedia:Stable versions. Its purpose also overlaps and is somewhat easier than Requests for Unprotection. -- 13:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples? 

message: Why? Because protecting pages that only administrators can edit is inherently anti-wiki and POV. This template tries to minimise that. -- Zondor 06:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationale 

message: I would like to suggest this template be modified. A lot of the text it contains should be removed from the template itself:
It is requested that an edit or modification be made to the protected page.
Please move this notice and close the discussion once the request is completed.
----
This template adds a page to :Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests. It is a self-reference and so is part of the Wikipedia project rather than the encyclopaedic content. 
This notice is to be placed on the talk page and adjacent to the request text. Please make the request clear and specific as much as possible. It is automatically categorised into :Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests. Administrators will check this category for protected edit requests to process.
-- Ec5618 19:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redesign 

message: Why was this deleted?  Userboxes seemed to be quite popular.  I thought they were a great way to say things about yourself without having to write an autobiography.  Starla Dear 01:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? -- Omniplex 13:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ? 

message: This template's explanation is incomprehensible to most users, and it's missing the instructions. Instead of "This notice is to be placed on the talk page and adjacent to the request text.", this should say:
To ask an administrator to edit a protected page, you can add this notice on the talk page adjacent to the request by writing "" without the quotes. 
--Espoo 17:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See above -- Omniplex 13:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instructions missing 

message: For some time  listed itself in the category for requested updates, because it was used here (on its talk page) as example. That's fixed now for some weeks, therefore I hope that a real request here could now work again:
Please replace
by
 -- Omniplex 05:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --CBDunkerson 15:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, also to Syrthiss who migrated the rest of this zoo. -- Omniplex 17:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editprotected update request 

message: Why does this template have to be protected? It doesn't have a history of vandalism or edit warring, it's not extensively transcluded at any one time (5 articles at time of writing). I'm assuming the admin who protected it just had protection on the brain when they were reading the template, but I think it's unnecessary and by principle we should start from a no-protection starting point. BigBlueFish 15:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected? 

message: Can someone please add ar:قالب:! to the interwiki's. Thanks. Jak123 20:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This doesn't look like a template. It looks like a Wikipedia page with sections and bullet points. —Centrx→talk • 22:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding ar 

message: How can I request to edit a protected page when even its talk page is protected (so I cannot put the template)?? I think protecting talk pages should not be allowed. I would like to edit Angry Nintendo Nerd, a website that attracts thousands of fans and is an important internete meme in the video game community.--Sonjaaa 20:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you open the log, look up the username of the admin who protected the talk page, and if the admin is still active in Wikipedia, put your  request on the admin's user talk page. If that fails, escalate the request to WP:RFPP or, if the talk page is a protected deleted page, WP:DRV. --jan Tepo (toki) 00:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What if the talk page is protected too!! 

message: On Template:disambig please add the following:  "For templates to place on other pages directing a reader to the disambiguation page, see Template:otheruses."  This can be added at the bottom of the page.  Alternatively, add:
"==See Also==
* Template:otheruses"
Reason for this documentation:  users looking for the "otheruses" templates but who have forgotten what they're called will likely look for "Template:Disambiguation" which will take them to "Template:disambig".  --Coppertwig 14:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:disambig 

message: A lot of people seem to use this tag when they really want WP:RFPP, or when they are just discussing a possible edit but have no specific proposal. At the risk of making the template a little longer, I think it would be worthwhile to make the template more self-explanatory.  What about: 
                                                                                                                                                                                                         	It is requested that an edit or modification be made to this protected page. ([ protection log])This template should be accompanied by a specific description of the request. Please disable this template when the request is handled.
This template is for requesting changes to the content of the page. To request that the page itself be protected or unprotected, please make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection instead.	This template is for requesting changes to the content of the page. To request that the page itself be protected or unprotected, please make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection instead.
Thoughts? CMummert · talk 21:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.  I'll probably implement the top half tomorrow unless someone objects; I don't want to do the whole thing without some a second opinion. CMummert · talk 18:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it.  Personally, I've never seen it used to request protection, but I have several occasions where this no clue as to what the edit should be.  I'm all for making this box easier to find (i.e. bigger.  Is there any way to make the template work like ? Maybe add a parameter for the requested edit (wikisytax and all, i.e. ). And after the edit, the category will be removed,but the template is kept. John Reaves (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be harder to editors to use the template if it had more complicated syntax such as parameters; they are already familiar with the current setup, which is simple and elegant. I rephrased the template slightly which removed an unsightly line break (for me at least) and added a link to the instructions. I also limitd the width to 5.5in, which will make it easier to find by making it taller. CMummert · talk 19:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, good point.  I forgot to mention earlier that I bolded "specific description" to try and get the point across.  I say go ahead and implement the new template, I think that will be the best way to get comments on the new version rather than waiting for them here. John Reaves (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To request protection 

message: :This section moved here from Template talk:Editprotected/doc.
It should be added that Bruce Gordon is no longer the president of the NAACP. He resigned March 4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by  Adambelz  (talk • contribs)  01:07, 22 March 2007 
:Not sure how you got to this page, but I fixed it... Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 20:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NAACP, Bruce Gordon 

message: I wrapped the table in a div with id editprotected.  This enables custom formatting of the box, like class="editprotected" would.  But it needs to be an id, not a class, so that you can link to the request by adding #editprotected to the end of the talk page URL. This will fail to validate if there are multiple protected edit requests, but that should be a very rare and minor problem. 
I also want to publicize a bot request to make a useful table of protected edit requests that should make it more convenient to handle them. CMummert · talk 17:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  id="editprotected", bot request 

message: I turned the current version into a tableless notice. The ability to edit ther template in general is not hampered much. I put the code and example below. Tell me if I made any mistakes. Also, The  cannot be put in the first  tag, as this caused errors with centering. —Andrew Hampe Talk 00:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-table version 

message: Request to change Joe Girardi's info box to the Cubs red and blue colors (as it was previously listed before someone changed to Yankees blue and gray and then the page got protected).  Girardi played twice as many years on the Cubs and also played 2 separate stints in Chicago.  He only played 3 years in New York and the Yankees are not the most reflective team for his career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by  Pascack  (talk • contribs)  02:21, 17 July 2007 
:This belongs at Talk:Joe Girardi. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 17:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info box colors 

message: The bottom half of the template goes wide when this template is placed on talk pages, or at least on "Template talk:" namespace talk pages.  This broken bottom half's background also matches the color of said talk pages, making it difficult to discern the template from the talk page content (example).  Please fix. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 17:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The tempalte code was changed by Andrew Hampe to use no tables, and this appears to be broken. I reverted to the table version until the nontable version is fixed and tested. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bug report 

message: When and why did this template become "immediate"? Is there a non-immediate template I should be using for more casual requests? I'm almost never in a rush. -- 67.98.206.2 20:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Immediate is fine. The point is that the edit should be made as soon as someone sees it - if it is indeed reasonable, and that there is no request for discussion, and no need for any delay. What I see happening is that a lot of the requests languish as though no one wants to tackle them, or stick their neck out in agreement, although I admit some are so baffling that it is hard to see what edit was intended. 199.125.109.36 (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immediate? 

message: I am amazed that my request to have the article Pakistan occupied Kashmir AFD'ed is denied. How can this be? __meco (talk) 10:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you should ask at the Pakistan occupied Kashmir talk page.--Parthian Scribe 17:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to AFD article denied 

message:  In the "MCain Phones Joe" section, US Marines Corps needs to be changed to the proper term,  -----         " U.S. Marine Corps."" Thanks
: asked user to put the request on the specific talk page, not here SkierRMH (talk) 03:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling Error 

message: Since the Doctor Steel article was recently accepted, might I request that Dr. Steel (album) be downgraded from protected to semi-protected status (with the same user authorizations as the Doctor Steel page, i.e. established users and admins)? (If this is in the wrong place I apologize; your instructions were rather confusing...) Thank you very much. I have a sandbox for that page but wanted to move it. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you are in the wrong place, WP:RFPP is the page for requests like this. However in this case, it might be better to contact the protecting admin  about it. Regards, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that worked about as well as I expected it to: JzG declined (color me not surprised). But at least I followed protocol. Will post it on the WP:RFPP now. Thanks. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dr. Steel (album)]] 

message: There is a typo under the white phosphorous section that says:
"completion of the three-day Israesli withdrawal", can an admin fix it? -Solid Reign (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. You're in the wrong place - I don't even know which article you are talking about. Could you make the request on the talk page of the article? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, sorry, I had two windows open, edited the wrong one.  Sorry about that... -Solid Reign (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  White phosphorous typo 

message: :This section moved here from Template talk:Editprotected/doc.
Can we make the words "go back" (in the phrase "Please go back to the page you just came from and discuss there instead of here.") into a browser history link? I'm not sure of the syntax or I'd do it myself, but I know it's something like "history.go-1" Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 10:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Go back" 

message: This article's content states:
:Administrators will check this category for protected edit requests to process. In the three months of September through November 2007, the average time for a request to be handled was approximately 23 hours, and 75% of requests were resolved within 26 hours.
There has been an "editprotect" request on a page outstanding for three days (76 hours) and, given the above statement about response efficiency, I'm beginning to think that the non-handling of this particular request until the edit protection (which is only a week) just conveniently expires is deliberate. According to the image of glowing effiency you wish to portray with the above statistics, processing for this "editprotect" is long overdue. Please can somebody get around to looking at this.
Many Thanks in advance.
Andrew81446 (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The request to fix several aspects of Los Angeles International Airport has gone unanswered for six days and still sits there. This block is indefinite, so it's not going to resolve itself. Can an administrator please get on to this? Mvjs (talk) 07:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to "editprotect" requests 

message: I have been seeing a fair number of editprotected templates used with the request added as the first unnamed parameter (, ).  As you can see from the first one, the fact that the whole edit was wrapped in a template tag caused Sinebot not to autosign the comment, which is unhelpful.  It is also impossible to quickly disable the template with  or similar when it is passed parameters.  I would like to remove the support for the parameter, such that the template cannot be passed any parameters.  This should not really inconvenience anyone, as it only affects where they have to put the closing braces. Happy‑melon 19:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the parameter. Happy‑melon 19:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove parameter

message: Wikipedia is designed to shift as much of the rendering choices onto the user's browser as possible, for several reasons.  Most importantly, it means that the formatting can be made to work more easily with a wider range of browsers, some of which display identical html code very differently. What looks good in firefox almost invariably looks terrible in IE7, and often vice versa, just because of the different way the browsers interpret html.  Individual users' display settings, colour pallets, monitor sizes and a host of other factors all affect how the page is displayed, so the more freedom Wikipedia can give the users' browser to display the code however looks best for that users' environment, the better.  Secondly, it gives the user the opportunity to make their own customisations via their own .css pages - being overly specific about what formatting you think looks best makes it more difficult for other users to apply their own preferences.  Happy‑melon 09:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Changing formatting

message: I would like to clarify the line in the current version of the template that reads "This template should only be used to request edits to fully-protected pages that are uncontroversial or supported by consensus."
It is not the pages that have to be uncontroversial, but the edits! What about "This template should only be used to request uncontroversial edits to fully-protected pages." If there is an adjective form of consensus, insert it after uncontroversial.
Mumiemonstret (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some parenthetical commas.  What do you think? Happy‑melon 09:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this works. Perhaps a little bit more bureaucratic but quite understandable. Mumiemonstret (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous reference 

message: I have noticed that the template adjusts to the various namespaces it is placed in, by giving the type of the page in the first sentence. This is an interesting and sometimes helpful feature, and I could even say that I like it. However, this superficial adaptability makes the template look rather strange when it is used for requests made for changes to MediaWiki pages. This is due to two elements:
# A link in the message box's first line to the hosting page's protection log.
# The last sentence, regarding requests for (un)protection.
Given that MediaWiki pages are perpetually protected, both these elements are superfluous and might even look slightly ridiculous in this context; the second one is also fairly misleading. Is it possible to make them not appear when the template is transcluded in the MediaWiki talk namespace? Regards, Waltham, The Duke of 08:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent job, Ms Webb. Thank you for your speedy and efficient action on my request. Waltham, The Duke of 17:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adaptation to MediaWiki namespace 

message: I have convinced the editor who was causing the furor to hold off adding his proposed information to the article until the info can be proven by a reliable source.
I ask that now that that has been settled down (see talk page on the WWE roster page for the exchange), that the page be unlocked.
Thank you.
Vjmlhds 22:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWE roster page 

message: Seeing today's vandalism on this template, I'd like to ask: why isn't it protected?  It's not like we have a good reason to go around editing it all the time, and its very nature as a sign of you-can't-edit-this-page means that it's a more tempting target for someone inclined toward vandalism.  To me it seems reasonable to protect this indefinitely.  Nyttend (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection for this template 

message: Under 'General considerations' it says "Please do not use this template to request edits to pages which are only" Only what? the sentence cuts off and then says "but any  user may make the change if it is sensible; administrator intervention is not required" which, if true, would make protection kinda pointless. --79.68.34.137 (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That sentence ends with a link to Wikipedia:Protection policy#Semi-protection, the full sentence is "Please do not use this template to request edits to pages which are only semi-protected".  Equally the second sentence is "but any autoconfirmed user may make the change...", with "autoconfirmed" linking to Wikipedia:User access levels.  If the links are not showing up for you then there's some display problem with your browser. Happy‑melon 09:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused Documentation 

message: I haven't seen this before, the above template shows an "Edit" tab, but when I click on that tab, it only shows the source and says it's edit protected. Am I missing something here??!! --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an editnotice, which means only administrators and accountcreators can edit it. However, since WP uses MediaWiki:Titleblacklist to protect the page and it is not a function of MediaWiki, it appears editable until you actually try to edit it. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 00:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! Thanks! --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Editnotices/Page/British people