Template talk:Protected page text

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Fully-protected edit request on 9 November 2023

This edit request to Template:Protected page text/interface has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would suggest removing the user page link and prefix to show as "This user CSS page/user script is currently protected so that only Protected page text and interface administrators can {{{2}}} it" to maintain consistency with Template:Protected page text/user-json, or remove the unnecessary User: prefix while keeping the userpage link. And please see my request in wikitext so that you do not add Protected page text instead of the user's CSS/JS page. Thanks. 64andtim (talk to me) 15:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC) 64andtim (talk to me) 15:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done See Template talk:Protected page text/Archive 1#Protected edit request on 7 August 2020 - the current situation is deliberate. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 9 November 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please implement my changes in the sandbox. This adds a parameter to specify the message for where page protection should be dropped, as well as adds a "title" parameter so a title can be manually specified. Awesome Aasim 17:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's the use case for either of these? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my work in Template:Protected page text/blacklist/sandbox. Here, the parameter would be used to tell users that they can request the title be whitelisted or removed from the blacklist. Awesome Aasim 22:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done I'm note sure whether I agree reworking the blacklist message in that way is a good idea, but this change by itself is harmless. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 21 December 2023

This edit request to Template:Protected page text/cascade has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "Wikipedia:Transclucion" to "Help:Transclusion" in the piped wikilink. Why: Obviously the former is a redirect that is vandalised due to the resulting redirection to the latter title. Toadette ^{(Happy holiday!)} 19:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done I just protected the redirect itself. It's only used in one interface page, so that'd be easy to change, but it's in a ton of articles because of template transclusion. It's barely being vandalized; were it a typical page at RFPP, I'd decline, but I think it's justified here. (FWIW, Link to the move discussion) ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 24 July 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Consider adding a check for whether the doc page of a template/module is protected itself. Currently this template always says that they can be edited freely and while that is almost always the case, I was able to find a few protected doc pages in Special:ProtectedPages like Template:Non-free_use_rationale/doc. I've made it so no text appears if the doc page is protected (see TM:Protected page text/sandbox) which I think is acceptable due to how rare this case is, but some text could be added if you disagree. I've also added a check for the other two cases, that is, when both a doc page and a sandbox exist and when only a sandbox exists. The last one should never trigger since sandboxes shouldn't be protected but I think it should be added anyway for consistency. Nickps (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is also another change in the sandbox, done by Awesome Aasim. He made the doc/sandbox message appear for modules as well. Since that is a good change, consider it also a part of this edit request. Nickps (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... I've unprotected the page of interest. I don't think the change as-is is good enough to implement: I'd expect some text specific to what a person should do be placed in the output. Izno (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done needs more development/discussion. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 21 March 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"Discuss this page with others" should be removed for ECP pages or it should be changed to something like "Discuss this page with others, if the page is not extended-confirmed protected." The ECP rules amendment on 11 November 2023 does not allow discussion on talk pages by non-EC users https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?oldid=1184641744#Motion:_Edit_requests_only . Non-EC users are misled into thinking that they can take part in talk page discussions, resulting in immediate reversions and the annoyance of EC and non-EC users alike. AndyBloch (talk) 05:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ECR is only a subset of WP:ECP. 216.58.25.209 (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Using special logic that checks for the relevant category on the talk page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]