Template talk:Edit protected

Closing edit requests

Template:Reqa Working on requests to edit semi-protected pages of late, I've noticed that I often want to explain to the requester how they can reopen the request when the request hasn't been done. This mainly occurs when the responder asks for more information, such as clarifications or reliable sources. From what I've seen, edit requests aren't like opening up a dialogue, as most are drive-by edits. I am assuming this is the reason we un-transclude request templates with {{tlf}} or {{tld}}, so the request isn't indefinitely in the queue while we wait for a response that never comes. The template above was created to provide the requester with a more user-friendly and good faith explanation of what just happened to their request and how to get it reactivated. I would like to know if there is a consensus for using this instead of tlf or tld to un-transclude the request templates. To be clear, I am supporting a template with this utility, not necessarily this look or verbage. Please see this diff for an example: Jon Jones (fighter). Thanks, — Bility (talk) 06:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Like the idea, and I'll comment at the TfD. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Per User:Thumperward at the TfD talk, I think a better way to accomplish this may be to add a "done=yes" parameter to the request templates instead of using entirely new ones. Thoughts? — Bility (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I added a single un-named parameter to {{edit semi-protected}} that checks for the word "done" and leaves the above box. Let me know if there's any problem with this change so we can discuss and/or revert. Thanks, — Bility (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea, but I think the box is a bit large for a "done" note. Do you think using {{tmbox|small}} or {{ambox|small}} would be OK, or even an implementation of {{resolved}} that explains how to reinstate the edit request? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with any method that gets the job done. I added {{tmbox|small}} functionality, that look all right? — Bility (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I tweaked it so it floats on the right and is more noticeable. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually you made if float on the left. I preferred it on the right actually. Can we get this feature on Template:Edit protected as well please? And would |done=yes be more intuitive? Because then people can change it to |done=no to reactivate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I meant left, so it's more easily seen. And I think you're right—done=yes/no might be easier for users to understand if they want to reactivate. I support adding this change into the EP template as well. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I also prefer it floated right so the request is easier to read, or if better visibility on the left is desired, displaying it block style instead of floating. No preference on "done=yes"; it's easier for the inexperienced requester to deal with and more tedious for the responder, so I think it's a wash. Who would we talk to to get the preload to produce {{edit semi-protected|done=no}}? — Bility (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Block style is fine with me, or anything that gets it on a separate line above the actual request, really; I just thought that putting it on the left would better catch someone's attention than having it off on the right side because that's not where one tends to start reading. For the preload, I know there's some template somewhere that does it but I can't recall where--MSGJ should know, I bet. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Y Done. But I had a think about the grammar and I think |fulfilled=no is preferable to |done=no. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Bility: I made quite a few changes yesterday. Are you happy with these? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing worth arguing about. Thanks for working on the template! — Bility (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, not exactly a ringing endorsement ;) Anyway, good to work with you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Implement Change?

Moved from Template talk:Edit semi-protected: – Ajl^talk 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest implementing another change so that we can set the fulfilled param to "notdone" or "notnow" or "not a request" or something similar. It would be useful for requests like this and this. If this has already been discussed, forgive me. – Ajl^talk 06:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that might be a good idea. May I suggest that we discuss it on Template talk:Edit protected to keep all the discussion in one place. In fact I'd like to merge these two templates some day. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Moving conversation there now. – Ajl^talk 08:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Moved. – Ajl^talk 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this begins to mix meaningful responses to the requester with the maintenance task of suppressing transclusion of the request category. To avoid confusing editors and be more precise about what we're doing with the template, going from "fulfilled=yes" to "removecategory=yes" or "enabled=no" or "open=no" or "status=disabled" would be my suggestion. To me, information about the specific request (like "notdone", "notnow" or "not a request"), should remain in the response below the request where the requester will read it without having to edit the section/page. — Bility (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes I think I agree. Putting these messages above the request might be a bit confusing. I think we should try to avoid acting like robots and explain our responses like humans whenever possible ;) In other words, write in sentences rather than with templates. Bility: I like your idea of enabled=no; (even though I don't want to change it again now!) "fulfilled=yes" suggests that the request has been carried out even though it might have been declined. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"fulfilled=yes" suggests that the request has been carried out even though it might have been declined.

This was exactly my feelings and intent, whether or not I stated it as such. – Ajl^talk 23:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I updated the syntax on the batch from the last change and I am willing to do so again, so don't worry about the administrative repercussions. That being said, the sooner we come to a decision the better, as there are over 50 transclusions and growing at this point. My top choice for this parameter would be "answered" with a yes/no input, although I support any other suggestion without prejudice. — Bility (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Something like {{editprotected|fulfilled=no|answered=no}} which would change to

• {{editprotected|fulfilled=no|answered=yes}} for a improper request (i.e. not "X" to "Y" or not even a request)
• {{editprotected|fulfilled=yes|answered=yes}} on an accepted change (or even {{editprotected|fulfilled=yes}})

Of course with these, you'd still use the {{ESp}}/{{Ep}} responses. I would support this. – Ajl^talk 05:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, there's no need to combine codifying the response with suppressing the category, especially when it makes the template unnecessarily complex. What we're after here is a single parameter to turn categorization on and off so the requester can notify someone they need assistance. — Bility (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Well, what about just "answered=yes/no"? To me, "fulfilled=yes" sounds more the request was carried out, even if it wasn't. – Ajl^talk 16:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we are all agreed on answered now. The fulfilled was my fault; I was looking for something better than done. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, no worries. As long as we can come to a consensus, it's all good. – Ajl^talk 22:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

So, um... Does someone want to implement this change? Or shall we vote on it first? – Ajl^talk 05:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Done, hopefully for the last time. — Bility (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain. I'll just go hide now. – Ajl^talk 19:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Unrelated, but yet still related...

Is it just me, or just the {{tlc|editprotected|fulfilled=yes}} (see above source) template not work? – Ajl^talk 05:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Doh. Of course. It's got that equal sign... So this should work: {{editprotected|blah|blah|blah}}. – Ajl^talk 06:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Anchor

The {{anchor|editprotected}} should not be called if |answered=yes because otherwise you are taken to stale requests instead of the live request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. — Bility (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Alternative parameter for lazy editors

I answer a lot of edit protected requests and get tired typing answered all the time. Could we have an alternative ans that will save me 5 characters? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Is part of the reason we struggled with the name of the parameter so that new editors would understand how to use the template? Would a new editor know to change ans to "no" rather than answered to "no" to reactivate their request? On the semi-protected edit request side they mostly use the preload, so I don't have to type in the parameter too much. — Bility (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

We could tweak the text slightly, e.g.

Set the |answered= (or |ans=) parameter to no to reactivate your request.

A lot of editors who use {{editprotected}} do not use the preload. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. — Bility (talk) 09:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, implemented. I realised I had to change the semi template as well, since the /answered subtemplate is common to both. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Color meanings

Can someone add an explanation (legend) for the colors used? -DePiep (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Editnotices

Currently the edit request table shows requests on editnotice talk pages in pink with "not protected" as the protection level. While this is technically correct, users are required to use the editprotected template to get the attention of an admin, who can actually insert the editnotice. So does anyone want to see a different color and/or protection level for these? CAT:EP regulars probably know about this, but maybe some admin skip these requests thinking it doesn't require extra permissions to go put {{EP|s}} on them? Just a thought. — Bility (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a different colour might be nice. We'd have to ask CBM about that. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 26 October 2011

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Documentation/end_box2&action=edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.136.76 (talk) 07:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Note that I have no rights to edit the fully protected templates. However, it is advised that you should use {{Edit protected}} on the talk page of the page requires editing (in this case, Template talk:Documentation/end box2) and describe clearly on what you would like to edit, and what it should be afterwards. Regards, --G(x) (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 December 2011

Hello, I am requesting a minor re-edit to the opening phrase of the Toccata and Fugue in D minor article to change the sentence from "Attribution of the piece to Bach is doubtful, and has been disputed by a number of scholars" to "The attribution of the piece to Bach has been challenged in the early 1980's by a number of scholars, and remains a controversial topic". To say only that it is doubtful seems opinionated, and excludes the opinion of other scholars (Such as Helmut Walcha and Christoph Wolff) who actually do believe it to have been composed by Bach. Nothing very serious, but it has been giving the article many problems recently.Rolusty33 (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Rolusty33 Rolusty33 (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Wrong page. You requesting here a template to be changed. Please repost your request at the correct page. mabdul 22:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 December 2011

Please ad : (Redacted)

Shavedtail (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Wrong page. You requesting here a template to be changed. Please repost your request at the correct talk page. mabdul 16:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, this material is also likely to violate our Biographies of Living Persons policy unless you have a reliable source for this information. If you don't have a source, please just drop it. Anomie⚔ 16:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)