Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:RFPP)
Jump to: navigation, search

Comma Error[edit]

I noticed a grammatical error in one of the headings which I don't want to try to fix myself so as not to screw up Twinkle and archiving. Can somebody who knows a bit more about what they are doing please fix the page? Thanks!
The error is as follows.

In the heading for Edit Requests, the third bullet point reads "Page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves not here." I think that the sentence is incorrect and should read "Page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves, not here." Can somebody please fix this? Thanks!

Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The header is transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/SRheading and the warning is only for code changes on the page itself, not transcluded pages. I've made the change for you. tutterMouse (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


I've always been confused by the layout that we use here. All of the links are put in each header, producing section URLs such as instead of making it impossible to use the section links. What if we started directing people to provide headers with just the name of the page and to provide the {{la}}, {{lafd}}, {{lmd}}, etc. links immediately below it? I believe that it would make the page simpler to use without causing any problems. Nyttend (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Would make section linking simpler but the most likely reason it's never happened is that the requests are transient and there's not much reason to section link for that reason whereas you might link to a diff instead if you want it to last longer than a day or two. Wouldn't say it makes it easier, probably would argue it introduces visual clutter even as it's making titles bigger but reducing the important links to body text while duplicating the title. There's a way to do this I'm sure but I'm not sure how, I'd be interested to see methods we could possibly use that doesn't obscure the (IMO) important links those templates make. tutterMouse (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
It's not that I want to make section links. Rather, when I edit a section and respond to a request, the resulting URL includes the section title; if we had a simple section, I would be taken there, rather than being sent to the top of the page. It would be easier to just go down the page from top to bottom if I didn't have to start all over and find where I was before whenever I respond to one request. Nyttend (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Right now, our instructions say to use the following code:
===={{la|Example Article Name}}====
'''Semi-protection:''' High level of IP vandalism. ~~~~
All we need to do is to change the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Header so that they're something like:
====Example Article Name====
{{la|Example Article Name}}
'''Semi-protection:''' High level of IP vandalism. ~~~~
This wouldn't take much work and wouldn't obscure the important links, but it would fix the header names. Nyttend (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't that make the title duplication issue I was thinking about? I guess it should be done but I'm not opposed, would like to see what others think. tutterMouse (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I misunderstood what you were talking about. Now that I understand, I don't think it a big deal; we use this format in AFDs. To pick a random example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mcmillan Chiwawa; at the very top is the name of the article, and the links (supplied by the same template, {{la}}) are placed just below. WP:AFD gets more traffic than WP:RFPP; if it were a problem, I think it would have been removed there a long time ago. Nyttend (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
AfD does get more traffic but usually there's a lot of discussions on one page and they run long so it doesn't look overly cluttered. However, RFPP isn't AFD, most you'll get is two lines of response and it's a lot more visual traffic to parse through. Cyberpower's concerns regarding the bot are also an issue, might affect Twinkle in similar ways but I figure futzing with the headers is no small matter. tutterMouse (talk) 06:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
This change will completely break the bot, and will complicate it's implementation, based on current design, IIRC.—cyberpower ChatOnline 01:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)