Module talk:Protected edit request: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:03, 5 December 2013

Latest revision as of 19:50, 4 August 2025

(177 intermediate revisions by 58 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Permanently protected}}

==Broken links==

{{Talk header}}

The {{tlx|edit protected}} and {{tlx|edit semi-protected}} templates used to set an anchor {{tlx|anchor|editprotected}} immediately before the box; this was useful because the lists at [[User:AnomieBOT/PERTable]] and [[User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable]] contain links to that anchor - see {{diff|User:AnomieBOT/PERTable|prev|583078180|this edit}}, where the link <code><nowiki>[[Template talk:Infobox requested#editprotected|request]]</nowiki></code> is in the second added line. These links are now broken. I ''would'' fix it myself, but I can't find my way through the Lua code: there is something that ''looks'' like it's supposed to add an anchor, in the form of <code>function box:exportAnchors</code>, but I can't work out why that's not happening. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 14:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

{{User:MiszaBot/config

:The anchors are working for me from [[User:AnomieBOT/PERTable]] and [[User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable]]. I changed the template on [[Template talk:Infobox requested]] from {{tl|edit protected}} to the new {{tl|edit template-protected}}, which will have caused links in the history of [[User:AnomieBOT/PERTable]] to stop working. If you use <code><nowiki>[[Template talk:Infobox requested#edittemplateprotected|request]]</nowiki></code> it should work. (Here's the link: [[Template talk:Infobox requested#edittemplateprotected|request]].) Are any of the anchors from the live PERTable lists not working, or is it just ones in the history? — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' ^{[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪ talk ♪]]} 14:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

|archiveheader = {{atnhead|noredlinks=y}}

::Yes, they appear to be working now. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 16:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

|maxarchivesize = 100K

|counter = 1

|minthreadsleft = 4

|minthreadstoarchive = 1

|algo = old(90d)

|archive = Module talk:Protected edit request/Archive %(counter)d

}}

== "Error: Protected edit requests can only be made on the talk page." error ==

== Protection detection ==

:''The module also attempts to detect the protection level of the pages used, and if any pages have a different protection level from the function specified it adds the page to Category:Wikipedia edit requests possibly using incorrect templates.''

Instead of populating an error category, why not just choose the appropriate function based on the protection level? &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 19:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

::Because we can't do it accurately. The module can't detect when something is on the title blacklist, and it can't detect when a page is cascade-protected. It would put such pages into the category for whatever protection level is returned by <code><nowiki>{{PROTECTIONLEVEL}}</nowiki></code>, even though actually only admins can edit them (or template editors for the title blacklist). If this becomes possible to detect on the MediaWiki side then we should probably do as you suggest, and indeed this is how I wrote the code originally, so it would be trivial to switch it back and add the new protection detection. Having some pages categorised wrongly probably outweighs the benefits of being able to get the protection level for most pages, however. — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' ^{[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪ talk ♪]]} 21:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

:::The bot can accurately detect the protection level, so perhaps the best solution is to remerge the categories and leave the bot to update the two tables. Then editors will be able to use {{tl|editprotected}} on both types, without having to worry about using the correct template. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 10:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

::::It's three tables now. Besides the long-established [[User:AnomieBOT/PERTable]] and [[User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable]], [[User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable]] was set up a few days ago. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 11:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

:::::Yes, it was actually the PER and TPER tables that I was referring to (although it could apply to SPER as well.) I'm not seeing any advantages in having separate templates and separate categories for full- and template-protected pages. And in fact there are disadvantages because editors now have to choose between more templates and reviewers have to monitor more categories. So my proposal is to let the bot maintain the three tables but use a common template. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 12:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

{{od|6}} Your suggestion would definitely be easier for most editors to understand, and I have already seen a fair few mistakes with the new protection templates. We would have to rethink the way we layout the categories to make them easy to access for patrollers at all permissions levels, but that's not such a bad thing in my opinion. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]], what do you think? — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' ^{[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪ talk ♪]]} 04:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

: How is one template going to result in pages being in two different categories, so the bot can divide them into different tables? [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 16:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

:: I think Martin is suggesting that you reprogram the bot so that it chooses which table to put a page in depending on the protection level it detects. So all the pages would be in the same category, and the bot would do the work of sorting them into tables by protection level. It's completely up to you whether you want to go through with it, of course. — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' ^{[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪ talk ♪]]} 17:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

::: Then where would the two tables be displayed? It would make more sense to me in that case to have one PER table but to color the template-protected rows differently (suggestions as to the coloring welcome). [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 20:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

::::Yep, color coding would work as well. Having two separate tables and transcluding them both to the category might be slightly more flexible, because template editors might choose to tranclude it to their userpage or whatnot. I don't really mind, both would be an improvement on the current situation. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 12:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

{{ping|Pppery}} I see you made [[special:diff/1033933383|the latest edit (16 July 2021)]] to this module, in the area where this error is generated.

== Handle full URLs passed as pages to be edited ==

See [[Template:Admin dashboard/light/sandbox#Current requests for edits to a protected page]] where errors are shown where [[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit]] is transcluded to dashboards. These are not errors on the '''Requests for page protection/Edit''' page itself, even though this isn't a talk page. Can you stop flagging errors when this page is transcluded elsewhere? Thanks, [[User:Wbm1058|wbm1058]] ([[User talk:Wbm1058|talk]]) 00:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

At [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gauhar_Khan&diff=584587005&oldid=584469730], a full URL was given as a page to edit instead of just a page name. Would it be simple to make this change the URL back into a page name, or otherwise handle it? Currently, it leads to things like [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable&oldid=584592000] happening, which isn't very pretty or accurate. {{ping|Mr. Stradivarius}} ping. [[User:Jackmcbarn|Jackmcbarn]] ([[User talk:Jackmcbarn|talk]]) 22:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

:It's very rare, and we can't guard against every mistake - somebody will always do something unexpected. Just fix it when it happens, which I see was done (but there's still a whole slew of empty {{tag|ref|content=}} causing a sea of red). --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 23:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

[[:Category:Non-talk pages with an edit request template]] is flooded with user dashboards. – [[User:Wbm1058|wbm1058]] ([[User talk:Wbm1058|talk]]) 00:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

::In addition to being a rare error, it's also possible for a URL to be a valid page title (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo]). That kind of title is rare enough that it probably wouldn't matter (and would probably be moved then deleted under G6), but I think we should probably support all titles allowed by MediaWiki. That kind of page title breaks the double-square-bracket syntax though (see [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo]]). This means we'd have to update the bot to support them properly, but I'm not sure that it matters enough to fix. — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' ^{[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪ talk ♪]]} 00:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

::: Meh, I should fix the bot anyway. It is already applying the colon trick to File- and Category-namespace pages, but I forgot there are other cases. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 02:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

:Hi {{u|wbm1058}}, thanks for the report – this is now being fixed ([[Template_talk:Submit_an_edit_request#Protected edit request on 16 July 2021]]); I'm not yet sure if additional reverts are needed. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 15:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

== override can only be made on the talk page ==

Anyone want to put in another argument to override this check please? Sometimes these are on places like [[WP:IANB]] - and it would be useful to enqueue the request to the report and category. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] ^{[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]} 23:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

:{{ping|Pppery}} this something you could look in to? — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] ^{[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]} 13:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

:: {{Done}} Passing {{para|skiptalk|yes}} now overrides that check. I also removed the check for being on RFPP (part of an idea of mine to merge [[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit]] with the edit request template process that turned out not to work and was abandoned), and fixed a longstanding bug where {{tlx|edit protected|demo=yes|answered=yes}} on a non-talk page caused an error. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 16:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

== Text for template-protected ==

Can the text for {{tl|edit template-protected}} be enhanced to mention using {{tl|ETp}} for responses? For example, {{tl|edit semi-protected}} currently displays {{tqq|You may also wish to use the {{tl|ESp}} template in the response.}}.—[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 04:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

== Template-protected edit request on 4 August 2025 ==

{{edit template-protected|Module:Protected edit request|answered=yes}}

When an edit request is either answered or not answered AND the parameter used in the underlying wikitext for that particular request is {{para|ans}} and not {{para|answered}}, the texts in the two boxes currently say:

(when not answered:)

[...] To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a [[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection|protection request]]. When the request has been completed or denied, please add the <code><nowiki>|</nowiki>answered=''yes''</code> parameter to deactivate the template.

(when answered:)

This [[Wikipedia:Edit requests|edit request]] has been answered. Set the <code><nowiki>|</nowiki>answered=</code> parameter to '''no''' to reactivate your request.

----

I think they should be changed to say:

(when answered:)

This [[Wikipedia:Edit requests|edit request]] has been answered. Set the <code><nowiki>|</nowiki>ans=</code> parameter to '''no''' to reactivate your request.

(when not answered:)

[...] To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a [[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection|protection request]]. When the request has been completed or denied, please add the <code><nowiki>|</nowiki>ans=''yes''</code> parameter to deactivate the template.

[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 11:02, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

: This feels like a lot of extra effort for not much value to me. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 14:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

::{{not done}}. Using {{para|answered}} instead of its short alias, {{para|ans}}, is more reader-friendly. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 17:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)