Template talk:Protected page text

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

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

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

"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://en.wikipedia.org/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

Change Wikipedia:User access levels to Wikipedia:User groups, as the former is a redirect to the latter, like this:

CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 11:07, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Not done WP:NOTBROKEN. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply