MediaWiki talk:Protectedpagetext/Archive 1

Semi-protection
I've updated this to include semi-protection. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 16:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Separate?
Would it be possible for the text for protected and s-protected pages to be separated into two messages? As is, it's rather confusing, since if you're not an admin and you're looking at a protected page it doesn't actually tell you you can't edit it. In fact, depending on your interpretation, it could be telling you you can edit it. Chick Bowen 04:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, this should be split into two different messages. joturn e r 04:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed it should. Haukur 15:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Bypassing redirect / capitalization
Please bypass a redirect from protected page to List of protected pages. Please make capitalization of the first letter of each page name after 'Wikipedia:'. -- ADNghiem501 23:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Also please make the first capital letter of each page name after 'Wikipedia:', shown below:


 * administrators → Administrators


 * semi-protection policy → Semi-protection policy

Note that the first letter of each page name on the main title is usually capitalized. -- ADNghiem501 08:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested Edit
add name of protecting admin, reason for protection and add an instruction for requesting an edit via the edit fully-protected template —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Myrtone86 (talk • contribs).
 * MediaWiki doesn't work like that. Anyone can check the logs to find out who protected the page and why.  Nacon kantari  01:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How about including a link to the logs for the page? Myrtone ( ☏ )

Problem with mentioning time period
The text shouldn't mention the time period necessary to wait before editing this article. The purpose of the semi-protect is to prevent new, rather non-established users from editing these pages, and it only so happens that 4 days is the time chosen to imperfectly determine that. The person who is advised by such a blatant message is the person who only creates a Wikipedia account to vandalize or push some novelty on a particular article. Instead, the person who will be a productive contributor who happens to be interested in editing that article will rightly become a registered user and edit various articles. They will also easily click on the message that refers to the semi-protection policy and informs them of the precise time when they could edit that article. —Centrx→talk &bull; 01:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's perfectly possible that a good honest new productive editor will want to legitimately edit a semi-protected page during their first four days. They should know the time limit up front. It's similar to new users legitimately wanting to move pages - see for an example of that. Haukur 08:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That information is in the first sentence of the semi-protection policy, which any editor so inclined can read. The issue is whether the text should be the first and obvious thing every random person sees when they view the source of the article, not whether a new editor is inconvenienced to click a link and read a single sentence. —Centrx→talk &bull; 21:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This message links to a "Talk talk:Page name" page for protected talk pages
As in the title of this section. If a page in a talk namespace (talk, category talk, portal talk, etc) is (semi-)protected, the "Discuss this page" link points to a non-existent "Talk talk:" namespace page. Please change " Discuss this page " to " |Discuss this page ", or just use ParserFunctions to hide the message altogether if the protected page is in one of the talk namespaces. Flyingtoaster1337 04:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done and tested. Not sure why it was set up that way, in the first place, couldn't find mention of it. Luna Santin 05:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's because MediaWiki didn't support the TALKPAGENAME thing until recently (version 1.7). Flyingtoaster1337 05:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be a good answer, come to think of it. ;) I suppose we could work out some parser functions to hide/change the text when viewed from a talk page, but that seems a bit much (I could be wrong, of course). Luna Santin 07:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We could use {&#123;#ifeq:{&#123;NAMESPACE}}|{&#123;TALKSPACE}}|*You may request unprotection.


 * You may sign in if you have not done so already.|
 * |Discuss this page with others; on that page, you can request an edit by adding  with a reason for the request.
 * You may request unprotection.
 * You may sign in if you have not done so already.}} ~ Μ ΛG иυs ΛΠ ιмυМ &#8776; &#8730;&#8734;  01:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Mention /doc page if it exists
Could this message be changed to mention that the documentation page can be edited if there is a /doc subpage? It would help to cut down on spurious edit fully-protected requests. ais523 13:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I'm not sure how parser functions work out on MediaWiki pages, but couldn't we use clever combinations if #ifeq and NAMESPACE to only display this for protected templates? Or, perhaps better, use #ifexist to check for the presence of a /doc page to begin with? Just a thought. – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That should suffice. —  «  A NIMUM   »  00:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Edited. The ! trick doesn't work. I rephrased the message to fix that. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please add a link to the protection log
Please place a link to the protection log of the page, to allow new users to see why the page is protected. Od Mishehu 07:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. – Luna Santin  (talk) 08:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Parameter
The protection level of a page is now available to this message via a parameter (bug 11211), the parameter,, taking one of the values " " for semi-protection or " " for full protection. It is thus now possible to re-word this message to remove the "either this is the case, or this is", by effectively turning it into two separate messages, which should be less confusing for inexperienced users.

I cannot do this myself, but I can suggest a possible implementation.

As MediaWiki page parameters cannot be passed directly to parser functions, it will be necessary to create and protect a template containing the messages and transclude that template in this message. Such a workaround can be seen in use at MediaWiki:Longpagewarning, which transcludes and  ; one template will be sufficient here. The template will, like, display an error message when viewed directly, as the   parameter is only given a value on certain pages in the MediaWiki namespace.

Assuming that this template is named Template:MediaWiki protectedpage message, the contents of MediaWiki:Protectedpagewarning can simply be reduced to:

The template itself will need to conditionally display one of two messages based on the value of the  parameter, via an   expression. One possibility is:



which will display one of the following messages:

 This page is currently protected, and can only be edited by administrators.
 * Some templates and site interface pages are permanently protected due to visibility. Occasionally, articles are temporarily protected because of editing disputes.


 * The reason for protection can be found in the [ protection log].
 * You can |discuss this page with others. If you have noticed an error or have a suggestion for a simple change, [ start a new section] and insert the text  followed by your suggestion. An administrator may then make the change on your behalf.
 * You may request unprotection of the page.

 This page is currently semi-protected, and can only be edited by established registered users.
 * Semi-protection is sometimes necessary to prevent vandalism to popular pages. Most articles can be edited by anyone.
 * The reason for protection can be found in the [ protection log].
 * If you have a user account, sign in first. If you do not yet have an account, you may [ create one] ; after a while, you will be able to edit semi-protected pages.
 * You can |discuss this page with others. You are welcome to suggest improvements on the discussion page, which may then be made by established users.
 * You may request unprotection of the page.

Note that I have omitted the conditionals around the "You can discuss this page..." lines in the display examples, so that they are visible on this page. When viewed as part of the message, the line will appear only if the protected page is not a discussion page itself; the bolded text will then be a link to the page's discussion page.

I have taken the opportunity to re-word some of the messages to be more informative.

It goes without saying that changes to interface messages should be checked carefully. Ensure in particular that Template:MediaWiki protectedpage message is protected before changing the contents of MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext.

Thanks – 86.142.251.151 21:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ - thank you for the great update. Nihiltres ( t .l ) 01:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

What?
Why does it default to saying (When viewed as the MW: namespace) that it's semiprotected? Isn't the MW: interface always fully protected? 68.39.174.238 23:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it defaults to the semiprotected display here. That is because the ParserFunction it is fed defaults its output to the semi-protect display if the value given is non-standard. On the message page itself, the value given is non-standard: the syntax feeds the default for the parameter, "$1", similar to the way some templates might output something containing when fed no parameters. It is probably a good idea that on Wikipedia, the syntax defaults to semi-protect, because more pages which would be edited by newbies (articles) are semi-protected than protected - established users would generally spot any incongruities, such as being given the semi-protect message, and report a bug.  Nihiltres ( t .l ) 18:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Having said that, it would be possible to use  to give a MediaWiki namespace-specific message. Except there already is a MediaWiki namespace-specific message (the "This page contains interface text for the software, and has been locked to prevent abuse" one), so it would be a little redundant – 81.153.158.137 20:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll take a wild stab at this, but all mediawiki pages would have to be manually protected for this template to output correctly, no? —  Animum  |  talk  20:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * MediaWiki pages can't be protected. Observe the lack of a "protect" tab. It could be made to work correctly by checking for the value "autoconfirmed" and displaying the semi-protected message if so, rather than looking for "protect" and displaying the fully protected message if so. Alternatively,  could be employed – 81.153.158.137 20:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify that, changing the text of Template:MediaWiki protectedpage message to:




 * should fix the problem. You might want to double-check that first, though – 81.153.158.137 20:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

conditional broken
The use of "#if:$1" in this template to display a different message at each protection level is broken, possibly due to the new parser. I've changed this message to a "unified" version until this is fixed (it was saying "semi-protected" on fully protected pages). —Random832 19:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

edit fully-protected -> protect
With 31462, edit fully-protected permission was changed back to protect. Now the message says that all pages are semi-protected even if they are fully protected. Thanks in advance. IAlex (talk) 08:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅. Jon513 (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No for semi-protected
Please undo this edit since it contradicts with edit fully-protected description and Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests description. —AlexSm 13:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ What an ironic use of an tag   Happy‑melon 15:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, what template should people use to request an edit on a semiprotected page, then? It seems dumb to restrict the use of edit fully-protected to fully protected pages. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 15:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the idea is that anon/new users can wait for a normal user to come along and make their edit. In practice this just doesn't work, since requests from anonymous users are often entirely ignored on talk pages. Someone recently made, a template that seems to be intended for semi-protected pages, though it looks like only one guy uses it and nobody pays any attention to it. I personally would support the idea of being used on any protected page. --- RockMFR 15:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not sure, however, why we should give more work to administrators, work which any auto-confirmed editor could do. I propose taking up more seriously, and having editors on the way to adminship ("who should do some admin-like work"...) fulfil the requests. Waltham, The Duke of 17:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Spaced em dashes
Yes, the requested change (to remove the spaces flanking two em dashes) seems extremely trivial, but I try to be as extremely careful with style, and em dashes are much better-looking when unspaced, in addition to their better wrapping in line breaks, which is why the Manual of Style recommends them. And to make it easy for you...

The part where the em dashes in question are located is this:

The removal of four spaces is uncontroversial enough not to warrant any discussion, am I right? Regards, Waltham, The Duke of 08:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not if some people would rather replace the spaced em dashes with spaced en dashes, which are also allowed in the MOS and which many people consider more attractive than unspaced em dashes. :-) (BTW, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question in the previous thread, which is why this page is on my talk page watchlist at all.) —Angr 14:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you mean "watchlist"? :-)
 * Anyway, you are right, and in this particular case spaced en dashes might actually look better, considering that there's just one link between the pair. But for Unicorn's sake, please no spaced em dashes. Waltham, The Duke of 17:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Talk page, watchlist, WP:AGF, one o' those damn Wikipedia jargon terms... —Angr 17:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅, replaced with spaced en dashes. --Random832 (contribs) 17:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, random sysop. My conscience can rest at last. Waltham, The Duke of 17:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Improvements on protected titles
This message is also displayed on protected titles (protected from creation), just above MediaWiki:Titleprotected. The result is a bit awkward: example (from a non-sysop view). First, there are superfluous lines, like "some templates ... are permanentyl protected ..." (intended to explain edit protections). Second, the protected title is not mentioned anywhere (inconvenient). I propose that for protected titles a completely different text is added, which would only state the title and the protection level, with something like. —AlexSm 18:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext
Hi everyone, after looking at both the semi and full protected page messages (both at MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext), I was wondering if it would be possible to have a section like the one displayed when a non-admin tries to edit a protected page, where it informs them to use the template edit fully-protected followed by your request to flag down an admin to make the edit for you be added to the semi-protection message, the only difference would be to tell the anon/new user to use the template edit semi-protected instead of edit fully-protected to flag down any auto confirmed user to make the edit for them, I have created an example of the text that could be used below,

Note:The way the new code is set up, is that the it will only show up on semi-protected pages, NOT any page in the talk namespace (For the reason that if a talk page is semi-protected, a anon wouldn't be able to add the template edit semi-protected anyways) for an example of how the code would work on a non-talk page see here

I am requesting this because some semi-protected pages talk pages are not closely watched which could mean that a requested edit (Without using the template edit semi-protected) could go a long time before being noticed by an established user, with the template used it would add the page to Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests which would make it much easier to track and make edits to a semi-protected pages on the behalf on anons and new users. Thoughts? --Mifter (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Happy‑melon 16:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Add purge feature
In editing the /doc subdocumentation pages to protected templates, it sometimes is necessary to purge the protected template to see whether a newly added category works. Sometimes adding  to the end of the "view source" string works, sometimes it don't. It would be helpful to modify this template with a purge option so I don't have to find the string   and hope that it works. Thanks. -- Suntag  ☼  17:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I meant to post this note at the MediaWiki template that says "This page is currently protected, and can be edited only by administrators." which I am having trouble finding. Please apply the above request to the MeidaWiki that generates the message at Template:Spa. On this related note, can you make these MediaWiki templates easier to find from the template space or whereever they are posted? Thanks. -- Suntag  ☼  17:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please use Special:AllMessages to find the appropriate talk page and post there. Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * From Special:AllMessages&ot=php, I get {{blockquote|text= 'protectedpagetext' => '{{#ifeq:$1|protect|<div id="mw-protectedpagetext" style="background: white; border: solid 1px #AAAAAA; margin-bottom: 0.5em; padding: 4px"> <strong style="font-size:130%">This page is currently protected, and can be edited only by administrators. }}. Special:AllMessages confirms that I am on the right talk page and this shows the message "This page is currently protected, and can be edited only by", so I am on the right talk page. To my request, please add a purge function to the options displayed on MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext. Thanks. -- Suntag  ☼  23:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think this would be helpful to have for such a small subset of pages. Might I suggest instead that you enable the gadget in your preferences called "A clock in the personal toolbar that shows the current time in UTC and also provides a link to purge the current page"? This will put a clock in the top right of the screen, and clicking it purges the page. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In hindsight, I think I was messing up the purge string. Instead of using  I was using  . I'll add the gadget. -- Suntag  ☼  17:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Please edit the message
I want to modify the protected page because the editing of the MediaWiki page is only limited to administrators. 69.141.191.77 (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Only admins can edit MediaWiki pages, and they cannot be unprotected. If you think the message should be changed, post what you think the new text should be and an admin will review it.  If you want to edit a particular protected article, please post the  tag on that page's talk page along with the requested change.  If you would like to request unprotection of a particular article, please see WP:RFP.  --CapitalR (talk) 02:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

remove the red background?
I don't know if this is the correct place to post this, but would it be possible to remove (or at least tone down) the red background in the editing window of fully-protected pages? It makes the wikitext a bit hard to read. --Ixfd64 (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wrong place, it's defined at MediaWiki:Sysop.css and should be discussed at the talk page. But you can override it for you in your monobook.css (or whichever skin you're using) with something like  which would set it to this lighter color.  Amalthea  19:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

li bullet points
The bullet points look ok when viewing on the MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext page but when actully viewing the source of a protected page, e.g., they are different. Something to do with the CSS I'm guessing. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Not at all, rather something to do with sloppy coding, which isn't fixed because Tidy doesn't work on system messages. The correct code would be:


 * Admin: please update the page. —Ms2ger (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. Please check it's working as I don't think I can replicate this system message. Oh and your sloppiness Ms2ger was using  around edit fully-protected, which I don't think would have worked. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't it have worked, if I may ask? —Ms2ger (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Because produces this: &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

.
 * Yeah ... I've disabled your edit fully-protected request, Martin. And ;-) -- Amalthea  19:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (two edit conflicts) And, which I used, works as intended, no? Using   for semi-protected pages, on the other hand… —Ms2ger (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * nowiki tags are interpreted even inside pre tags, which is why in the hidden section from above it appeared like you didn't use any. Cheers, Amalthea  19:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, so we've all been sloppy now. Except Amalthea, of course, who is perfect :P &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, I didn't want to stand out so I made sure to when I criticized your edit above. :) -- Amalthea  22:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, I didn't notice that. Sorry for that. —Ms2ger (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

protected edit request
When this was converted to use fmbox, the fully protected message was given "type=warning", which gives it a red background, which it did not have before. This is not a "warning" message; the user has not done anything wrong by trying to edit the page and there is nothing bad that they can do a a result of having done so, since they can't edit the page, so this should be removed. (Only administrators can edit fully protected pages, and they don't get this message, they get a different one). Gurch (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks. Amalthea  14:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox detection
Can we get automatic sandbox detection as well? Change the following:

<pre style="overflow: auto">

To:

<pre style="overflow: auto">

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. But can you get both links on one line? (Would require some clever coding to get it grammatical as well...) &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably doable, but why? The two aren't for the same purpose, and it would needlessly complicate the code (which would have to check for at least three cases rather than just two). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done - But I used a slightly different code:

<pre style="overflow: auto">


 * I linked the word "sandbox" to the how-to guide about template sandboxes Template test cases, instead of the Wikipedia sandbox. And I made so when there are both a /doc and a /sandbox page it shows a combined message. I used the approach you see above so it is easy to modify all three variants of the message any way we see fit.
 * Another option that I usually prefer is to always link the /sandbox, no matter if it exists or not, since people need to learn that they can make one. I for instance use that approach in the high-use template.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Show editnotice
When non-admins and IP-users "view the source" of a protected page, they currently don't see the editnotice of the page. But the editnotice often contains information that is useful even when just viewing the source. So I am planning to make it so the editnotices are loaded also when just "viewing the source" of the pages. Technically I will do this by adding the editnotice loader to the MediaWiki messages such as MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext that are shown when non-admins and IP-users view semi and fully protected pages. See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Editnotice.

--David Göthberg (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Huge ugly confusing box
Please revert the recent changes to this template. All they have done is take up twice as much space to display the exact same information, and in two boxes, one of them multi-column, rather than a single one. The result is an ugly confusing mess. Gurch (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * rejected: (a) that's certainly not all the recent changes have done - in particular, they've introduced an edit request link and custom displays for the Main Page and for WP:SALTed pages. (b) these changes, including the design, have been discussed at VPT. Discuss there if you wish to revise the design. Rd232 talk

Ambox → Mbox
This message currently uses an Ambox, though many usages are also on other pages (mostly templates). Thus, I believe that it would be good to replace it with an Mbox, which will use the proper design. Thank you, --The Evil IP address (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me, so ✅. If there's a problem, feel free to revert. Tim Song (talk) 05:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Obvious grammar error
"after a 4 days and 10 edits" → "after 4 days and 10 edits" (i.e. remove the "a" )--<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 06:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tim Song (talk) 07:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Clearer design
Hello. I submitted a request at MediaWiki_messages. Rd232‎‎‎‎ and The Evil IP address agreed that this new design looks good.

The code for the new design is in User:Dodoïste/Sandbox2. You just need to copy-paste its content in MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext. You can check the difference between the two versions: I didn't change the text nor the parser functions, only the layout. It will work just fine. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Now let's see how others like it. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I, for one, think it looks gorgeous. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 17:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Martin ! :-) Dodoïste (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

4 days and 10 edits
Hm, I've just spotted that on 27 March it was changed to specify "4 days and 10 edits" are necessary to overcome semi-protection. I don't see any discussion of that, and I'm pretty sure it was left unspecified before on the grounds that it would encourage people to sign up in order to do harder-to-detect mischief. Should we change it back? There are certainly pros and cons to being very clear about this in a prominent place. Rd232 talk 17:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not. But the downside of this is newcomers won't know exactly when they will be able to finally edit the page. At some point we have to choose between "making it hard for vandals" or "making it easy for newcomers with good faith". Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Formatting change
Please change twice the string  to. This is not only more readable code, but also safer. Currentuser and monthname could have been vandalized by anyone, so using wiki markup seems more safe here (not that it's likely to happen). Also using #time is easier than several CURRENT-templates and currentuser used anyway, so all those templates weren't necessary. Thanks, --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems like an uncontroversial improvement. ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

semiprotected talk pages
Can a link be put up to the non-autoconfirmed talk page if the talk page is semiprotected?  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 23:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Change to template
Can an administrator please change this: <pre style="height: 200px; overflow: auto;">

to this: <pre style="height: 200px; overflow: auto;">

I've made many small edits to the template. If the template is hard to copy in the  box, use the editing window. I've delimited the code with very visible comments. Just don't copy the  tags and the hidden comments. If you wish to see what changes I've made, feel free to use "Show changes". Cheers, — MC10 (T•C•GB•L)  17:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: This was mostly done but the "span style=align-text:center" change didn't work so the old center tags were re-instated. <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  19:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made a few more fixes, and fixed the center issue. I've put the edit fully-protected notice back up. — MC10 (T•C•GB•L)  23:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Perhaps it would be better in future to link to some code in your userspace rather than cluttering up the talk page? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotected pages
Can someone take a look at Administrators'_noticeboard and enact any fix that may be required? (providing a link and not cross-posting to keep it at one location; I'm not sure which one's the right location, so feel free to move the entire post here, if it should be discussed here). cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  06:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Per the above linked discussion, can all instances of Template:Edit semi-protected in this page be replaced with Template:Edit semi-protected/ and Template:Editprotected/ with Template:Edit fully-protected/ ? Thanks. sonia ♫ 07:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done? Courcelles 09:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep. Thanks. sonia ♫  09:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

CSS tweaks
Could it be possible to place the "Why is the page protected?" and the "What can I do?" columns between  or    ? This would allow people to tweak their monobook.css (or whatever skin they use) to remove the columns, but keep the "this page is protected" notice. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It only appears when editing a page the user can't edit. I'm not convinced that removing the help instructions from that context is really a good thing. Is there some way to give users the option to collapse that help by default, but still have it a click away? Rd232 talk 08:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't about removing the instructions for people who never saw them. This is about letting long time editors remove messages they read a zillion times. I appreciate the banner letting me know that the page is protected (if I click the "edit" button of the a protected template for example). But the "what can I do" and "why is the page protected" is basically clutter. I know why pages are typically protected, and I know what I could do if i need an edit done. I have a huge screen (11.5 inches vertical), and these take about 2.75 inch or roughly 25% of my vertical screenspace. It's worse on my laptop (smaller screen / lower resolution). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I understand the space issue - it is a big notice; that's why I suggested collapsing. I have no objection if somebody else wants to just implement the CSS ID, but I'd rather get a third opinion on this, so I'm not going to do it myself right now. Rd232 talk 10:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Protected Special pages
I believe it's not possible for Special pages to be protected, so I've added code which checks for the Special namespace in the assumption that the resulting custom message will only be displayed at Special:Upload (which displays MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext when uploading to a protected filename). Rd232 talk 23:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: add CSS hook
Hi, please add a class or id to the tag for reference from user CSS pages (e.g.  to ). Thanks! — Bility (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It has an id doesnt' it ? #mw-protectedpagetext and #mw-semiprotectedpagetext. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 11:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Shoot, you're right, I didn't go up far enough in the source to see the whole thing is inside another table. Request withdrawn! — Bility (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion notification
A discussion that may result in a change to this interface message has been started at WP:VPR. Please join the discussion there. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 15:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Please implement Village pump (proposals)/Archive 77. If you use the diff suggested in that discussion, you could also copy Template:Editnotices/Page/Template_talk:Reflist to Template:Editnotices/Protection/Template:Reflist to test the thing. Anomie⚔ 10:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. Seems to work. I think we need to update Template:Editnotices/Group/Template:Editnotices (it currently gives a error message when editting /Protection notices), Template:Editnotice load (to get a link to the protection notice?) and maybe some other pages as well. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've added Editnotice and requested the needed edits for Template:Editnotices/Group/Template:Editnotices and Template:Editnotices/Group/Template talk:Editnotices. Not sure whether Template:Editnotice load really needs editing or not, I'll leave that for others to decide. Anomie⚔ 23:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request link
Noting recent changes discussed at VPT: redesigning for clarity (with table splitting info into two columns), adding an edit request link, customising for the Main Page (shows help links instead) and for salted pages (shows just the SALT-related message).

For reference, the edit request link uses as appropriate to preload text into the edit request's editbox, and to show instructions. Rd232 talk 22:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Template:Edit fully-protected/preload / Template:Edit semi-protected/preload
 * Template:Edit fully-protected/editintro / Template:Edit semi-protected/editintro


 * Ugh. Seriously? What exactly was wrong with the previous instruction of "make requests on the talk page and add the text "? This project would benefit a whole lot if someone in power read up on usability and interface design, rather than shoving two screens full of jumbled text down a user's throat and insisting you're "making it easier". Gurch (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're saying that copying a code (newbie: what the heck is that? basic wikitext can be confusing enough for the nongeek newbie) plus making several clicks without any helpful instructions/guidance, is easier than a single click on a link with guidance - and you want people to read up on usability? I'm not saying it's unimprovable, far from it, but it's certainly better than the status quo ante, as the subsequent increase in reasonable edit requests shows. Also, you're free to consider the table "ugly", but it's certainly less confusing than the previous approach of lumping all the info together in an undifferentiated list. Rd232 talk 11:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As the REVISIONUSER magic word no longer works when editing a page, I have removed this part from the link. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 December 2011 (UTC)
See for the main part of the edit.

Please change it so that the namespace that is used for the ifeq will use  instead of. This ensures that it will only use this for file pages.

As a result, please also add code for non-file namespace pages for the move protections. LikeLakers2 (talk &#124; Sign my guestbook!) 20:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're going to have to explain this much better. For a start, what is the purpose of ? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request: Gold Lock for Full Protection
Right now when a page is fully protected, it uses the silver lock which stands for semi-protection. Could you change the message so that it uses the gold lock that stands for full protection? Techman224 Talk  02:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not the "semi-protected" lock, it's the "generic ambox protected lock". They are slightly different colors. But Yes check.svg Done anyway. Anomie⚔ 17:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 February 2012
i would like to to get file format application /x-msdos-program supported

Phaq4ever (talk) 10:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * First, you're in the wrong place. And second, that is never going to happen due to the likelihood of people uploading viruses or other malware and the unlikeliness of any such file being useful to an encyclopedia article. Anomie⚔ 12:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Revise
Can you add this for fully protected pages:

If you are fully experienced, then file a request for adminship.

m'encarta (t) 22:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is an appropriate place to put this. Anyone ready for adminship would know about RFA. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's too bad less people are applying for adminship than years ago! m'encarta (t) 22:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Redirected talk pages
See User talk:Gadget850. Many templates have sub-templates - for example, Template:Coord/display/title is a subtemplate of Template:Coord. In a lot of cases, the talk pages for the subtemplates are redirected to the main template, and this is indeed the case with.

New or newish users sometimes find their way to one of these subtemplates, and on going for the "View source" tab they see MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext. They might then click on "Submit an edit request"; unfortunately the edit request is posted to the talk page which is directly linked - the redirect is not respected. Perhaps the "Submit an edit request" link could detect that it's pointing to a redirect, and follow that redirect. Is this at all possible? Note that not all subtemplates have redirected talk pages - Template talk:Citation/core doesn't, for instance - therefore it's not as simple as comparing  against   in order to detect a subpage. -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Figuring out how many people sign up via this message
Hey all,

Recently my team enabled Extension:Campaigns, which makes it easy to figure out how many people sign up via a link, by adding a bit to URLs like "?campaign=test". This functionality has been around in previous forms for several years, under names like CustomUserSignup.

Anyway, the new campaigns extension is here to stay, and I'd like to propose adding a campaign identifier ("campaign=semiprotectednotice") to the "create account" link in this MediaWiki message. This message is presented to thousands of people who might be interested in editing semi-protected pages, but we have no idea how many end up creating accounts, or if they end up actually editing anything afterwards.

Aggregate stats on how many people sign up via the link in this message will help my team figure out how many new accounts are coming in via semi-protected pages. We're constantly trying to get data that helps us prioritize our experimentation, so knowing this will help us plan what kind of features to test next. For the community, knowing this will hopefully help inform decision-making as well, such as what should go in this message. <span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   01:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 12:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It works, but so far my test account is the only successful account creation from the "you may _create one_" link. I don't know how many anonymous users see this message or how many click the link (the answer to data questions is more biggerer data :) ). BTW, the link doesn't have a   link (or the fix to use Special:UserLogin/signup that it would need). Since the new user has to make 10 more edits to overcome protection, returning to the protected page may not make sense and the Special:GettingStarted after account creation helps the new user make those edits; still there might be an appropriate page to offer as  . -- S Page (WMF) (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A week's worth of data will seal the deal, so to speak, but I've posted preliminary results. Looks like very few people so far are using the create account link in this message... <span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   20:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request
Please change
 * {{#ifeq: $1 | protect

to
 * {{#ifeq: $1 | edit fully-protected

in order to fix the erroneous display of the "semi-protected" notice on fully-protected pages. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done by Redrose64. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  {{sup|♪ talk ♪}} 09:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request
Please replace both places where Requests_for_page_protection appears with Requests_for_page_protection due to a change in the section header. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 21:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The correct fix was, or something very similar, because there are almost certainly other pages and templates linking to the same heading. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks. I remembered there was a template that did that, but I couldn't find it. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 23:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 December 2013
Change all 3 instances of "clicking the link below" to "clicking the button below".

Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 December 2013
I noticed that when I click view source on a protected template only to edit by template editors, the lock was gold. Shouldn't the lock be light pink?

Blurred Lines 18:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The request is for the templateeditor parameter to match Pp-meta which displays File:Padlock-pink.svg on the rendered page. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done, see -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Protected page text


I've migrated most of the code in this message to the above templates, as it was getting really messy. This way we only have to write the difficult code once, instead of once for each protection level. I already found a slight omission in the template protection code during migration (it said "an administrator may make the change" instead of "an administrator or template editor may make the change"). If anyone sees anything else they would like to tweak, your input will be very welcome. It will probably be best to post about it at the template talk page in order to keep discussion together. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 02:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 January 2014
Please replace the contents of the page with the following:

This causes the normal protection banner to be replaced with a much smaller message if cascading protection is also present. This should be changed after the change at MediaWiki talk:Cascadeprotected is made. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 05:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 February 2014
Please replace the contents of the page with the following: This removes the mini-banner showing the protection level when cascading protection is present, as it only shows up in some cases, which causes more confusion than it was supposed to solve.

Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. Sorry for the delay. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 10:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Add a blue lock for salted page.
Nerd in Texas (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That actually belongs on MediaWiki:Titleprotected. I've submitted an edit request for it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 August 2014
Please replace the contents of the page with the following:

Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand the reason for this update. I found the documentation for the new $2 parameter at translatewiki.net, and the new switch for the editnotice load template makes sense to me. However, none of the templates that $1 and $2 are passed to in the new version actually support or  parameters. (That's protected page text/full, protected page text/template, protected page text/semi, and the editnotices at Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Editnotices/Protection/.) Are you planning to update some/all of these as well? — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 09:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Once this edit gets made, then I'll update the other templates. Jackmcbarn (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, but what are you planning on doing with them? — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 12:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Currently, there's a bug that if you try to move a move-protected page, you get a message as if it were edit-protected, which this will fix. (And other things of a similar nature). Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Ok, got it. It's now live. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 14:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 November 2015
The page says: This page is currently semi-protected so that only established registered users can $2 it. It should say: This page is currently semi-protected so that only established registered users can edit it.

SireWonton 23:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The $2 is replaced with whatever the type of protection is. It could be either "edit", "move", or "create". (There is also "upload", but that isn't dealt with by this template if I recall correctly.) If this is displaying incorrectly on the protected pages themselves then it would be worth fixing, but otherwise it's probably less confusing to leave it as it is. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 01:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Extendedconfirmed protected
Please update to the below to include Extendedconfirmed protected. protected page text/extendedconfirmed has suggestions disabled for now.

Thanks. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 04:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done I've fully protected that template as well &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 February 2019
Remove, as it can never trigger. Pages other than user and site JS and CSS can't be inferface-protected, and said pages trigger MediaWiki:sitejsprotected, MediaWiki:sitecssprotected, MediaWiki:customjsprotected, and MediaWiki:customcssprotected instead of MediaWiki:protectedpagetext. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 18:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 March 2019
Please add  to the page, to prevent multiple banners from creating a TOC when a page is both manually protected and automatically protected as JS/CSS/JSON. See User:MusikBot II/TemplateProtector/config for an example of this (you may need to be a non-admin). Danski454 (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've worked around the problem by creating Template:Editnotices/Protection/User:MusikBot II/TemplateProtector/config with no content. I would recommend that the double-protection problem be solved, either by making Template:Protected page text/user-json and Template:Protected page text/interface check for protection or by just un-protecting the page. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Which I've requested be done at Requests for page protection. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it appears that there are enough pages with redundant protection to merit fixing the problem at its source, but the solution is to do that, not implement this edit request. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't really a "problem" and you shouldn't be creating other people's personal edit notices, there is no need to build special site-wide exceptions for any sort of personal user page either. — xaosflux  Talk 15:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ as far the the NOTOC request goes. — xaosflux  Talk 15:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Fix on mobile?
This template has mobile display issues. See https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T255527 Jdlrobson (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC) Category:Templates that are not mobile friendly
 * The problem is use of  in Template:Protected page text. That can easily cause misplacement when it's viewed in other circumstances than when it was tested. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking at, we prob don't need that div, moving those labels over a little bit isn't really necessary. Template:Protected page text/sandbox updated, checking some things. —  xaosflux  Talk 16:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 18:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't we also do something about those 2 columns - stacking them on mobile? Jdlrobson (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * not sure, feel free to propose something at Template talk:Protected page text (and preferably mock it up in the sandbox first). When I look at it on a mobile, having both those columns available at once seems like a good idea (so I can read to if I care why it is protected or what I can do easily) - but for very very very narrow screens stacking might be better. —  xaosflux  Talk 19:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)