Module talk:Protected edit request/Archive 1

Broken links
The and  templates used to set an anchor  immediately before the box; this was useful because the lists at User:AnomieBOT/PERTable and User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable contain links to that anchor - see, where the link   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, but I can't work out why that's not happening. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The anchors are working for me from User:AnomieBOT/PERTable and User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable. I changed the template on Template talk:Infobox requested from edit protected to the new edit template-protected, which will have caused links in the history of User:AnomieBOT/PERTable to stop working. If you use  it should work. (Here's the link: request.) Are any of the anchors from the live PERTable lists not working, or is it just ones in the history? — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 14:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, they appear to be working now. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Handle full URLs passed as pages to be edited
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. 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  causing a sea of red). -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition to being a rare error, it's also possible for a URL to be a valid page title (e.g. ). 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 []). This means we'd have to update the bot to support them properly, but I'm not sure that it matters enough to fix. — 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. Anomie⚔ 02:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

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; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 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, 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. — 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 editprotected on both types, without having to worry about using the correct template. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 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. -- Red rose64 (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; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

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. Anomie, what do you think? — 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? 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. — 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). 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; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Poke, . Any more thoughts on this? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No new thoughts. Do we have a consensus on how exactly it should be changed? Anomie⚔ 14:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't we think we have consensus for any method yet. (Wish this could have been discussed before implementing though.) When I get some time I'll advertise this in a couple more places and see what others think. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

last revision links
I tried to add a link for the last revision of the page and the last revision of the sandbox if it exists, but it doesn't seem to have worked... Can someone more familiar with Lua fix it and tell me what I missed so I can learn? maybe? Technical 13 (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your code's working fine - see . Perhaps this was what you forgot? — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 21:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Fully detecting all forms of protection
A magic word to detect cascading protection is already merged and will be usable here soon. My next project is going to be to set up a magic word to detect titleblacklist protection. Once we have this, this module will be able to detect the protection level of all pages with 100% accuracy. At that point, will we be able to remove Category:Wikipedia edit requests possibly using incorrect templates and have it just automatically use the correct version of itself? Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be awesome. That's the conclusion that we came to above, and the module code will be able to handle it with minimal tweaking. The only reason the module isn't doing that right now is because it isn't currently technically possible. So, the answer to your question is a big "yes". :) — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 17:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's written and waiting for approval. 105979 Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , can you expand your magic words to have a JavaScript wgVar attached for cascading and titleblacklist (and antispoof I suppose wouldn't hurt for those trying to create user pages of users that can't exist)? This would be useful in assisting any script that would check for protection levels and display some text or do something differently (I had an example case use last night I wanted it for, but have forgotten it now)...  Thanks if this is possible. Technical 13 (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that would be too expensive to check for every page. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , I'm just asking for an addition to the  section of mw.config.set section that is on every page.   I would say if it is cascade protected, titleblacklisted, or antispoof, then wgIsProbablyEditable should be changed to false if it isn't already.  Also, would be good to add "cascade", "titleblacklist", "antispoof" to ,"wgRestrictionEdit":[], if those restrictions apply (I wouldn't expect them to prevent a move, so no need to put them there I wouldn't think).  Is that doable? Technical 13 (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I mean actually checking to see whether a page is cascade-protected or on the titleblacklist is expensive. That's why you see "Edit" links instead of "View source" links for them, because MediaWiki doesn't check until you actually try to edit it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , isn't that check now already being made with the availability of ? So, does it really add any load to change the existing variables to include this information? Technical 13 (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * isn't really a variable. Think of it more as a function. On pages that don't use it, it isn't calculated at all. It might be feasible to check it all the time, but you'd have to ask the server guys about that (and right now they only know it as the thing that causes all the fatal errors [long story]). Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Implementation
The titleblacklist detection functionality got accepted and will be live here on the 6th. While we're waiting for that, how do we want to implement the autodetection? Obviously, if someone uses edit protected when they first create a request on a semi-protected page, we'd want to just display the semi-protected request banner instead. What about the trickier situations, though? There's probably other questions that need answered too. Thoughts? Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) What if someone submits an edit request while the page is fully protected, but the protection level later drops or expires? Should we downgrade the template, or leave it as-is so someone can stick  on it (if appropriate)?
 * 2) What if someone submits an edit request for a page that's not protected at all? Should we pretend like they used request edit?
 * 3) What should we do with answered edit requests? We clearly don't want them changing. Should I try implementing my polymorphic solution here?
 * My two yen:
 * It would be best to keep the template at the protection level it was originally detected as, so that requests still make sense if the protection level changes. I'm not sure if this is technically possible without making users subst the template though.
 * I'd say put them in an error category rather than put them in the request edit category. COI edit requests tend to stick around for a long time without being answered, and most often the editor just forgot to fill in the page name in the template. For example, if someone makes a protected edit request for cite web, they are redirected to Help talk:Citation Style 1, and Help:Citation Style 1 isn't protected. We want this kind of mistake to be flagged for fixing rather than buried in the wrong queue. Also, we might see similar kinds of mistakes where the redirect's subject page is protected, which could prove problematic. It won't be so bad if the original page is semi-protected and the target's subject page is template-protected or fully protected, as those queues tend to be dealt with fairly quickly. But if the request is for a fully protected or template-protected page and is detected as a request for a semi-protected page, the error might not be noticed for a while. Not sure if there's anything we can do about that, short of updating the preload text code in MediaWiki to take a "page" parameter.
 * I'd prefer keeping things simple here. How about just using the same code for all answered edit requests? We could maybe make a special "answered edit request" icon, and think of some text that would work with all protection levels. We should probably also structure the code so that answered requests don't detect the protection level, as that will make the template calls relatively cheap. Some pages have a lot of answered edit requests - see Talk:List of social networking websites/Archive 7, for example.
 * That's it for now, but I'll let you know if I think of anything else. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 23:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * For 1, subst is indeed necessary to save the original protection level, so it needs further thought. 2 and 3 should both work okay the way you want them (though perhaps 3 being complicated will be necessary for 1). Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't really like the idea of forcing users to subst the template, so in that case I think we should just keep things simple and let the template update along with the protection level. If it has too much of an adverse effect on patrolling editors' workflow we can rethink things, but I'm guessing that problems will only surface occasionally. And it will probably be a better situation than we are in now, where I find myself having to change edit protected to edit template-protected every other day or so. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 05:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it really forcing the users to do it? Couldn't we just modify the preloads Template:Submit an edit request uses to add it subst'd, and have AnomieBOT subst any that don't get added that way? Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ^. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I suppose you're right. If we get AnomieBOT to subst it, it wouldn't be so bad. However, if we're going to place it in the category according to its actual protection level, as Technical 13 suggests below, I think we should make it look like it's a request for that level too. Technical 13 may not care so much about the aesthetics of the template, but I do. :) So, after further consideration, I think the best way to do it would be not to subst, and to have the protection level updated automatically. That's just my preference, though. What option would you like the best, by the way? I'd like to hear your opinion too. :) — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 03:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The biggest problem I have with that is that it would make it difficult to tell at a glance when is called for. Here's my thoughts: Answered templates are easy. I agree that a generic one is the way to go. For the other cases, the template should be subst'd when it's first placed (the way the PROD template works) so that it can store the original protection level. For open requests, here's my thoughts (template used along left, actual protection level at time of opening along top, categories in cells):


 * Requests should be categorized under the protection level they had at the time the request was opened, and a warning should appear (both in the request box and via a category) if the protection level changed since it was opened, to allow for to be carried out easily. If an edit request is opened for a page that's not protected at all, file it under the category that goes with the request template they used (under the assumption that they got the protection level right but the page wrong). Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I really don't care how the template appears visually to users as long as it is placed in the correct edit request category so that can place the listing on the correct table to be answered.  It can "appear" exactly however the user that placed it, placed it as.  This would also make the rest of the scenarios fairly moot.  A) Display template as posted on page B) If ans(wered)?=no? then place talk page in correct protected edit request based on actual protection level C) if said level changes, just change the category. Technical 13 (talk) 05:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, if a user places edit protected on a semi-protected page's talk, would you want it to show up on the page as a fully protected edit request? Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Does it really matter much as long as it ends up in Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests so that anyone watching User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable can answer it? Technical 13 (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a bit late, but now that we are asking for opinions, I would be remiss not to ping Anomie, MSGJ and Redrose64. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 03:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Expecting users to subst: a template that they have previously used without substitution could cause resentment at the change to an established practice. My comments at Template talk:EP also apply here. For a template to display the current protection level whilst an edit request is open has its merits; but once the request is closed (whether done, not done, or otherwise), the displayed message should not change again. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I've started working on this. All levels of protection are now detected, and a generic answered message is in use. We still need to make the autodetection override the displayed level, and handle the edge cases described above. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Autodetection is now fully implemented. Based on the feedback above, the way I've implemented it is as follows: Usage of the template in the wikitext doesn't change at all (so no worrying about substing anything). If all of the pages the request affects are at the same protection level (which is vacuously true if it only affects one page), and that level is not "unprotected", and the new "force" parameter isn't set, then the template behaves in both display and categorization as if it were called with the correct protection level. Does this seem acceptable to everyone? Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable, but I'll have to see it in action before I can give my final thoughts on it. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 22:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks very nice indeed. Thank you for your work on this, Jack! — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 23:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Use on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors
Please amend so that use on Main Page/Errors doesn't throw Error: Protected edit requests can only be made on the talk page. Note that Main Page/Errors is transcluded to Talk:Main Page, where this box shows correctly. -- Red rose64 (talk) 07:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Main Page/Errors is a noticeboard that gets quite widely watched, though. It probably won't make much difference to response times whether someone includes an edit protected invocation or not. Also, I imagine that the error check prevents quite a few newbie errors with the edit request templates, so I'm reluctant to remove it. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean a blanket removal - what I meant was a one-page exemption. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, we could do that, but personally I don't think it's necessary as the page should be watched enough as it is. Let's wait and see what others think. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 03:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Specifying page name
Why do these two edit requests look different?

The only difference between them is that the first one doesn't have a page name specified and the second one does, even though it's the same page. If there's not a reason they look different, can they be made to look the same? (I prefer the style of the second one). The reason I'm concerned about this is that once a software update hits here, the edit requests generated by submit an edit request will always pass the page name parameter. I've updated the sandbox to make these look the same, and if there's no objection, I'll update the main module as well. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No real reason - that's just how the original templates worked. I'm fine with you making them look the same. Also, nice work on getting submit an edit request to receive a parameter. :) — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 17:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, the change is made. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Issue with formation caused by template
I'm not sure how this is happening, but it seems that when the templates (well, at least Template:Edit fully-protected) that call this module are preceded by a paragraph-formatting character (such as : # or *), the template affects the paragraph formatting on the entire rest of the page following it. See this example: : In this example, it seems as though the bullet before the template both causes the template to appear incorrectly as the instructions are not encapsulated in the yellow/brown box, and the section at the bottom of the page is uncontrollable indented a space, including its header. Steel1943 (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a known problem and is caused by HTML Tidy, which reformats a page after the MediaWiki parser has processed the Wiki markup into HTML. There's not much we can do about it except to say "never indent a box-type object". -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Any objections to syncing Module:Protected edit request/active/sandbox?
I expanded the smalltext to note a template's sandbox and testcases subpages for testing if they exist. Some editors are just making requests without an attempt to experiment in a sandbox, and I thought this was generally appropriate. Output of the live sandbox template:

You can see the extra "Consider making changes first to the template's sandbox before submitting an edit request". (Testcases subpage for this module doesn't exist, so it's not mentioned.) — Andy W. ( talk  · ctb) 22:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Minor nitpick: it says the template 's sandbox, even when it's being used on a module. Looks good otherwise. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Haha good catch. The change is live, didn't seem to be uncontroversial or anything. Thanks! — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 05:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Signature error
There must be a wayward space before the requestor's signature is placed, as seen with this request Talk:Sead Kolašinac, can this be fixed, I do not know modules. Thanx, -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 16:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC) Please remove the space before the tildes, it causes difficulties with empty requests Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a problem with the module. The space comes from the preload template and only seems to be a "problem" because no actual request has been left.
 * This is basically a drive-by tagging: the user has clicked on a link to see what happens. That person is not reading the instructions, they are not giving any information at all regarding what they would like to be changed. When you come across these, just revert the request, . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Thanx, -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 23:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you're interested, they are shown this help, and the edit box is pre-filled from this template. This doesn't look like much: but when editing, what they see is this:  The space that is giving your problem is the one on the last line, between the fourth right-brace and first tilde. Notice also the warning "Blank edit requests will be declined." BTW your signature is invisible, I think because my browser doesn't recognise the declaration   -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanx for taking the time to point this out. It seems to me that removing the space before the tides would solve this issue, not sure if that would cause new one(s), but if the error only happens with blank request, maybe it's better left alone, idk :P. I had no idea my signature had display issues, so the only way you can see that I'm the author of a post is the markup in the edit window ? -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 11:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I considered removing the space some months ago; but decided against, because it would make the signature butt up against any valid request that might be posted. So  would yield
 * which is probably not what is wanted. Anyway, your signature is displaying now: I guess that my browser (Opera 36) is having intermittent trouble with the Trebuchet MS font. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This request is not empty and same error. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 20:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, because they didn't follow the instructions, and instead did this:  It is difficult to guard against such misuse. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I get it now, it's the operator not the template. Sorry for the ping, but thanks for the explaination :) Cheers, -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 22:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

De-activated requests
I was wondering if answered edit requests like the ones for example, could be positioned horizontally under the section header instead of the right-hand margin. It seems to me, talk and archive pages would be easier to navigate (and easier on the eyes) not having the de-activated template bleeding into newer sections, similar to the difference between setting  and not,. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 00:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * No response in a week, pinging experience template editors for opinions, .  -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 23:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I saw (as  will also have), and this was the only notification.  notified nobody, it did nothing except amend the timestamp. Similarly,  will not have notified . To trigger a notification, you need to include all the names and a your signature on one or more fresh lines in a new post, all simultaneously, as I have done here. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I misunderstood the workings of multiple pings. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 13:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

ESp/EEp suggestion.
In this talk page revision, Template:edit extended-protected was used to request edit be made to a extended-confirmed-protected template. The template say "You may also wish to use the ESp template in the response.". However, since the protection on the template was extended not semi, and the template used was also for extended protection, it should recommend the use of EEp template instead. Please change the code in the Module/template to match this. C933103 (talk) 11:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ,, and  are really only different names for the same thing. Out of the 24 possible output messages, just three (those for  ,   and  ) have variant text according to which template name was used; another two (  and  ) vary the colour of the icon, leaving the text alone; but most of the time it doesn't matter. For instance, in  you presumably used , but if you had used  instead, the only difference would have been in that hidden comment, which would have been <!-- >Template:ESp</!--> instead of <!-- >Template:EEp</!-->.  -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah I see.C933103 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hidden category for article space
Heyya. When this module is invoked in a template placed in article space, it places the article in the hidden category Category:Non-talk pages requesting an edit to a protected page, as you can see in. However, it looks like if the user sets answered to "no", the category goes goodbye, as seen in. Can someone who's familiar with Lua fix this? I'm good with templates but know nothing about Lua. If it's placed in article space (or any non-talk space), it should be added to the category regardless of parameter usage. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 00:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'm not seeing that. I'm only seeing the cat when  is set to "no". Though it should probably be adding come kind of error/category anyway since it shouldn't be there either way. zchrykng (talk) 02:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * urf, I made a typo. I meant the category only disappears when answered is set to yes. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 02:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah! Makes more sense now. Will see if I can identify what needs changed and will try it in the sandbox. zchrykng (talk) 02:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you! I'm totally useless at Lua. I appreciate the help. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 02:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well... I made a change to the sandbox version that should do it, but have no idea how to test it. Been wanting to get into module work, but this is the first edit I've attempted. zchrykng (talk) 02:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , check my user page to see if that is what you are looking for. zchrykng (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks greatttt! One small change; the category should be Category:Non-talk pages requesting an edit to a protected page rather than Category:Non-talk pages with an edit request template, because the former is the one currently used. Thank you!! cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 03:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , hmm, good point. Was thinking this would be clearer, but no reason to maintain two categories when one can work. Especially when the cat should be kept at or near zero at all times. zchrykng (talk) 03:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, take a look now. Should be good to go. Will still need an admin or template editor to implement the fix though. Was looking at applying for TE, but don't have the template or module space edits yet. zchrykng (talk) 03:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * to be honest, I like your category name wording better as its usage in articles seems to be a misguided attempt at protecting a page by a newbie rather than an actual edit request, since by nature people making an edit request can't actually put the template on the article itself. I'd totally support a renaming of the category. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 03:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want to start a discussion to rename the category, I'm more than happy to change the code again to match whatever. zchrykng (talk) 03:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , and a friendly neighborhood admin has updated it for us. zchrykng (talk) 03:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Coming late to this party, but if it's any assurance, the change zchrykng made in the sandbox is exactly what I was going to try - copy those three lines from /active version of box:export, perhaps with a change in wording. At first I was thinking this might be handled at the Template: level, but that might be thought to get in the way of a clean module invocation.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 03:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you ! And, I went ahead and started that discussion here! cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 03:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Just a thought but might want to drop notices of the discussion on the template pages as well. Would do it myself except on phone. zchrykng (talk) 04:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * definitely didn't see this til now! I crashed right before you sent me the ping. Notification done on the edit request templates. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 14:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Interface
I raised a request at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist and used edit interface-protected. I see its been tagged as a fully protected request instead. Interface administrators doesn't leave much doubt that it should be an IA request. Is the switch for this module only triggered on the .js suffix instead of everything in MediaWiki namespace? Cabayi (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The terminology is a little imperfect, but unterface-admins are the only ones who can edit .js and .css pages in the MediaWiki namespace. All other pages in the MediaWiki namespace are limited to sysops only.  Previously, sysops could edit .js and .css pages, although I think your confusion comes from and pages in the MediaWiki namespace.  While IAs can indeed edit any page in the MediaWiki namespace, at enWiki only sysops are eligible for the intadmin perm, so for a page like MediaWiki:Titleblacklist it is redundant.  See also Protection_policy.  The template chose the correct tag. ~  Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 01:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Inactive requests
Answered requests ought to show the names of the templates just as active requests do.

I've just answered a request at Template talk:Infobox church. Now that the request has been answered there's nothing to show that the request was actually for Template:Infobox church/denomination.

Similar problem exists for recent requests...
 * Template talk:Grading scheme Top-importance
 * Template talk:Grading scheme High-importance
 * Template talk:Grading scheme Mid-importance

My best effort would be to clone Module:Protected edit request/active to Module:Protected edit request/inactive and start from there, but I'm sure there's got to be a better fix than that. Cabayi (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just noting that this was per  below. SD0001 (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 March 2020
Please sync changes from Module:Protected edit request/sandbox.

Improvement made: the template will show the names of pages to which edits were requested even after the request has been marked as answered. This will be skipped if there was just one page in the request which is same as the subject page.

At present, if an edit request is being made for a page which isn't the subject page, the name of the page get hidden when it's marked as answered, which is quite confusing for a reader.

See testcases at User talk:SD0001/sandbox2. SD0001 (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 22:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've repaired the links to categories and files. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 22:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 30 May 2020
Please change line 34 to to fix parameter demo. See Template:Edit template-protected/testcases for demonstration of the issue. This change fixed the error output in Edit template-protected/sandbox. —⁠andrybak (talk) 05:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done Cabayi (talk) 05:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Feature request
When a request to edit a TemplateStyles stylesheet is made, could the sandbox links point to Template:XYZ/sandbox/styles.css because I believe this is the convention. I guess it is currently looking for a sandbox in Template:XYZ/styles.css/sandbox which is not correct. Thanks &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Fantastic! Thanks &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Submit button links to wrong place on fully protected page
When I click View Source at Module:Message box and then click "Submit an edit request", the link takes me to Main Page/Errors instead of generating an edit request on the relevant talk page. Is this an error with this template/module, or somewhere else? I have Template Editor permissions but not Admin permissions.

Note: I have also posted this at Template talk:Submit an edit request, in contravention of WP:TALKFORK, because I do not know which template or module controls the destination link behind this button. When the problem is fixed, I will make sure to note the resolution at both discussions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed at the other talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)