Wikipedia talk:Edit requests

Suggestion
Sometimes an edit request is closed with ? , for the reason that the request is slightly ambiguous, with no further action taken by the responding editor. In some such cases, the suggested material is non-controversial, would improve the article, is reliably sourced, etc. But, it is, again, slightly ambiguous. I'm not a native speaker of English, but I suggest adding to WP:ERREQ something along the lines of: "If you decide to reject a request, that in essence holds merit, simply because it lacks Mona Lisa level perfection, nothing is stopping you from improving the relevant article yourself based on feedback contained within the request." I can give two examples. Although I fear these will be used primarily to point out why requests get rejected or have been taken at heart after all or are exceptions, instead of to better understand what I am suggesting here. Regardless, 1. a dead link, and 2. a production company. I'm not the kind of editor to keep logs of where I've seen what, so you'd have to take my word for it, but I've seen this happen many times. So, my suggestion is to have the information page suggest one additional step if the decision is to reject a request: can I, as the responding editor, still take some kind of action to improve Wikipedia based on this feedback. --62.166.252.25 (talk) 07:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Another, sort of, example here. The responding editor reacts, "In any event, this request is not specific enough - you need to specify the exact wikitext you want to be added and where it should be added - just "please add content about bar" is not enough." --62.166.252.25 (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "can I, as the responding editor, still take some kind of action to improve Wikipedia based on this feedback." Yes. Any editor may edit any Wikipedia page (unless it's protected). If another editor objects then the edit should (no guarantee that it will) generate discussion of the proposal. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2024
include that you can change parameter from yes to no for declined requests too similar to further info needed section 173.72.3.91 (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but I think what you're proposing is substantially the same as the current wording of the section. Liu1126 (talk) 03:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Legitimate talk page comments incorrectly headed by protected edit request templates
The transaction consisting of an edit request answered with "Not done" at is the latest such transaction I've seen fitting a pattern that concerns me. I'm talking about cases where the content of the request isn't for a specific edit but, rather, an unremarkable inquiry or suggestion such as one typically sees on talk pages, potentially leading to a constructive discussion. But because the user added it through the edit request mechanism, another user will respond "Not done, we need the specific changes you're requesting", close the requesteffectively shutting down the discussion and leaving the original poster hanging, no doubt frustrating them and possibly deterring them from ever bothering again.

I imagine that these are users, possibly brand new to editing, who thought that making an edit request is how you initiate a discussion on the talk page. Instead of shutting them down, it would be helpful for the respondent either to explain that their post is acceptable but that they should remove the template, or else to remove the template on their own. Or perhaps an option could be added for the edit request response parameter to indicate that the contribution is legit but not technically an edit request as Wikipedia defines it, producing a canned message that explains this and invites others to respond as they normally would if the post hadn't been tagged as an edit request. Or maybe there's some other option. Anything other than the slap in the face that's happening now. Largoplazo (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The discussion is not shut down. It's just no longer listed in the place where volunteers go to help with specific, uncontroversial edit requests. Local discussion can continue just as it would if no edit request template were used. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That isn't how it looks. Think of it from the point of view of the original poster as well as, perhaps, other people. "I think this article could stand improvement in such-and-such an area." "Not done. Please state exactly edits you want made." It comes across as "Go away and don't bother us till you have specific text of your own." The user doesn't know, "Oh, they're responding that way only because I used that template" and no one is explaining that to them. It is not user-friendly. Largoplazo (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm all for increasing the user-friendliness of the template. I don't think the discussion looks closed or shut down. I frequently see discussion continue on declined requests. We might disagree on the problem but agree on a solution. What are you proposing? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Procedure for requesting an edit to protected talk page
The Planning A Request procedure is not very helpful for editors wanting to make an edit it a protected talk page. It would be good if there were a simpler method of making such a request. 2403:6200:8810:F964:B067:4711:4774:5642 (talk) 09:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * If a talk page is also protected, the best one can do is ask someone with an access level capable of editing the page the page to do so via the user's own talk page. 74.65.143.60 (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Requests to edits to a protected talk page may be placed here: Requests for page protection. — xaosflux  Talk 20:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)