Misplaced Pages

Template talk:Edit fully-protected

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mumiemonstret (talk | contribs) at 21:22, 8 April 2008 (Ambiguous reference). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:22, 8 April 2008 by Mumiemonstret (talk | contribs) (Ambiguous reference)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This page is not for proposing or discussing edits to protected pages.

To request or propose a change to a page that you are not able to edit, place a message on its talk page. If the page is fully protected, you may attract the attention of an admin to make the change by placing the {{edit fully-protected}} template above your request. Requests placed here will probably be removed or ignored.


Archives
Archive 1Archive 2

Morocco has a population of 33 million, not 133

id="editprotected", bot request

I wrapped the table in a div with id editprotected. This enables custom formatting of the box, like class="editprotected" would. But it needs to be an id, not a class, so that you can link to the request by adding #editprotected to the end of the talk page URL. This will fail to validate if there are multiple protected edit requests, but that should be a very rare and minor problem.

I also want to publicize a bot request to make a useful table of protected edit requests that should make it more convenient to handle them. CMummert · talk 17:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-table version

I turned the current version into a tableless notice. The ability to edit ther template in general is not hampered much. I put the code and example below. Tell me if I made any mistakes. Also, The <div style="margin: 3px;"> cannot be put in the first <div> tag, as this caused errors with centering. —Andrew Hampe 00:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It is requested that an edit or modification be made to this protected page. (protection log)
Usage: this template should be accompanied by a specific description of the request. Please disable this template when the request is handled.

This template is for requesting changes to the content of the page (current requests). To request that the page itself be protected or unprotected, please make a request at requests for page protection instead.

Message

<includeonly>{{{category|]}}}</includeonly>


Code:

<div id="editprotected" class="messagebox standard-talk" style="text-align: center;"><noinclude><!-- Yes it needs to be an id so it can be linked to --></noinclude><div style="margin: 3px;"> ] '''It is requested that an edit or modification be made to this ].''' <span class="plainlinks"><small>()</small></span><br />] this template should be accompanied by a '''specific description''' of the request. Please ] when the request is handled. ---- <small>This template is for requesting changes to the content of the page (]). To request that the page itself be protected or unprotected, please make a request at ''']''' instead.</small> </div></div><center>{{{1|Message}}}</center><includeonly>{{{category|]}}}</includeonly>

Info box colors

Resolved – Wrong venue.

Request to change Joe Girardi's info box to the Cubs red and blue colors (as it was previously listed before someone changed to Yankees blue and gray and then the page got protected). Girardi played twice as many years on the Cubs and also played 2 separate stints in Chicago. He only played 3 years in New York and the Yankees are not the most reflective team for his career.

This belongs at Talk:Joe Girardi. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 17:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Bug report

The bottom half of the template goes wide when this template is placed on talk pages, or at least on "Template talk:" namespace talk pages. This broken bottom half's background also matches the color of said talk pages, making it difficult to discern the template from the talk page content (example). Please fix. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 17:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The tempalte code was changed by Andrew Hampe to use no tables, and this appears to be broken. I reverted to the table version until the nontable version is fixed and tested. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

New template for {{editprotected}} requests which are up for discussion

When looking at CAT:PER, and at the auto-generated summary at User:VeblenBot/PERtable, I noticed that several of the requests are being discussed - and shouldn't be processed until a consensus canbe reached.

My solution is:
1. Create a new template ({{editprotected-discuss}}), which will replace the {{editprotected}} tag in such cases. Create a new category for it.
2.In the {{editprotected}} template, add the sentence: If you think this edit needs to be discussed, please replace this template with {{editprotected-discuss}}.
Od Mishehu 07:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've observed this problem on numerous occasions. It appears to stem from the mistaken belief that the template's purpose is to announce a proposal to edit a protected page. (In fact, its purpose is to flag down a sysop to perform an immediate change.) That's why I added text advising against the template's use when an edit warrants discussion.
What purpose would your proposed template serve? Why would we want to attract special attention to these proposals via a new category (instead of allowing the discussions to progress normally)? —David Levy 07:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Discuss and (where needed) advertise the discussion as needed. When consensus to make a change has been reached, use 'editprotected' if no admins are around. Carcharoth 11:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Sometimes I turn off the templates when I see the discussions going on with a note to report it when it comes back. If you are trying to draw people to the discussions, I would suggest notifying editors through a WikiProject, the pump, or user talk pages if necessary, but I don't see value in having an advertisement for people to discuss unrelated topics which just happen to all be protected. --After Midnight 15:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have kind of had the opposite problem. I have suggested things on talk pages of permanently protected articles and then waited for days without any response from other editors. But I hesitated to use the {{editprotected}} since it uses the term "immediate" which makes it sound like it is only for urgent matters. So instead of making a new template I suggest removing the two occurances of the word "immediate" from the template. --David Göthberg 01:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"Immediate" doesn't mean "urgent." It means "without delay." If you believe that it's appropriate to perform an edit now (without continuing to wait for discussion to occur), this is the appropriate template to use.
Removing the word "immediate" (which I added on 30 July) would increase the likelihood of users believing that the template's purpose is to announce a proposal to edit a protected page (an extremely common misconception). —David Levy 02:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

immediate?

When and why did this template become "immediate"? Is there a non-immediate template I should be using for more casual requests? I'm almost never in a rush. -- 67.98.206.2 20:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually -- nevermind, I see your response above. Maybe if it just actually said "without delay" that would clarify this... -- 67.98.206.2 20:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Immediate is fine. The point is that the edit should be made as soon as someone sees it - if it is indeed reasonable, and that there is no request for discussion, and no need for any delay. What I see happening is that a lot of the requests languish as though no one wants to tackle them, or stick their neck out in agreement, although I admit some are so baffling that it is hard to see what edit was intended. 199.125.109.36 (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Environment

There should be a section for the environment, I'll be happy to help write it. jjk82

I'm not sure what you mean. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Latin Kings

Can you fix that the latin kings are based out of New York when they were started in Chicago; they do have territory there but they also have territory everywhere else such as Miami or California and anywhere else there is a large latino population. If they can also give the latin kings from new york a page of their own it would make these disputes settle down. The Black P. Stones gang also has a seperate page for their set in The Jungles in California. This site ] isnt a gangsite for teenagers but gives acurarate historical information about all of chicagos gangs and their formation with police reports and from sociologists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicagofacts (talkcontribs) 04:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to put this on the talk page of the article in question, not here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Response to "editprotect" requests

This article's content states:

Administrators will check this category for protected edit requests to process. In the three months of September through November 2007, the average time for a request to be handled was approximately 23 hours, and 75% of requests were resolved within 26 hours.

There has been an "editprotect" request on a page outstanding for three days (76 hours) and, given the above statement about response efficiency, I'm beginning to think that the non-handling of this particular request until the edit protection (which is only a week) just conveniently expires is deliberate. According to the image of glowing effiency you wish to portray with the above statistics, processing for this "editprotect" is long overdue. Please can somebody get around to looking at this.

Many Thanks in advance.

Andrew81446 (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Redesign

It is requested that an immediate edit be made to this fully-protected page. (protection log)
This template should be accompanied by a specific description of the request.

This template is for requesting edits to a protected page. Alterations to semi-protected pages may be performed by any logged-in user. This template should only be used to request uncontroversial edits, or edits for which there is already a consensus. If you believe that a desired change might be controversial, please discuss it on the protected page's talk page before inserting this template. To request that the page itself be protected or unprotected, please make a request at requests for page protection.

Comments? Happymelon 17:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(1) Brevity is the soul of wit. Can we shorten the italicized text a bit? (2) I've always loved the red lock icon (see Template:permprot). Can we use that one instead? --MZMcBride (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I've done my best - if there's any more text you think you can cut out, be my guest. I chose the gold padlock because it's used in the protection templates for full protection, which is what this is related to. The red packlock is used for indefinite protection - this page is protected for some very good reason, and will never be unprotected - which is not really what editprotected is about. A change to a page with the red padlock on it is a Big Deal, which is not really the effect we're going for :D. Happymelon 18:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea where you got that idea from. I added the red padlock to Template:permprot because I thought it was prettier; we could just as easily use Image:Padlock-zebra.svg. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
If that is the case, then had I been around at the time I would have opposed the use of the red padlock. My interpretation of the red image is derived from its use on {{permprot}} - if it does not, in fact, have any officially-assigned meaning, then even less reason to use it in lieu of the "official" golden padlock. I assume/hope that the zebra padlock was a joke - although it might be an interesting switch to make on April Fool's Day... Happymelon 21:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me, and I don't care what color the padlock is :P Hopefully people will actually start reading it and follow the directions. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks fine. Someone wanted a shorter version of the wording; how about this? "This template should only be used to request edits which are clearly uncontroversial or which have consensus, to a fully-protected page. Possibly-controversial edits should be discussed on the protected page's talk page before inserting this template. To request that the page itself be protected or unprotected, please make a request at requests for page protection." We could wait and see whether this wording discourages the semi-protected requests before adding in a whole sentence about that; the previous wording said nothing about fully-protected and looks to me as if it means it's fine to use it for semi-protected requests. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The current template doesn't say anything, but the documentation notes that it is only for full protection. Asking for an admin to edit a semi-protected page is completely unnecessary. If I had to cut a sentence, I'd chop the bit about WP:RFP - in my crawl of CAT:PER today I found several semi-protected pages, but not one where the request was for unprotection. Happymelon 21:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Another suggestion

Taking the redesign proposal from the previous section one sentence at a time:

  1. "It is requested that an immediate edit be made to this fully-protected page"
    Simplify, and avoid passive voice? Also, the edit request is not going to be acted upon immediately or necessarily at all, so better not to describe it as an "immediate edit", which raises expectations.
  2. "This template should be accompanied by a specific description of the request."
    Is it really necessary to say this? The template will be used by editors who want to propose an edit. How else would an editor propose an edit except by describing it?
  3. "This template is for requesting edits to a protected page."
    The sentence repeats what is clearly implied by the previous two sentences, and could be omitted.
  4. "Alterations to semi-protected pages may be performed by any logged-in user."
    Is it necessary to say that? The template should stick to the point, which concerns edits to fully-protected pages.
  5. "This template should only be used to request uncontroversial edits, or edits for which there is already a consensus."
    Shorten and move bolding? "This template should only be used to request edits that are uncontroversial and supported by consensus." (is it necessary to link to WP:Consensus?)
  6. "If you believe that a desired change might be controversial, please discuss it on the protected page's talk page before inserting this template."
    "Desired change" → "proposed edit", "inserting" → "using"
  7. "To request that the page itself be protected or unprotected, please make a request at requests for page protection."
    Put the sentence in a new paragraph?

i.e.

I propose the following edit to this fully-protected page. (protection log)

  • This template should only be used to request edits that are uncontroversial and supported by consensus. If you believe the proposed edit might be controversial, please discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template.

- Neparis (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts are these:

  1. I quite like the wording of this first sentence, with the possible ommission of "immediate". Using the passive voice takes the emphasis off the editor who has requested the edit, and onto the actual edit itself, which is what should be important.
  2. You'd be surprised; I've seen "can you make the template smaller", "can someone add a 'date' field" (nothing more or less than that), and so forth. The idea is that editors come together and propose a change on the talk page, make a sandbox if one doesn't exist already, work out what needs to be changed, test it, test it some more, then add the tag and either say "replace this code with this code" or "copy the code from this sandbox". So all the admin has to do is determine that there is consensus for the change, make sure the change works in the sandbox, copy the relevant code, check it works in preview, save, and check a few WhatLinksHere to make sure they haven't screwed anything up. General wishy-washy requests are not usually acted upon, so why not make that clear?
  3. That's true, we could probably lose this sentence.
  4. As I said above, asking an admin to change a semi-protected page is completely unnecessary, but loads of IPs still do it.
  5. Sounds good, maybe change "and" to "or". Linking doesn't take up any space, and makes the run of text a bit more interesting, so why not?
  6. Looks good
  7. I'm not sure why it's necessary to split it into a new paragraph; that will only make the text longer. Even if we do, I really hate the bullet points :D.

And as I've said above, I really really dislike the red padlock! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happy-melon (talkcontribs) 24 Feb 2008 (UTC)


It is requested that an immediate edit be made to this fully-protected page. (protection log)
This template should be accompanied by a specific description of the request.

This template should only be used to request edits to fully-protected pages that are uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If you believe the proposed edit might be controversial, please discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template. To request that the page itself be protected or unprotected, please make a request at requests for page protection.

Reply: I like this one. Quicker to the point; less small print makes it more likely that it will be red. I like the gold lock in this template, too--more harmonious in the overall color scheme. :) --Moonriddengirl 13:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the template with this latest design. Happymelon 17:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. That first sentence is just so verbose, and still misleadingly says "immediate". I agree the passive keeps the focus off the editor and on the edit, which is good, but there are active voice wordings which would achieve the same effect and be briefer. What about something similar to the following:
Proposed edit to this fully-protected page. (protection log)
(7 words versus 14 words in the current wording)
or as a complete sentence:
Please review this proposed edit to this fully-protected page. (protection log)
(10 words versus 14 words)
or:
Please make / apply / do / ...
2. I agree with your point 2 about the risks of not explaining what should be obvious.
- Neparis (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Why not just drop the "immediate"?? Happymelon 19:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, dropped. What do you think about shortening the 13-word sentence down to something like either the 7-word or the 10-word one I suggested above? - Neparis (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
It's just that neither of them really say the same thing as the current wording. The first is better, but clashes with the second line. It just doesn't flow properly. The second is too ambiguous - who is supposed to review it? The admin or other editors? The third shifts the focus back to the editor rather than the edit: "I would like you to do this". Just my thoughts. Happymelon 21:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
In what way does the first sentence in
Proposed edit to this fully-protected page. (protection log)
This template should be accompanied by a specific description of the request.
"clash" with or not flow properly with the second one, and why should the clash or the flow be any different than for
It is requested that an edit be made to this fully-protected page. (protection log)
This template should be accompanied by a specific description of the request.
Or is your objection more simply whether or not there is a predicate in the first sentence?
I think there is a similar amount of ambiguity in all of the wordings; the current wording is ambiguous as to who is making the request ("It is requested that" — says who?) and to whom the request is being addressed ("that an edit be made" — by whom?); my second example is ambiguous as to who is being asked to review the edit; it could be clarified: "Please would an admin review this proposed edit to this fully-protected page. (protection log)." (still only 12 words) - Neparis (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the term, but it seems about right - the current wording just seems to sound better to me. Happymelon 09:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Any of the versions suggested on this page are fine with me, but in case anybody is looking for extreme brevity, here's another suggestion: "Specific description of proposed edit to this fully-protected page. This edit is uncontroversial or has consensus." By the way, if you want to reduce the numbers of requests for edits to semi-protected pages, I suggest editing the page Misplaced Pages:This page is protected, which seems to me to be implying that this template is to be used for that purpose. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
That might be a little excessive :D. Thanks for the note about Misplaced Pages:This page is protected - I'll have a look there and update the wording if necessary. Happymelon 09:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. One consideration with the change you implemented there is that it doesn't give guidance to editors who want edits to a sp page that does not have active monitoring on the talk page. I wonder about directing them to the help desk for that. --Moonriddengirl 14:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Adding back the sentence about semi-protected pages is drifting back towards the original wording; I don't have a problem with that, but others might. Happymelon 14:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
It could be noted at Misplaced Pages:This page is protected. I'm just not sure if the help desk is the best place to send them, since that's not really what the help desk is for...although I've myself helped people out making that request there. :) --Moonriddengirl 15:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The redesign has five links in it but it eliminates the most important link - the one to the list of other requests. 199.125.109.36 (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point - I've linked "requests" to the category. Happymelon 19:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that it is there but it would be better to reword the very verbose italic section and explicitly state that there was a link for other requests. Oh and the template gets used a lot by IPusers on semi-protected pages. 199.125.109.36 (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Remove parameter

I have been seeing a fair number of editprotected templates used with the request added as the first unnamed parameter (, ). As you can see from the first one, the fact that the whole edit was wrapped in a template tag caused Sinebot not to autosign the comment, which is unhelpful. It is also impossible to quickly disable the template with {{tlx}} or similar when it is passed parameters. I would like to remove the support for the parameter, such that the template cannot be passed any parameters. This should not really inconvenience anyone, as it only affects where they have to put the closing braces. Happymelon 19:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the parameter. Happymelon 19:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Not just for fully-protected pages

{{editprotected}} Please change "fully-protected" to "protected" in the two locations where it appears. There is no reason to pretend that fully protected is any different than semi-protected. Think about it. The only way a fully protected page gets edited is by an admin. Are you saying that there are so many admins who can't type that there needs to be a template just to call attention to their typos, and the rare case were information changes that needs to be corrected? The principle use of the template is on semi-protected pages. 199.125.109.36 (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

 Not done You've got the purpose of this template completely backwards. As an IP, yes, there's no difference to you between full protectoin and semi protection, so you have to propose changes to semi-protected pages on the talk page. But there are over six million users who can make that change for you if it's appropriate. You won't have to wait very long before an autoconfirmed user comes along who can make the change if it makes sense. By contrast, there are only 1,500 administrators on the english wikipedia, which is far less than the number of protected pages. We're not special - we don't decide whether a proposed change is appropriate - we just follow consensus and common sense. The only reason you need an admin to edit a fully-protected page is because a technical restriction prohibits other users from doing so, and the difficulty in finding an admin is the reason for this template. Edit requests to fully-protected pages are no different to edit requests to semi-protected pages or even substantial edits to normal pages - they should be proposed on the talk page, discussed, a consensus arrived at, and then implemented. This template is only relevant for that last step - as a flag to bring someone with the technical means with which to make the edit. If the page is only semi-protected, you don't need an admin to change it, so there's no need to call one. Happymelon 21:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that many users now? I bet less than 1% are active users. The template is quite useful for flagging the need to make an edit on a protected page, no matter who makes the edit. It separates the request from how about this to how about this, and brings in more vultures to make the edit. The alternative would be to throw out an RFC or something like that, but is highly unnecessary when the template can be used instead. 199.125.109.36 (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Special:Statistics says so, and yes, I expect that your guess is pretty close. I agree to a certain extent with the usefulness of the template in attracting attention, and that certainly makes sense from an editor's and certainly from an IP's perspective. However, from the admin end, every transclusion of {{editprotected}} is another page in CAT:EP and, like all administrative categories, CAT:EP is regularly backlogged with requests. Essentially the problem is that if everyone used the template for semi-protected requests as well as full-protected ones, the (as you say, relatively few) fully-protected pages (the ones which actually need an admin to make the change) would get lost in amongst the other requests, which would completely defeat the purpose of the system in the first place. Happymelon 22:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
However if "anyone" was looking at those requests and making them "immediately", there wouldn't be any for them to get lost among. From a technical standpoint it would be nifty if the software could sort them into protected/semi-protected with a HR separating them so that admins could focus on the ones above the bar and other users wouldn't need to waste their time trying to edit them, although as I said before it is beneficial for everyone to look at the requested protected edits to see if they are reasonable. 199.125.109.36 (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Also please change the word "accompanied" to "followed". In many instances editors have written long rambling discussions of what they wanted done - sort of - and then added the template. It is much better to be very specific as to where you want the request located - after the placement of the template. 199.125.109.36 (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Another good idea. Happymelon 22:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. "followed" will mean that after a rambling discussion which maybe sort-of demonstrates consensus and which maybe sort-of describes the edit, then someone will have to at least restate clearly what the desired edit is (even if only "the edit described in the above discussion" :-\ )
If non-auto-confirmed users want to use a template to request edits, it should be a different template (or the same template with different options, to put the request into a different category) so that admins can choose not to take up their time with semi-protected edit requests. There are important backlogs admins need to be looking at. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
That would be fine, although I fail to see the need for two templates - just create a {{editsprotected}} template. However it is helpful to have everyone look over the editprotected requests and it would not be handy to have to look in two places. What I would like to see is them all on the same page but separated - the fully protected ones at the top, then a horizontal ruling, then the semi-protected ones. Remember that the distinction needs to be generated on the fly as the protection of each page could have easily changed since the request was made. You have heard of NIMBY, well the opposite is Not Invented Here - a lot of editors have zero interest in contributing something that they didn't think of themselves. Witness the 50 other edits that have been made to Barack Obama since someone did an editrequest to update the delegate count following the most recent primary. 199.125.109.36 (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
There's no need for two templates, I agree, because I agree with others that editprotected requests are only for fully protected pages. The table at User:VeblenBot/PERtable does show the protection level of the page, among other things. When I handle editprotected requests, I sometimes use User:CBM/T/spep to decline the requests on pages that aren't fully protected. In the worst case, you can simply register a username, wait four days, and make the edit yourself. After that you will be able to edit semiprotected pages without waiting. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That's hardly a valid suggestion. Think about it - Misplaced Pages has over a million users, some of those users actually see blatantly wrong items, and want to get them corrected, but have no interest in ever using Misplaced Pages again, let alone registering a username and waiting four days. All they want is an obvious tag that will attract attention from the wider Misplaced Pages community to the page and get it fixed. All they see is a padlock. They don't even know that admins exist, let alone the difference between fully protected and semi protected pages - all they know is that they can't fix it. There really is no reason to not just use this template for the purpose. As you will notice, I do. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 07:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If this hypothetical IP user knows enough to use editprotected, they know the talk page exists, which is the real hurdle. If the IP user leaves a note on the talk page, any editor with the page on their watchlist can fix the problem; no admin attention is needed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
You are right - most wikipedia users don't even know that talk pages exist. However, leaving notes on talkpages isn't enough - a flag to the wider community is necessary that will attract editors who do not have that talk page on their watch list (whoever watchlists talk pages anyway?). Relying on editors seeing a note on a talk page is particularly ineffective because there is a large degree of NIH (not invented here). If it isn't someone's primary interest they are clearly not interested in fixing something that someone else found. Notes on talk pages languish for weeks. I know - I've left plenty of them. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
When you watchlist an article you also automatically watchlist the talk page.— Carl (CBM · talk) 15:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
It's harsh but true, that the main reason your comments to talk pages go unnoticed is probably because your 'username' is a collection of numbers. That said, pages are always protected for a reason, and that reason is also going to result on the pages being watchlisted by involved parties, and probably anyone who is involved in mediating. There are a lot of wikipedia pages which aren't watched, but I doubt that many protected pages are among them. As Carl says, anyone watchlisting a page automatically gets the talk page as well, and vice versa. Happymelon 17:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You can see how much I know about watchlisting... And yes IPusers get ignored a lot - but they occasionally do notice things that need to be fixed, and taking out a username just to get noticed is not a good solution. Out of 6,837,699 usernames I wonder how many are socks, sleepers, and people who have forgotten their password and will never use them again. By the way thanks for fixing the US page. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Changing formatting

Misplaced Pages is designed to shift as much of the rendering choices onto the user's browser as possible, for several reasons. Most importantly, it means that the formatting can be made to work more easily with a wider range of browsers, some of which display identical html code very differently. What looks good in firefox almost invariably looks terrible in IE7, and often vice versa, just because of the different way the browsers interpret html. Individual users' display settings, colour pallets, monitor sizes and a host of other factors all affect how the page is displayed, so the more freedom Misplaced Pages can give the users' browser to display the code however looks best for that users' environment, the better. Secondly, it gives the user the opportunity to make their own customisations via their own .css pages - being overly specific about what formatting you think looks best makes it more difficult for other users to apply their own preferences. Happymelon 09:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguous reference

I would like to clarify the line in the current version of the template that reads "This template should only be used to request edits to fully-protected pages that are uncontroversial or supported by consensus."

It is not the pages that have to be uncontroversial, but the edits! What about "This template should only be used to request uncontroversial edits to fully-protected pages." If there is an adjective form of consensus, insert it after uncontroversial.

Mumiemonstret (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I added some parenthetical commas. What do you think? Happymelon 09:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this works. Perhaps a little bit more bureaucratic but quite understandable. Mumiemonstret (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)