Template talk:Pp-semi-usertalk

This is the talk page of a redirect that has been merged and now targets the page:
• Template:Pp-usertalk
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Template talk:Pp-usertalk
Merged page edit history is maintained in order to preserve attributions.

Template:Pp-semi-usertalk is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. This template does not have a testcases subpage. You can create the testcases subpage here.

Rewording

Vandalism is not the only reason for semi-protecting user talk pages; a user may disruptively (and repeatedly) make {{unblock}} requests. This is not vandalism, per se. I therefore suggest that we replace "introducing vandalism" in this template with "making disruptive edits", unless someone else can think of something more general. Gracenotes ^T § 01:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. There's another, rarer, situation in which a User Talk page is used for unrelated discussion by several new users/anons; I've generalised it to cover all three. --ais523 11:07, 12 April 2007 (U T C)

Message to admins in template

Why is the message "Administrators, please remember to add the user to Wikipedia:List of protected pages#Protected user pages." included in the template when the template already puts the user into Category:Semi-protected user and user talk pages? This seems rather redundant, especially since the listed section doesn't even exist on the page. --StuffOfInterest 12:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the sentence "(Administrators, please remember to add the user to Wikipedia:List of protected pages#Protected user pages.)" from this template. That section of that page hasn't existed for months, as it was moved to a separate page, and that entire system of pages is now blank and unused - follow the link and see. Furthermore, the category system now being used supersedes the need for such a list; Category:Semi-protected user and user talk pages serves the same purpose with much less fuss – Gurch 15:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when a page is temporarily protected, it should say "temporarily protected", not "temporary protected" – Gurch 15:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the two changes requested above. The template currently reads... "[protected to] prevent Example (talk • contribs • block logauto • rfcu) and other new users ...", however this template is not only used on the talk pages of blocked users. Either there should be a parameter to indicate that the user is blocked, or it should be removed altogether. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 00:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It doesn't actually say the user is blocked, merely provides a series of links that are helpful if they are. While it isn't used only on blocked users' pages, it is only used on userpages, and most of the time the reason the user isn't blocked is that they're an IP, so an indefinite block is undesirable. In any case, the actions of the user whose page is protected is likely to be of interest to anyone reviewing the protection, so having links available is useful – Gurch 09:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wording

{{editprotected}} Perhaps it should say "and other new users from making disruptive edits" rather than "and other new users using it for disruptive edits"? Also... I wonder, why does it say "protected" when the page is semiprotected? Gracenotes^T § 13:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if I add a reason= parameter like {{pp-usertalk}}? Here are examples. I would change the word protected to semiprotected as well. CMummert · talk 14:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A reason sounds good. However, I still think that the default version should be grammatically correct ;). The only thing is, now admins have to take the trouble to type everything out, and if they don't do it initially, it might be difficult for someone else approaching the page to discern a reason. Damn I wish this was part of the interface. Gracenotes^T § 16:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What change needs to be done exactly? (By the way, I think it says something like 'protected from new users' because 'semiprotected from new users' doesn't make any sense to someone who doesn't know about semi'ing.) --ais523 08:30, 3 May 2007 (U T C)

I achanged the wording a little and added a reason field. Here are examples. CMummert · talk 12:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

{{editprotected}} Go to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#WP:Accessability ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 22:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Come back when you have consensus... —GFOLEY FOUR— 05:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 25 August 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change:

|small={{{small|}}}
|demospace={{{demospace|}}}

To:

|small={{{small|}}}
|right={{{right|}}}
|demospace={{{demospace|}}}

This allows use of the new pp-meta parameter. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]