MediaWiki talk:Protectedpagetext

Protected edit request on 11 July 2021

Make sure the other protected notice [if the page is protected again by admistrators, not the CSS/JS/JSON message] is removed because the page is already protected no matter what. أحمدمحمدرمضانسعيد Day 1/30 of editing 17 times a day (talk) 08:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done it is not clear what edit you want to make, please mock up your suggested change in MediaWiki talk:Protectedpagetext/sandbox then reactivate the edit request. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Someone did something

Someone replaced the edit with $2 HelpmePlsWhy (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done it is not clear what edit you want to make, please mock up your suggested change in MediaWiki talk:Protectedpagetext/sandbox then reactivate the edit request.Pavlov2 (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2022

Someone replaced the edit word with $2 I need to replace that with editHelpmePlsWhy (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

it was April 1st what were you expecting buddy Usersnipedname (talk) 05:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The joke seems to have run its course. Testtubewaltz (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done, what are you requesting?Pavlov2 (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 December 2025

Is it safe yet to implement the changes I made in /sandbox (modelled off of MediaWiki:Protectedinterface)? Since user CSS/JS(ON) pages are already automatically interface-protected, it's redundant to display another protection message if the page is also full-, template-, extended-confirmed- or semi-protected by an administrator. 2600 etc (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

First off the links in the comment in the sandbox are broken. Second off, is this really necessary? The situation where a page is both a user CSS/JS?/JSON page and manually protected seems rare enough I'm inclined to not care. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:53, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Links to editnotices for template editors and page movers

As a non-admin, I cannot edit Portal:Current events. As a template editor, I can edit Template:Editnotices/Page/Portal:Current events. However, if I view the source of Portal:Current events, I don't see a link to Template:Editnotices/Page/Portal:Current events, because it is actually being loaded by MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext through the redirect Template:Editnotices/Protection/Portal:Current eventsTemplate:Editnotices/Protection/Portal:Current events, instead of the "usual" way the editnotices are loaded by Template:Editnotice load.

It would be nice to also have these links to editnotices here in MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext. Maybe this page could even use {{Editnotice load/core|pagenotice=Template:Editnotices/Protection/{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}, but the /core template does not support taking $1 and $2 as parameters and passing them to the protection editnotice. Alternatively, the wikitext which generates the links (parts of Template:Editnotice load/core with the CSS classes sysop-show templateeditor-show extendedmover-show) could be adapted here without using the /core template.

Another, more weird example is Main Page: I am allowed to edit Template:Editnotices/Page/Main Page, but because I am not an admin, I never see the editnotice, so there is no "opportunity" to show the links to it to me. Not an example of what's being discussed, see below. —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

This applies to users in the page mover and the template editor groups, both of which are allowed to edit editnotices. This also applies to the page MediaWiki:Cascadeprotected.

Footnotes

—⁠andrybak (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

A protection notice (under Template:Editnotices/Protection/) is not the same thing as an edit notice (under Template:Editnotices/Page/). It's used for cases where the default message is somehow inappropriate, often for cases where people somehow wind up trying to edit a protected template when trying to edit an article, and then the usual "submit an edit request" results in misplaced edit requests on the template's talk page. I don't know that also displaying the edit notice (if one also exists) alongside the custom protection notice would always be appropriate (and when people do want that, they could add {{#switch:{{{2}}}|edit|create={{editnotice load|notice action = view}}}} into their custom protection notice), and linking to one when it's not displayed would be confusing and probably pointless.

Similarly, I don't know how useful it would be to have a "Protection notice" link from every protected page. Your own confusion suggests that it might result in unnecessary and incorrect overrides of the standard protection notice. For custom notices, if only shown to people who could edit the notice, 🤷 I guess having such a link would be unlikely to do harm. Anomie⚔ 16:46, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Your own confusion suggests that it might result in unnecessary and incorrect overrides of the standard protection notice. do you mean if a red link is shown? I think it makes sense showing the link only when the custom protection notice exists already, because it is a rare use case – just 52 subpages exist right now under Template:Editnotices/Protection/.

As for confusion between the two types – thank you for the clarification, it's helpful. I indeed confused non-existent Template:Editnotices/Protection/Main Page with Template:Editnotices/Page/Main Page in the process of writing the message above. —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2025 (UTC)