Template talk:Protected page text: Difference between revisions

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

Change Wikipedia:User access levels to Wikipedia:User groups, as the former is a redirect to the latter, like this:

CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 11:07, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done WP:NOTBROKEN. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 14:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi there. On {{Protected page text/user-json}} the padlock is incorrect. It shows a full protection padlock, but it should be an interface-protected padlock too. Since per WP:INTPROT, Creating, modifying, moving, or undeleting any personal CSS or JavaScript pages located within an account’s user space – such as User:Example/monobook.css and User:Example/vector-2022.js – is restricted to the associated user and interface administrators.. Maybe also clarify this by changing the display text for the link to [[Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Permanent_protection|interface-protected]] unless that would be too confusing for the reader.

I assume we have a local exception for this, as the default setup with MediaWiki is ‘edituserjson’ is given to user, sysop and interface? waddie96 ★ (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Pretty sure this is working as expected, JSON can be edited by interface admins and admins Sohom (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, but F for full on a gold padlock… but it’s interface protected waddie96 ★ (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s replace [[User:...]] with {{user link|...}}, which removes the word User:. 2600 etc (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We could just put a pipe there, but in this specific case it may be useful to make it clear that this is referring to an actual User, and not just something that is the name of the user. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:27, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prior discussion at Template_talk:Protected_page_text/Archive_1#Protected_edit_request_on_7_August_2020. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 18:51, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m inclined to agree with Xaoflux’s comments back in 2020 and here that the current situation is fine. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 02:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we remove the word currently, just as done with /interface? User JSON pages cannot be unprotected. Also, I suggest we add a [[User:]] link. ~2025-34400-88 (talk) 01:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 21:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add some periods after the end of these four sentences, and lowercase the two links on sentences 2 and 3:

Thanks. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 15:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 01:49, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why don’t we adapt the {{{login-message}}} for {{Protected page text/extendedconfirmed}} (30 days and 500 edits)? 2600 etc (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another edit request: Let’s also add the {{{template-links}}} to the Module namespace. 2600 etc (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]