Template talk:Protected page text

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Edit protected 12 Sept 2025

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]

Interface-protected edit request on 5 November 2025

This edit request to Template:Protected page text/interface has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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]

Protected edit request on 16 November 2025

This edit request to Template:Protected page text/user-json has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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]

Protected edit request on 4 December 2025

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]

Protected edit request on 19 December 2025

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

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]

Done the second. I'm not convinced the first is necessary; people who are extended-confirmed have enough experience that they should know they need to log in. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:50, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]