Wikipedia talk:Edit requests/Archive 2

The steps in the "Planning a request" section does not seem to reflect how edit requests, at least from the COI side, seem to work. Very few edit requests seem to have started as non-templated discussions on the talk page; people go straight for the template. That is probably because the likelihood of someone seeing a non-templated request is low. Should this page reflect that reality, and if so, in what way? WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 21:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Most people who are restricted from editing (mostly due to low editcount, non-autoconfirmed) don't know what templates are, how they work. However, when someone clicks the "view source" option at the same location as "edit" option, they are taken to a page with a banner giving them instructions to hit the blue button, which creates pre-filled templated section at the bottom. Hence, the straight to template thing. In fact, the template wasn't even visible on mobile devices at all until very recently. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 18:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

If edit requests don't have consensus they can be declined and there is even a templated answer declining and directing the requester to get consensus. Thinker78 (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

As brought up in the previous discussion, no one gets consensus for edit requests. Very few edit requests attempt to establish consensus, and that is also rarely a reason they are denied. This is because it is an unnecessary step. When editors want to add content to an article, they just do it. They don’t have to propose changes on the talk page first. Why do editors suddenly have to get their changes confirmed just because the page is protected? For fully-protected pages, sure, it makes sense to require consensus. But anything else is both not how it actually works right now and unnecessary slowness added to the (already incredibly slow!) process. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I seem no need to do anything here - edit requests are handled by humans, who should have good enough judgement to know whether a request requires a formal consensus or not. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I suppose that’s true, but by that logic, why do we have policies and guidelines? We shouldn’t give what few requesters whom read this page the impression it’s necessary. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 11:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Given the number of requests that don't fully implement WP:EDITXY it seems like suggesting the use of {{TextDiff}} or a similar template might be worthwhile. This might be a useful "stencil" for editors unfamiliar with ERs to use. Thoughts? --N8_wilson 🔔 00:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The huge majority of edit requests don't seem read any of the instructions, so I think asking them to use a template is probably too much. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Rejuvenating the discussion here after the other one got archived after I replied. There are still people who follow these instructions. This argument sounds a bit like the Nirvana fallacy. This proposal also does have benefits lots of times, as it makes the changes clearer, especially when people follow the x to y format and decide to include the entire paragraph just to add a single sentence. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I think the responses on the archived thread cover more than enough reasons not to do this. Added complexity with very few situations where it will be more clear than it is without using the template isn't worth it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I can't think of any situations where using the template makes it less clear, could you give me some pointers? Aaron Liu (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

When the use is inevitably botched by the majority of the vanishingly small minority who will use it, it will make things less clear. You'll notice, however, that I said that there would be very few situations where it would be more clear, not that it would be less clear. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't really get how someone who understands the instructions here can botch understanding the very easy docs of textdiff. There is only one added step(going to and understanding the docs), which amounts to little complexity. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Going from reading no documentation other than what pops up when you try to edit a page you don't have permissions for to having to read up on a template, and figure out what a template is, is a massive increase in complexity which will only dissuade the sliver of those requesting edits that follow the existing instructions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

You don't have to figure out what a template is, you only have to realize that you can magically generate a diff with {{ | . I also didn't understand what your first half sentence(up to the comma) meant. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The first sentence describes the standard work flow now, which is trying to edit a page you can't and being funneled into an edit request, versus what you suggest which involves reading documentation on a template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to make reading the docs mandatory. I just wanted to make this a recommendation on at least this page. It could be extended to the ERW and submit an edit request preloads. So, this recommendation has multiple levels:

1. Recommended on this policy page 2. Recommend in ERW preloads 3. Recommend in {{Submit an edit request}} preloads None of these levels include requiring it. I advocate for all three. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose 3; I've seen too many instances of the literal {{TextDiff|ORIGINAL_TEXT|CHANGED_TEXT]} from {{request edit button}} for me to be convinced that adding it to further preloads is a good idea. Don't really care about 1 and 2. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The page lacks advice on what to do if a request - especially a CoI request - is declined, and the reason the declining editor gives seems to be wrong, unfair, or based on a misreading of ether the request or Wikipedia policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the procedure is to reopen the request, and post a note under the first rejection that you are asking for other editors to give their opinion. Z1720 (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I've tried exactly that, and been reverted and told "Please establish a consensus with editors engaged in the subject area before using the {{Edit COI}} template for this proposed change." Greater clarity about this point would be beneficial. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

If an edit request was declined, unless you make a different one or change that one very much, probably you are going to be reverted if you just copy paste the declined request. You can check the WP:CONSENSUS policy. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn't copy'n'paste the original request. I did exactly as advised above: "reopen the request, and post a note under the first rejection that you are asking for other editors to give their opinion" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing Can you link said situation? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Good question. I think the answer is to follow the dispute resolution process. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I do not know if this is the place to raise this issue, or if it should be checked on somewhere else (if I should ask elsewhere, I would greatly appreciate being pointed in the right direction). But I think the tool that automatically updates Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests might not be functioning currently. Even after purging its cache, it still displays edit requests that I have already responded to and the last entry listed has the date and time of 2023-10-11 10:45. I have looked in on the list briefly several times over the last several hours and haven't noticed any new entries added. --Pinchme123 (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The table at the top is updated by a bot, which is currently down. I've reported it to the bot operator, and he should fix it soon. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the detail! --Pinchme123 (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Yesterday, I made an edit request on Talk:Gaza Strip. I realised I had made a mistake and changed it from "semi-protected" to "extended-protected". It did not appear in Category:Wikipedia extended-confirmed-protected edit requests. In case the change from "semi" to "extended" was the cause, I changed the date and time stamp. It still has not been logged. The thread is currently here. -- 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:EDA4:1631:84EC:506D (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Page Talk:Gaza Strip is categorized into "Wikipedia extended-confirmed-protected edit requests". You can see it under letter "G" at the bottom of this, more specific URL. The table at the top the category page is updated separately from the categorization system. It is updated by a bot. Page "Talk:Gaza Strip" has been added to the table on 9 October 2023 due to section Talk:Gaza Strip § Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 October 2023, and hasn't been moved out of the table since.

The appearance of the page in the category is more or less instantaneous. But the bot takes a while to do its job. There are four "Extended-confirmed-protected edit request" sections on the page right now in various statuses. The bot's table links to the first active request on the page (the part #editextendedprotected in the URL). The bot only detects the first active request on the page. The first active request at the time on writing is the one from 9 October 2023. It is a relatively rare situation to have more than one active request on a talk page like that. That's why the bot doesn't have a feature to detect more than one requests.

I hope this helps. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:9C60:A829:A63D:9DD4 (talk) 09:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Andrybak 2001:4456:C5C:2900:3427:7549:37CD:4396 (talk) 06:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Anthony Quinlan date of birth is the 14th April 1984 his age is 38 not 39 92.11.104.42 (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to add an edit request to Talk:Anthony Quinlan, following the instructions on this page. NotAGenious (talk) 07:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes an edit request is closed with {{subst:ESp|?}}, for the reason that the request is slightly ambiguous, with no further action taken by the responding editor. In some such cases, the suggested material is non-controversial, would improve the article, is reliably sourced, etc. But, it is, again, slightly ambiguous. I'm not a native speaker of English, but I suggest adding to WP:ERREQ something along the lines of: "If you decide to reject a request, that in essence holds merit, simply because it lacks Mona Lisa level perfection, nothing is stopping you from improving the relevant article yourself based on feedback contained within the request." I can give two examples. Although I fear these will be used primarily to point out why requests get rejected or have been taken at heart after all or are exceptions, instead of to better understand what I am suggesting here. Regardless, 1. a dead link, and 2. a production company. I'm not the kind of editor to keep logs of where I've seen what, so you'd have to take my word for it, but I've seen this happen many times. So, my suggestion is to have the information page suggest one additional step if the decision is to reject a request: can I, as the responding editor, still take some kind of action to improve Wikipedia based on this feedback. --62.166.252.25 (talk) 07:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Another, sort of, example here. The responding editor reacts, "In any event, this request is not specific enough - you need to specify the exact wikitext you want to be added and where it should be added - just "please add content about bar" is not enough." --62.166.252.25 (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

"can I, as the responding editor, still take some kind of action to improve Wikipedia based on this feedback." Yes. Any editor may edit any Wikipedia page (unless it's protected). If another editor objects then the edit should (no guarantee that it will) generate discussion of the proposal. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

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

include that you can change parameter from yes to no for declined requests too similar to further info needed section 173.72.3.91 (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but I think what you're proposing is substantially the same as the current wording of the section. Liu1126 (talk) 03:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The transaction consisting of an edit request answered with "Not done" at is the latest such transaction I've seen fitting a pattern that concerns me. I'm talking about cases where the content of the request isn't for a specific edit but, rather, an unremarkable inquiry or suggestion such as one typically sees on talk pages, potentially leading to a constructive discussion. But because the user added it through the edit request mechanism, another user will respond "Not done, we need the specific changes you're requesting", close the request—effectively shutting down the discussion and leaving the original poster hanging, no doubt frustrating them and possibly deterring them from ever bothering again.

I imagine that these are users, possibly brand new to editing, who thought that making an edit request is how you initiate a discussion on the talk page. Instead of shutting them down, it would be helpful for the respondent either to explain that their post is acceptable but that they should remove the template, or else to remove the template on their own. Or perhaps an option could be added for the edit request response parameter to indicate that the contribution is legit but not technically an edit request as Wikipedia defines it, producing a canned message that explains this and invites others to respond as they normally would if the post hadn't been tagged as an edit request. Or maybe there's some other option. Anything other than the slap in the face that's happening now. Largoplazo (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion is not shut down. It's just no longer listed in the place where volunteers go to help with specific, uncontroversial edit requests. Local discussion can continue just as it would if no edit request template were used. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

That isn't how it looks. Think of it from the point of view of the original poster as well as, perhaps, other people. "I think this article could stand improvement in such-and-such an area." "Not done. Please state exactly edits you want made." It comes across as "Go away and don't bother us till you have specific text of your own." The user doesn't know, "Oh, they're responding that way only because I used that template" and no one is explaining that to them. It is not user-friendly. Largoplazo (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm all for increasing the user-friendliness of the template. I don't think the discussion looks closed or shut down. I frequently see discussion continue on declined requests. We might disagree on the problem but agree on a solution. What are you proposing? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The Planning A Request procedure is not very helpful for editors wanting to make an edit it a protected talk page. It would be good if there were a simpler method of making such a request. 2403:6200:8810:F964:B067:4711:4774:5642 (talk) 09:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

If a talk page is also protected, the best one can do is ask someone with an access level capable of editing the page the page to do so via the user's own talk page. 74.65.143.60 (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Requests to edits to a protected talk page may be placed here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for edits to a protected page. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The "Making requests" section stated "If you add a request of several edits at once, too long, too complicated, or behind a paywall, editors might quickly lose interest or might not be able to help. In this case, there are more chances that your request might take a long time, be declined, or go unanswered." The construction of the first sentence was incorrect because it was missing an "is" for "too long" and "too complicated to follow, so I changed the first part of it to "If you add a request that consists of several edits, is too long or too complicated, or ...", but got stuck on the last part because an edit request isn't going to be behind a paywall. I suspect it's meant to cover the case of a source behind a paywall being cited to justify the requested change. The sentence should be further revised to clarify that; I might do that later but wanted to find out first whether anyone disagreed with my understand of the intention here. Largoplazo (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I decided to take a crack at it. Largoplazo (talk) 02:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Occasionally an edit request will be archived while still active, so it stays in the category (and the corresponding list). Is there an appropriate procedure for this? If there is, it should probably be mentioned on this page. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

When I patrolled I would either move out back to the talk page if I thought it would benefit from more attention, or just flip the switch on answered since there was clearly no consensus to implement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I went through the archived requests and closed them, except for one semi-protected request where I wasn't sure if/how it should be answered. If no one objects or beats me to it, I might add a sentence about this procedure to the answering instructions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien I asked the same question at help desk! @ScottishFinnishRadish was kind enough to direct me to this thread, so I've updated the Project page to cover this - of course, anyone should feel free to adjust the wording as they see fit. OXYLYPSE (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

It should probably mention to move it back if you believe the request might be considered or you're going to handle it yourself and flip the switch if you believe the archiving was evidence that there was no consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Updated, thank you for the steer. If it's still not quite right, I won't at all be offended if you rewrite it entirely haha. OXYLYPSE (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a ton for taking care of that. Looks clear enough to me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Could there be a template for editors who are blocked from an article but not its talk page? We usually ask these editors to make edit requests, but the existing templates don't seem accurate. 331dot (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a decent idea. I have a vague feeling that it might end up being abused, but if that's the case the block can be applied to the talk page as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

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

I would like for the following change to be made to this page:

The "Making requests" link does not work, because the R in "Requests" is capitalized. Lowercasing the R will make the link work. 100.7.34.111 (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for spotting that! And yes, this is a great page to Make requests! Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 21:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Most or all of the current partial block requests are by an editor who has since been banned from Wikipedia. Should these be processed as normal, or should they be procedurally closed? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I would say that if you're 100% sure the edit is correct and properly cited (note that the editor in question was known for source misrepresentation which is one of the reasons they were banned) then implement it, but if you have any doubt don't hesitate to decline. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I've cleared the backlog finally, since they aren't any other takers. I did the trivial requests (add an image, add an infobox), and declined everything involving substantive content or references. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion about the popular userscript for addressing edit requests: User talk:Jackmcbarn/editProtectedHelper#Proposal: add "Preview" button. —⁠andrybak (talk) 11:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The list isn't updating which is weird??? Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 17:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to your closing of Talk:Spotify/Archive 2#Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2025. When a {{Edit semi-protected|answered=no}} changes to {{Edit semi-protected|answered=yes}}, the Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests updates pretty much immediately.

However, the big table at User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable (which you can also see on the category's page) is updated by a bot, which doesn't happen immediately. Instead, it is updated whenever the bot is launched the next time. Judging by the page's history, the bot runs pretty often, e.g. yesterday it updated the page 46 times. —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

how is it possible to do this? a user would need to make an edit to actually communicate with others, before being allowed to edit Sachdev Penrose (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Simple, you start a discussion on the article's talk page with your concerns and once a consensus is reached then use the template to request the change. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:31, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

It's the article that's protected, not (usually) the associated talk page where both edit requests and discussions go. Largoplazo (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

There is "If you are a newer user, it is recommended that you use the edit request wizard. The wizard guides you through the process of making the edit request." Linking to Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard There is literally nothing there. 94.246.147.217 (talk) 12:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

The whole url is not needed when linking, I fixed this.

The edit request wizard is linked to in the first paragraph. 331dot (talk) 12:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

In this page it reads "Instead, these editors are encouraged to submit an edit request on the article's talk page using the designated form below. " And it leads back here. 94.246.147.217 (talk) 12:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I got it now. The text ended with a talk about "Consulting the guide to effective COI edit requests" and I thought what follows then is just this guide (because it talks about that). Someone should write to the effect "Starting the different templates" over the templates that are just buttons to click and not really templates. No, it's not obvious. 94.246.147.217 (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

You should post this at Wikipedia talk:Edit Request Wizard since that is where the issue is, but I'm not sure how it can be more clearly indicated that those are buttons to click. 331dot (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

It's really, really not obvious. And you should just simply post the templates to copy/paste. If not there, then just over here.

Also also - it didn't even help me at all, as it was neither of these 3 cases (the article isn't actually protected, but I was repeatedly reverted just because I was deemed unworthy for not being an "extended-confirmed editor": Talk:Toretsk / ). 94.246.147.217 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, editing about the war in Ukraine is a formally designated contentious topic; you can't edit about it directly irrespective of whether the article is protected or not.

It's up to you to go to the proper forum to discuss your grievance. 331dot (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I can't tell you what is obvious or not to you, but I'm not sure what can be done to make it clearer that those are buttons to click; such buttons are common across the internet. 331dot (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

And this is why I wanted to request an edit! (The edit to restore my edits, after a review of them.) But I can't because no on one even imagined that anyone would ever request an edit in such a case somehow. You should fix it.

Meanwhile I had to go there because your own template sent me there (because it's not a formally protected article, and thus one can't simply request an edit normally): Wikipedia:Teahouse 94.246.147.217 (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I guess you are saying that the article actually needs to be protected for the wizard to work; i manually marked your edit as a request. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

The template said "If you are still having problems editing it, please ask for advice at WP:TEAHOUSE."; you did not ask for advice; you explicitly said that you were not asking a question, but for someone to make a revert on your behalf. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Possibly of interest: I put together https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/95398, which shows pages whose talk pages you have edited that have edit request categories. This is a rough approximation of edit requests you have been involved in, which in at least my case seems to reflect reality pretty well. Rusalkii (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Am I understanding this correctly? If someone wants to find all edit requests that they've been involved in, I guess this is a start, better than starting with a list of all the talk pages I've ever edited. But if I've edited 500 pages that, today, are in an edit request category, so that your query returns 500 pages for me, and I personally had never dealt with an edit request, then that would be 500 versus zero. The only thing the 500 tells me about the number of pages with edit requests that I've dealt with is that the latter is no greater than 500. Largoplazo (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. In my case, I answer a lot of requests and don't edit talk pages of pages that happen to be in the category because someone else answered a request very often, so the query is pretty close to correct. If you're the opposite, it probably won't be very helpful. Unfortunately I couldn't think of any filter that threw fewer false positives. Rusalkii (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

There seem to be a lot of people who are putting in COI edit requests as {{edit request|COI=yes}}. This is putting it in the semi-protected queue, not the COI queue. Any idea either 1) if there is a way to fix that or 2) where people are seeing the instruction to put the request in that way (I see it enough, I feel like it has to be in some instruction somewhere) so that we can update to tell people to use {{Edit COI}} instead. Thanks! meamemg (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

What edit request template may I use if I want to have a correction made to a page that I am not permitted to edit, but is not technically protected? In particular, I wanted to correct a minor error in an Evidence page for an ArbCom case when the Evidence is closed. The page was not technically protected, but I was trying to request an edit that I was not permitted to make. I was advised by an arbitrator simply to note the issue in the Analysis of Evidence (which is open), but this issue may arise again, for instance, if an editor has been topic-banned from a topic but is not partially blocked. What should I do in such a case? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Topic bans typically cover the associated talk pages, so my understanding of such bans is that it would be inappropriate to request the edit anywhere. meamemg (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

In general if someone is topic banned from a subject, that would include making edit requests about the topic - so the answer would be none, just ignore it and move along. For very special pages like those managed by arbcom and their clerks, do whatever they say. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:09, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I didn't provide a good example. I see that topic-banned editors are an entirely different matter than editors who aren't allowed to edit a page because the page was marked off. My original question had to do with the evidence page in an ArbCom case. It more generally has to do with a page which, for any reason, the editor isn't allowed to edit, but is technically able to edit. My question is whether there is an edit request template that I can use in such a case. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Not everything has, or needs a special "template" - I'm not aware of any for that niche situation. If you have a topic ban that allows use of talk pages on the topic, you can just discuss improvements to the page on its talk page. I suppose you could place the talk page in a category such as Category:Wikipedia partial-block edit requests to try to get attention of any editor. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:02, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Could a list of shortcuts be added to this page, similar to other policy pages? {{Shortcut|WP:ER|WP:EREQ|WP:EDITREQ}} 208.114.63.4 (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Done in Special:Diff/1310611239. —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Module talk:Protected edit request § Changing default icon. FaviFake (talk) 10:27, 15 November 2025 (UTC) FaviFake (talk) 10:27, 15 November 2025 (UTC)