Wikipedia talk:Edit requests/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Procedure

This section should note that it isn't necessary to get consensus for obviously correct changes, such as typos or disambiguating links. I'm not sure how to word it though. Thryduulf (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This is already covered in Wikipedia:Edit requests#General considerations, point #4. Uncontroversial requests don't need to wait for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I've added a note to make that clearer though. Rd232 ^talk 16:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 February 2012

can you please tell me how we can get something removed that has been put on wilkpedia and is totally untrue and very damaging .we have no idea who ha written this article and would appreciate some help the article has been on the site for the past 4 years and is very distressing my e mail address is (Redacted)

80.189.8.1 (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Please make your request at the Help Desk. You'll need to provide the title of the article for anyone to help you. I've redacted your email address to save you from spambots. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 May 2012

YouTube has created an Edit Info, Enhancements, and Annotations page for account users to experience. Under the Enhancements tab, the user can utilize "Quick Fixes", where they can Trim and Stabilize their uploaded footage. Under the effects page the user has the option to customize their video with Black and White, HDR-ish, Cross Process, Lomo-ish, Old-Fashioned, Cartoon, 1960's, Sepia, Autotropic, Thermal, Heat Map, Mixelate, Neon Green, and Neon Pink. The user also has the option to add in annotations, and captions and or transcripts to the audio track. t

Alkessler (talk) 05:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is the talk page for the edit request system, it is not the place to request edits to specific articles, please do that on the article talk page. Monty₈₄₅ 05:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggested guidelines are too stringent

The majority of pages seem to be s-protected because of vandalism, not because of edit wars. Therefore I am inclined (and I believe it would be wise for everyone to be inclined) to perform any reasonable edit essentially as a WP:BRD so long as the article is not subject to sanctions or in the midst of a controversial edit war.

Methinks the policy should be updated to reflect that. Meanwhile, I'm going to continue my edits unless there's a consensus I really shouldn't be, as I believe they are within the spirit of this policy - just not currently the letter.

Your thoughts are welcome. Egg Centric 20:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes I think I would agree with your interpretation of the spirit of the policy :) I even fulfil requests for WP:BOLD edits on fully-protected pages unless I have reason to suspect the change will be controversial. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I also agree. I tend to accept most edits that I wouldn't have reverted, had I seen them made in my own watchlist, assuming there's nothing about the page's history that says I shouldn't. The backlogs in CAT:ESP are simply too long too often to expect responders to do otherwise. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 01:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Need for single-level user page warning template

At WP:WARN there's a section for single-level warning templates, many of which aren't warnings as such, but information in a succinct package to address frequently occurring situations where users err vis-à-vis correct practices. I have noticed that very many people when using the editprotected template don't follow the guidelines with giving exact instructions for the changes they want to have made. Perhaps such a warning template as I've discussed here would be useful for these cases? (And, perhaps also the instructions for using the editprotected template could be made even more explicit as well?) __meco (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

COI request edits

I worked with a couple other editors to substantially expand the {{request edit}} tool for COI requested edits to create more of an AFC-like template process for submissions and feedback.

You can see all the new templates here and the documentation [[Template:Request_edit | here]. It now has new decline and accept templates.

I created some instructions here that provide submitters and reviewers with basic instructions, but I'm not sure where to put it. I was wondering if people thought "Edit requests/request edits" would be a good spot for it, with a link to it in the request edit page under See Also. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 16:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 September 2012

Isn't it more correct to say that Buddhism is a philosophy instead of a religion, because a religion is where a distinct God entity exists (e.g. Vishnu in Hinduism, Allah in Islam etc.) whereas Buddhism is monotheistic, in terms that there is no God character whom Buddhists worship (knowing Buddha isn't God himself)? 78.130.225.35 (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Edit requests. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Mark answered request discussions as "Do not modify"

Would it not be a good idea for the {{edit protected}} and {{Edit semi-protected}} templates to mark a discussion as Do not modify when the template is set to answered=yes? Is there a legitimate reason for the discussion to continue once it has been answered? —gorgan_almighty (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Make clear the distinction between how to respond to fully-protected and semi-protected pages

I'd like to suggest that this page be modified to provide clear guidance to editors responding to Edit Requests for semi-protected pages. My understanding is that any editor, be he an ip or a registered editor, is entitled to make any edit to a semi-protected page as long as the edit is within policy.

If that understanding is correct, then I think we should update the page. Registered editors who edit semi-protected pages don't need to get consensus before they make an edit, they apply BRD. Non-registered users shouldn't need to get consensus before making updates to semi-protected pages. Similarly, when an a registered user makes an edit to a semi-protected page, the sole judge of whether or not the edit is "sensible" is the editor himself.

In short, if it is true that an ip editor is entitled to make any edit to a semi-protected page that a registered user could legitimately make, then this page should precisely that, nothing more, nothing less. 80.174.78.40 (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Module:Edit request

I've almost finished writing Module:Edit request, which would replace this template. It is designed to assign categories based on the actual protection status of a page. If you are interested in discussing this, there is a thread at Template talk:Edit protected#Module:Edit request in which you are invited to take part. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Announcing edit requests for template-protected pages

You may be interested to know that we now have a new template, {{edit template-protected}}, for making edit requests to template-protected pages. These requests can be viewed at Category:Wikipedia template-protected edit requests, and can be answered by any editor with the template editor user right. There is also an annotated list of edit requests automatically updated by AnomieBOT at User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable. You can put this on your watchlist to see when new requests have been made. Editors with the template editor right are enthusiastically encouraged to help answer the requests. :) You can see guidelines for answering requests at Wikipedia:Edit requests#Responding to requests. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

JavaScript edit requests

See template talk:JavaScript where a new edit request template has been proposed -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

More welcoming response

I noticed an edit request response to a new user that I thought was pretty 'chilly' in tone, considering the request was constructive and this was the requester's first edit. Responses to edit requests might be a good opportunity to welcome new users, especially when the requests are substantive. I propose that identifying and welcoming new users be suggested as part of the instructions on this page. Also, maybe something could also be done to improve the the templates in this direction, for example, a 'new user' field could be added to the templates, which would 1) prompt responders to optionally check for new users, and 2) when switched, triggers a welcome as part of the response. Any thoughts? LaTeeDa (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep. The current {{ESp}} templates encourage very brief responses, which keep talk pages orderly but fail to provide a welcoming tone to new contributors. At the very least, everyone who lodges a sensible request should be thanked for doing so, and requesters with accounts should get a welcome at their talk page. Wikipedia:Edit_requests#Responding_to_requests could easily be updated with these points. I guess a template field like you describe might be useful for IPs who may never see a welcome at their own talk page. I think a short personal note is better, though, especially at popular pages where you could otherwise see the same template welcome message given time after time to different requesters. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You can try to contact Wikepidia creators — Preceding unsigned comment added by BEASTY73 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

the "Submit an edit request" link has gone walkabout

Hi, In the section Making requests there is described a "Submit an edit request" link at the bottom right of the View Source page of a protected page. I have put on my best glasses and I can't see the link at {{Census 2006 AUS}}. Is it time for new glasses? ;-) Please advise. --Bleakcomb (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@Bleakcomb: It's appearing fine for me - here's a screenshot. Do you see the blue box that I have highlighted in red? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Mr. Stradivarius, here is what I see. --Bleakcomb (talk) 07:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

What language do you have set in your preferences? It might be that you have a language set that we don't have a localisation message for. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking something similar. I was searching preferences for something that would block it. Language is en-GB. Changing to en fixed it. Wow, roundly disadvantaged for not speaking American! Thanks for your kind attention. --Bleakcomb (talk) 09:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Glad that you managed to fix the problem. Actually, "en" doesn't equate to American English - that would be "en-US". It just means a general kind of English. The real problem here is that en-GB messages don't fall back to en messages, but I'm not sure how that is best fixed. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Besides en and en-GB, there is en-CA. Three language variants means three sets of messages, and when an admin has a request to update a given message, they usually only amend the "en" one - either because they don't know about the others; they don't care about the others; they don't have time to update the others (hey, somebody else is bound to notice it someday and fix it if they really want to) or they simply forgot. As noted several times at WP:VPT, if you set your language to "en" you'll get the latest versions of the system messages, and the "en" messages are almost always understandable by a Brit (or a Canadian) - after all, the language setting doesn't affect article text, where quirks like tomato/tomato, color/colour, sidewalk/pavement present little difficulty. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

I made my first edit request. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2014

can you change Arabian peninsula to India because harem pants actually originated in India.

thank you Desert jasmine (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Desert jasmine: welcome to Wikipedia! It looks like your edit request is about the article Harem pants; if you are having trouble at that article, make sure that you have a citation from a reliable source for the fact that you want to change, and try and work with the other editors at the article to find a consensus. If you have trouble, feel free to ask me for advice on my talk page. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Locked talk pages

This article did not seem to say what should be done in the case of a talk page which has been semi-protected when an anonymous/IP/new editor wants to make an edit to it. This is relevant at the moment because talk:Gamergate controversy has been protected from IPs/new editors, and some folks are asking me on Twitter how to ask that the page be edited on their behalf. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

View source link

The "Making requests" section states "The simplest approach for edit requests for fully protected, template-protected or semi-protected pages is to use the View source tab on that page and use the "Submit an edit request" link at the bottom right." I tried doing this for the protected article "Electronic cigarette", but I could not find such a link. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The big blue "Submit an edit request" button is there for me on that article. Note that it is at the bottom right of the editnotice, rather than at the bottom right of the whole page. SiBr₄ (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

As noted above, the entire editnotice is only present in the default en system language, not in en-GB and en-CA. That may be the problem here. SiBr₄ (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

In that case, that information should be made clear in the "Making requests" section. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2015

I would be very satisfied if you would be willing to grant my request. I have very important information about certain topics that my be of use to some people. I believe I can make Wikipedia even better for researches and researchers. Thank you for considering my request. 207.118.241.89 (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mlpearc: A better response would be {{subst:ESp|mis}} --Redrose64 (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I know it's mis-placed but, does the editor ? Mlpearc (open channel) 22:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Some people (quite a lot, actually) post here under the misapprehension that this is the place to file requests for page edits. The message yielded by {{subst:ESp|mis}} "this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Edit requests" directly addresses that. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I was thinking if we could find out what the editor wanted to change, it would be easier and faster to direct them to the correct place. :P Mlpearc (open channel) 22:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Renaming a category

I have proposed that Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests be renamed to Category:Wikipedia fully-protected edit requests. Please comment at the CfD. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2015

On your page TELFORD GOLD MEDAL AWARDS

87.66.112.251 (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Edit requests. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2015

2007 Telford Gold Medal Award : Michael B. Abbott for his paper "Managing the inner world of infrastructure".

87.66.112.251 (talk) 13:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Edit requests. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

protection help

 Not done as you are in the wrong place, since this page is only to discuss improvements to Wikipedia:Edit requests.
Requests for page protection must be made at WP:Requests for page protection - Arjayay (talk) 11:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2015

please add info on the main page about Louisiana Theater Shooting A8v (talk) 11:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: try Talk:Main Page or Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates Cannolis (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Kapil Sharma ( comedian ) profile picture edit request on 12 August 2015

Please change the Kapil Sharma ( comedian ) existing profile photo to a new photo because the existing one is not that good. This is the link for the good photo of Kapil Sharma. 248964-kapil4.jpg Ayman gunner (talk) 12:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload.
Once the file has been uploaded, make your request on the talk page of the relevant article - not here - as this page is only to discuss improvements to Wikipedia:Edit requests.
Please note that the picture must not be copyright, which excludes almost all images on the internet, in magazines etc., and you will need proof that it is not copyright, just saying it is not copyright is not acceptable. - Arjayay (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2015

I need to update the new Prism Certification in China, Katy already sell over 15000 albums and gain a gold certification in China! Resource: http://news.xinhuanet.com/overseas/2014-01/13/c_125993613.htm Chemoocai (talk) 11:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Chemoocai: Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Edit requests. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Rudolf Abel Article

Would I be able to get the Rudolf Abel Article semi-locked for 72 hours so I clear up the deletions and constant users' changing things while I'm trying to get the users to talk about them prior to editing since the recent movie release "Bridge of Spies" as brought the article under scrutiny. Adamdaley (talk) 07:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Adamdaley: The usual place for requests like this is Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2015

ronaldo is born on the 20th of march

31.187.5.148 (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Edit requests. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. --Stabila711 (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Editnotice

Maybe an editnotice would help discourage missed-placed requests. Mlpearc (open channel) 04:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Mlpearc, I agree, I've added one modelled on {{EP|mis}}. I think that covers what's needed. Bazj (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Great, I adjusted a link but, this will work for me. Mlpearc (open channel) 15:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Prior consensus required??

In the lead:

... consensus should be obtained before formally making the request.

Wrong. This places a burden on unconfirmed editors that does not exist for autoconfirmed, per WP:BOLD. This, added to the burden of having to write the edit request in the first place. I have never seen that clause enforced in the real world, probably because people know better than to do so. It seriously needs removal. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I won't make any edit to a protected page without demonstrated consensus unless I judge it to be uncontroversial. However WP:SILENCE sometimes applies. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Your first sentence seems consistent with guidance at BOLD (and that applies whether or not the page is protected). But the instruction above says nothing about how controversial the edit is. It says get consensus first. The only thing that would make it more emphatic would be to change "should" to "must", a word that almost never occurs in Wikipedia guidance. I don't understand the SILENCE reference, but that suffers from OAE disease anyway (only an essay). ―Mandruss ☎ 10:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the guidance at Wikipedia:Edit_requests#Responding_to_requests is much better: "edits likely to be controversial should have prior consensus". I see no reason protection per se should have any bearing on the need to get consensus first rather than simply WP:BOLDly requesting an improvement. The exception would be if the requested edit somehow related to the reason for protection, but the most common reason for (semi-)protection seems to just be vandalism. I've edited the text quoted at top of thread to

consensus should be obtained before requesting changes that are likely to be controversial.

Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll try and expand on my comment above, but it's difficult as every situation is different and a lot of judgement is exercised on a case-by-case basis. If the request is related to the reason an article is protected, then the purpose of the protection was to stop the edit warring and encourage discussion, so consensus is absolutely required in these cases. For a protected template, we should try to prevent disruption caused by unnecessary edits and reverts which add to confusion and server load. For example I will not add a parameter to an infobox unless consensus is demonstrated. In many cases, especially for minor changes, if a proposal is made on the talk page and attracts no comment from other editors within a few days, I will assume silent consensus and make the change. I basically agree with Adrian J. Hunter's comments: I will not make a change to a protected pages that I reasonably suspect may be reverted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2016

Please change "Swami Aseemanand is a former Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) activist from India" to "Swami Aseemanand is an extremist from India". Kindly remove the name of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)from the wikipedia of Aseemananda. He is not an activist and National Intelligence Agency of India has made it clear that RSS has no role in the bomb blasts.

http://samvada.org/2013/news/rss-or-its-functionary-indresh-kumar-has-no-role-in-malegaon-blast-case-says-nia/ 117.211.90.26 (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC) 117.211.90.26 (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Edit requests. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Glitches?

There are three edit requests that appear to be glitches. They lead to Coffee's user pages, but the page titles suggest this isn't where they're meant to go. Not sure what the source of this is. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2016

Please put the review article from the UAE premier show Link - http://jaigangaajalfullmovie.com/2016/03/02/jai-gangaajal-movie-review/ Prakashjha04 (talk) 03:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Edit requests. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Mlpearc (open channel) 04:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2016

223.227.19.40 (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Edit requests. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Mlpearc (open channel) 14:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Query

Does non-reply for a request means its rejection? If no-one oppose to a request, does that not mean that such an edit can be made? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo: - There are a great many variables; is the hypothetical request trivial or controversial - for an article or template - fully or semi protected - specialist or commonplace subject or namespace - etc.? Speaking personally, I may respond to a request and simply be so unfamiliar with the subject that I cannot, in good conscience, get involved (at that time). In the case of (hypothetically) a request being made to edit a fully protected article about a controversial specialist subject, it's possible that at any given time, no attending editors or administrators may be confident to handle the request (we're all just people after all), and it may take some time before the request is brought to the attention of someone who is. The long and the short of it is: be patient, but don't be afraid to cough loudly if the request is clearly being overlooked; and "no" - not getting a response is neither a denial nor an acceptance. If the criteria for the edit are met i.e. consensus where needed and a clear and easy to follow specificity in the request is provided, any editor confident to handle the request should mark the request as answered and provide feedback about it. A lack of response is either a forgivable oversight or indication of any number of possibilities (just touched on), but should not be considered an indication that it's denied, accepted or ignored. fredgandt 00:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Fred Gandt Thanks for the reply. In case of move requests, non-objection / reply, the page is moved to the proposed title. I proposed to make an edit in the template here. But the request was first rejected based on the non-reply first, then the editor starting pouring in reasons for rejections which were contrary to what others in the discussion were saying. Till now the edit has not been made. Can you please have a look at the discussion and give your neutral opinion. Thanks again. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 13:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia About Page

The Wikipedia About page needs a section on security of wikipedia. The about page is locked. In order to request a change, you have to go to the talk page. The talk page is locked. The following information is a starting point for explaining to users the HTTPS security of Wikipedia, in lay terms, not in scientific terms like the HTTPS page. The following awkward passage from Quora would be a good start:

"The root domain (wikipedia.org) can be inferred from the IP address of the server during the TCP/IP request but the complete URL and exact page the visitor is reading cannot."

The fact that the Wikipedia About page cannot be edited also explains why it is such a poorly written article and not up to Wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.1.100.226 (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2016

WP:ER is a shortcut that redirects here.

86.22.8.235 (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done as you have made no request - the first line of the hatnote already states - "WP:ER" redirects here - Arjayay (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Deleting a section of a profile

Hi I am looking to delete a section of my own Wikipedia page so my account is only football related and nothing to do with my private life, or at least have the correct information on it Klafferty10 (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Responses to edit request

I've noticed that on some edit requests, for instance Talk:FaZe_Clan, many edit requests are just flat-out denied due to the lack of sources provided. Instead of just dismissing all of these, would it be reasonable to ask that editors try to first do research to see if there is any truth behind the request?--Prisencolin (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Rejected edit requests

Is it general that I should resubmit an edit request when someone does a drive by denial without discussion or without reasons, or is changing the tag sufficient? I did this, but now my edit requests are being ignored. I provided reasons, and got back a response that they thought the text was okay, even though it's unsourced, which I pointed out, undeveloped, which I pointed out, and not covered anywhere else on Wikipedia, which I pointed out, and probably due to the first two.

Generally, should I repeat edit request or change tag?

Thanks. --2601:648:8503:4467:F8A3:878A:2E5F:4D3C (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

So, this just blocks articles

... and no on edits them?

--2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:C3 (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2017

The following is ambiguaous and contains unnecessary, irrellevant or unexplained information. "The company's name originated from the four founding Warner brothers (born Wonskolaser or Wonsal before Anglicization):[7][8] Harry, Albert, Sam, and Jack Warner. They emigrated as young children with their parents to Canada from Krasnosielc which was located in the part of Congress Poland that had been subjugated to the Russian Empire following the eighteenth-century Partitions of Poland near present-day Ostrołęka.

Jack, the youngest, was born in London, Ontario.

This suggest that ALL four brothers were born in Poland but the next line "Jack, the youngest, was born in London, Ontario" partially contradicts this.

I suggest changing it to something like:

The company name "Warner Brothers, (in full (1923–69) Warner Brothers Pictures, Inc., or (from 1969) Warner Bros. Inc. originated from the four founding Warner brothers (possibly born Wonskolaser or Wonsal): Hirsch "Harry" (b. Dec. 12, 1881, Poland—d. July 25, 1958, Hollywood, Calif., U.S.), Albert (b. July 23, 1884, Poland—d. Nov. 26, 1967, Miami Beach, Fla., U.S.), Samuel "Sam" Louis (b. Aug 10 1887, Krasnosielc, Poland-d Oct. 5 1927, Los Angeles, Calif,.U.S.), and Jacob "Jack" Leonard Warner (b. August 2, 1892 London, Ontario, Canada– d Sept 9, 1978 Los Angeles, Calif., U.S.). The three eldest brothers, Harry, Albert and Sam emigrated as young children with their parents to Canada from Krasnosielc in Poland. Jack, the youngest, was born in London, Ontario, Canada.

This improves the syntax, accuracy and brevity of the entry as well as removing irrelevant/ambiguaus information regarding the geographical/political situation in Poland. If the words "which was located in the part of Congress Poland that had been subjugated to the Russian Empire following the eighteenth-century Partitions of Poland near present-day Ostrołęka" are relevant then further explaination is required to explain why it is relevant and the situation they were fleeing. Sharkey22 (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Edit requests. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit requests for Wall Street Journal External link "fixes"

Edit requests have been recently posted here for changes to high-profile pages (e.g., Talk:Bill Clinton, Talk:Taco Bell, Talk:Best Buy, Talk:Starbucks, etc.) with the request to change Wall Street Journal links from "https://online.wsj...." to "http://online.wsj...." The requests are usually phrased at first as simply a request to "change them back" to the http version. See, for example, this recent example. Editors responding to these requests need to be aware of the following:

1. The change from http to https was done as an approved bot edit by Bender the Bot. You can see the approval for these bot edits here and the overall task gained community approval at the Village Pump. Changing them back is against consensus.
2. The change from http to http does not "break the link," as the IP editor will often claim (see here, for example). Wall Street Journal articles are behind a paywall, no matter which form of link is used. The only difference in action is whether the reader gets a small preview or not. If the link is http:, the user receives a preview page that has the headers, the headline, the byline, and the first three or four lines of article text. The rest of the page is obscured and the reader is told "TO READ THE FULL STORY:" and given a choice of "Subscribe" or "Sign In ". If the link is https: and the reader has previewed more than a small number of WSJ articles that month, then they will see immediately the sign-in page with no preview. In neither case can the reader see enough of the page to assist verification of the Wikipedia article's claims. Changing them back is not useful.
3. The user making these requests will quickly become abusive and engage in vandalism in pursuit of their requests. Much of this abuse has been revdel'ed but the edit summary for this edit should give you all the flavor of the abuse needed. This thread on ANI and this SPI archive are also relevant. Changing the links or engaging the IP editor only encourages their trolling.

If you see these edit requests, please do not answer them. I would recommend removing the edit request and reporting them to SPI. Linking to the ANI linked above and to this as evidence of quacking is encouraged. Page protection of the talk page may also become necessary, as has been done already on some of their targets.

@NeilN and NinjaRobotPirate: Courtesy pings to administrators who have dealt with many of these events. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, that's Nate Speed (talk · contribs). He's a pain in the ass, and I wish the WMF would send him a cease-and-desist letter. He uses webhosts and open proxies to evade his block, and his edit summaries are usually nothing but whiny, violent threats. Lengthy semi-protection and range blocks will briefly mitigate his disruption. The WMF has promised more tools to fight against sock puppetry and abuse, so maybe we'll have something better eventually. I would agree that engaging with him is pointless, and you should just contact an admin to block him. I have his SPI watchlisted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Blank requests

Shouldn't there be a mention of not leaving edit requests blank when using the templates? I keep noticing a heavy amount of IPs using the edit protected templates, but only leaving a signature afterward. No request. Especially in Talk:List of programs broadcast by TV Land, which is cluttered with blank requests.

I'm gonna offer a friendly ping to @Eggishorn, JJMC89, and NotTheFakeJTP, who I know are a few editors that may have dealt with this kind of issue before, especially individual requests of this nature. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I find these slightly annoying but I have to admit these were quite a bit more annoying to review before I installed EditProtectedHelper. EPH means I hit one click for "Needs X to Y" for these and the script takes care of the rest for me. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I tend to remove blank requests to stop them cluttering the talk pages, and stick a {{uw-test1}} on the editor's talk page. Adding to the instructions won't work, as they're clearly not reading them. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Certification change requests

Seems Никита-Родин-2002 has been very brutal about edit requests to extended-confirmed music articles; a new IP or user keeps popping up almost daily on these articles' talk pages, such as Green Day discography and related articles, The Who discography and related articles, etc. just to make an edit request of a form similar to: "Can you change the certification from Yx platinum to Zx platinum?" (Z usually a higher certification) and providing an unreliable link to back it up (same for changes to sales figures.) I'm just going to put out a warning: if you spot these types of requests, do not respond. Instead, just revert the request, ignore them, and report them immediately for evasion; they might be a sock or meat puppet of the blocked user. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2017

Add Sarah Paulson's to the Glass part of the 2019 in film section as M night shymalan recently announced she just joined the film, please CarloJose1718 (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the edit request process. Please make your request on the talk page of the appropriate page (Sarah Paulson, I think?). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Rectors Falkland Islands

The above Wikipedia article lists Harry Bagnall as first Rector. Under the new Cathedral constitution of 1978 The first Rector was myself, the Rev'd Gerald Smith. This document should be in the Cathedral safe and in F I Government records and those of the Archbishop of Canterbury. This appointment obviates a potential schism of what was then a Colonial bishopric. Previous attempts to correct this have failed due to the intricacies of Wikipedia editing procedures. Rev'd Gerald Smith (talk) 11:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Harry Bagnall was rector from 1979, as stated in our article and in his obituary in The Independent. He was at New Cantley in 1978. Unfortunately, private papers cannot be used as references in Wikipedia, but I have found this picture of you whitewashing the Falklands!. It's a bit weak as a reference. Can you find something better? I don't think there is much point in the new draft you have created without any references. The best place for the discussion is the talk page of the article that you edited. Would you like me to copy the relevant sections to there? Dbfirs 12:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Derrick chambers American football

Request article Dchambers9178 (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Change backlog level to 10

I wonder if we could possibly change the backlog level on the semi-protected category to 10. 15 is a lot, and it hardly ever gets there. Thanks, qwerty6811 :-) (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Gutland (film)

{{request edit}}

Hello, I wanted to ask if it's possible to change the poster from the film GUTLAND? I have the original and newest poster of it, because I work for the company who produced it. I'm still new to Wikipedia that's why I also wanted to ask how I can give the original Poster to you or how to upload it?

Thank you very much!

Nalumina (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nalumina, I'm going to move your request over to the Gutland film article's talk page. There is a poster there already, I just need to know if that is the one you are talking about, or if another one was requested.

Moved to Talk:Gutland (film)

 – Spintendo      05:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request

Due to a conflict of interest I would like to request and independent review of the article concerning 'Paul Boothe'. The conflict of interest exists due to the fact that I am employed by Paul Boothe. Maria Shaposhnikova (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC) Maria Shaposhnikova

I can't locate an article on that subject. Are you sure that is how its spelled? There are several Paul Booth's but none of them have an E on the end. Please advise.  Spintendo      15:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2018209.80.156.29 (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

209.80.156.29 (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

BLACKPINK’s DDU DU DDU DU

List of most viewed online videos in the first 24 hours BLACKPINK’s DDU DU DDU DU accumulated 33.7M views 24 hrs after its release. Please update. Thanks You! http://kworb.net/youtube/topday.html thislink i got from here https://twitter.com/YTMilestones

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DfzTu3xUYAAnwFa.jpg:large https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsX3OJjJEqA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emily Uan (talk • contribs) 09:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit request on Yashika Aannand

I want to edit the article which is semi protected. 61.245.161.251 (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

its semi-protected not extended confirm...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Misleading text about the base template

In § Response time it says:

Edit request templates automatically add the relevant page into an appropriate administrative category, such as Category:Wikipedia fully-protected edit requests (from {{edit protected}}, for edits to fully protected pages).

This is misleading. The problem is that it appears to say that a) the appropriate category for {{edit protected}} is fully-protected, and b) {{edit protected}} is only for use with fully-protected pages. Because it first states about what preceded, this: "from {{edit protected}}"; then states about "from {{edit protected}}" - using the comma, this: "for edits to fully protected pages". In reality, what {{edit protected}} shows depends on the kind of protection used on the article. For example, if used on the Talk page of a semi-protected article, this template will not mention full-protection. (Try it out, if you don't believe me.) One simple solution is to edit the section and change "from {{edit protected}}" to "from {{edit fully-protected}}". --77.173.90.33 (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Apparently the Module used by {{edit protected}} corrects the text if it is used with non-fully-protected articles. So, technically, the text is correct then. Might still make the phrase less misleading if the change I suggested is applied. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done I believe that I have fixed the sentence's grammar and punctuation. Does it read better now? If not, it's a wording problem, not a copy-editing problem. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Mark Dice

It seems Wikipedia has out date and old information on Mark Dice, as of today he has a total verified by you tube subscribers at 1.4 million plus it seems i am unable to post updates and corrections on Wikipedia ,i am sure this is a mistake on Wikipedia part as he is one of the top conservative You Tubes on the net and it would never restrict accurate and up to date information on A site like Wikipedia .I respectfully request you remove the update restriction you presently have so accurate information can be posted Thank you Eric hill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.155.251.188 (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Take that backlog

For the first time in a long time, IPERT, PERT, and TPERT are all empty! Thank you to everyone who helps process requests! — xaosflux ^Talk 05:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Connie Kabarry

Connie kabarry is a Kenyan/Nollywood Actress, Producer and a business Lady, Connie hails from Nairobi Kenya. Born 15th August 1983(age 35 years), Nairobi Kenya, Married to a Kenyan famous musician Dola kabarry Koechben (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Edit requests. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Establishing consensus before requesting edits is nonsense

Quite often, when requesting edits, I receive the following canned response:

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template.

That's not an appropriate response:

1. The {{edit template-protected}} template itself does not say anything about establishing a consensus before its use. In fact, it says the very opposite:

   If you have noticed an error or have a suggestion for a simple, non-controversial change, you can submit an edit request

2. WP:Consensus is defined as absence of objections. If there are no objections, there already is consensus. The appropriate response to this is to either say let's wait 48h and see if there are any objections, or simply waiting that time period before acting upon the request.
3. This is not in the spirit of WP:BEBOLD.

I suggest template editors should simply not respond to edit requests immediately, and rather wait a specified time period to see if any objections arise. Guarapiranga (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The clause you removed specifically refers to edits that are likely to be controversial. The edit request facility is not meant to be used for such edits; since any user can start a talk page discussion, there is no need to use the edit request facility for that purpose. The response you cite above may or may not be appropriate, depending on whether the edit was in fact likely to be controversial (and in that case I would point to the clause at the info page in my response). In any case the information in a template does not supersede that at the info page; ie feel free to propose a change to the info page, but don't use what the template says or doesn't say as part of your argument. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I do agree with the proposer that we should encourage people to put requests on hold rather than to close them, or to reword this standard template. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

In general, edit request templates summon uninvolved editors to enact them, and they are a careful check against the protection policy. For the most part I don't think they should be used until an edit is ready to be made. Discussing changes to a page is the primary point of those page's associated talk pages, and editors concerned with a specific page normally watchlist the page/talk page. If I see an ER that is opposed, I'm always going to deactivate it until the discussion is resolved as it means that BRD is already at "D". — xaosflux ^Talk 14:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

To Guarapiranga's original example, unless there was a previous dispute or current about a "content" type template (e.g. an article navbox) I would normally just process these as I come across them unless I was going to raise my own specific objection (bringing it back to D again). If it was a high-risk technical type template (e.g. , Module:Portal) my own objection could be that there simply needs to be more visibility/testing first. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Advice for people answering edit requests

I believe there should be advice on this page to established involved editors to avoid repeatedly declining edit requests on a page. Involved editors should ideally wait for other editors to respond to the request. I am not sure of the best way of putting this. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

MediaWiki namespace

Something to clarify: The entire MediaWiki namespace is presumably considered interface-protected for the purpose of the request templates. Does that apply even to system messages which are wikitext rather than CSS or JS? If someone were to use {{edit fully-protected}} or one of the legacy redirects to it, would that cause problems? Or are such requests required to go directly to WP:Interface administrators' noticeboard, no matter how minor? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@SoledadKabocha: That would be {{Edit interface-protected}}. Full protection is not the same as interface protected. Before using {{FPER}} or {{Edit interface-protected}}, check what type of protection is active by clicking on view source, and it will show you. Alternatively, and the easier and preferred way is to click on submit an edit request after you view source, and the form for you to fill out an edit request is right there. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 22:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC); edited 22:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I am aware of {{edit interface-protected}}. I used it over here (this whole post was "inspired" by that real case). "Presumably" was an unnecessary weasel word - I already knew the answer.

I apologize for the lack of clarity in my post, which confounded two issues:

• This page should give clearer instructions for the MediaWiki namespace, that is, {{edit interface-protected}} regardless of the content model of an individual page (CSS, JS, or wikitext).
• This page should better explain the consequences of using the wrong template - i.e. processing will be delayed. {{editprotected}} is a legacy redirect to {{edit fully-protected}}, and only users who have been away from Wikipedia for many years are likely to make the mistake you are describing (doesn't apply to me, so I shouldn't have wasted words mentioning it)

Thanks for your understanding. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@SoledadKabocha: there really is no delay, those of us admins and iadmins that watch for edit requests routinely use a table such as User:AnomieBOT/IPERTable to track and process the backlog, and the bot that updates that sorts the requests according to actual protection. You never need to post about edit requests at WP:IANB unless it is stalled for a while, or disputed. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Re-write of General Considerations section

I struggled to read and comprehend the General Considerations section and rather than make significant changes to a project page without prior experience, I'd like to discuss first. I found the use of bold, italic and italic bold text formatting to be distracting so removed it except where I feel it is beneficial. Some of the sentences feel clumsy; for example "Clearly indicate which sections or phrases should be replaced or added to, and what they should be replaced with or have added." The list includes some information which is not relevant to its members, which I have moved out or removed, and missing text added.

I understand that this page is not a policy page but I would like to ask a more experienced user to help with use of "should"/"please" and "must". I believe I have left inferance to these as-is, but welcome corrections where more strict language is appropriate. As a user reading this page I prefer clarity over politeness.

Proposed changes are as follows:

General considerations

Edit requests for articles or templates should meet the same four basic requirements: Specific, Uncontroversial, Necessary, and Sensible (SUNS). Edit requests for templates should also meet the requirement of adequate testing.

Consider the following requirements before requesting an edit:

1. Is your request specific? Edit requests must be accompanied by a detailed and specific description of the proposed changes. Clearly indicate the content to be contributed and to where. For example: Change from "private garden" to "open to the public" in first paragraph; Insert "The garden was opened to the public in 2020 following a change of ownership." between second and third paragraphs; Remove "It is unknown how many species of plant are present in the garden as it is not open to the public".
2. Is your request uncontroversial? Responding editors may decline to make any edit, especially those that are controversial, violate policy, or do not have evidence of consensus. If you need to gather opinions try to appropriately notify any editors who have already worked on the page or a related WikiProject. Do not use the {{edit protected}} template merely to attract attention as it generates clutter.
3. Is your edit request necessary? You can keep notes on the talk page without using the edit request template if you are waiting until the page protection expires or for your account to be autoconfirmed.
4. Is your request sensible? For example, it is sensible to perform basic tidying such as ensuring all references are properly formatted using citation templates, and that the section still flows correctly after the text is changed.

Edit requests for fully protected pages must be handled by an administrator. Administrators can respond only to requests that are either uncontroversial improvements (correcting typos, grammar, or reference formatting; improving template code) or are already supported by a consensus of editors, usually on the talk page. There is a forum for current requests for edits relating to protected pages, locked discussion pages and edits that may be significant or controversial.

Simplypeachy (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding updates to coronavirus-related tables

There are frequent requests on semi-protected pages (usually templates) showing case numbers and such for "correct this with the latest numbers" or the like, more often than not simply malformed (i.e. without providing the numbers or such). Fact is that most of these templates eventually get updated (all at once), when editors who normally do it add the latest updates. Shouldn't we do something to discourage this unnecessary clutter, like an edit-notice or something? RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 21:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Empty edit requests and the complexity of the edit request interface

Given my observation of the frequency of empty edit request, I'm wondering whether the interface isn't too complicated for users who are likely to be making them, and they just aren't understanding where and how to word their requests. Largoplazo (talk) 10:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Argument about these procedures

I think these procedures are way too restrictive, for no good reason.

I'll give an example. Edit requests for fully protected pages must be handled by an administrator. Administrators can respond only to requests that are either uncontroversial improvements (correcting typos, grammar, or reference formatting; improving the reliability or efficiency of template code) or are already supported by a consensus of editors, usually on the protected page's talk page. This is nonsense. As an administrator I will look at the request and choose between declining, implementing, or discussing it. The fact that someone other than me thought of it first doesn't tie my hands regarding what I can do with it.

More generally, much the same. The editor who is unqualified (unable to edit the article themselves for some reason) can propose what they like. It is up to the qualified editor who considers the request to decide whether it is ripe for implementing, declining or in need of a consensus discussion first. Remember two things: (1) if the request is implemented, the responsibility lies with the editor who makes the edit, not with whoever originally had the idea; (2) one of the main reasons we have edit requests is that newbies (say, non-extended-confirmed editors in those areas that are covered by a 30/500 restriction) don't have the experience to know what is controversial. Telling them to not request controversial edits is asking them to have knowledge they don't have. It is the qualified editor handling the request who should judge controversiality. Zero^talk 09:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

More gripes. When someone notices a problem in an article, it is perfectly reasonable for them to point it out on the talk page even if they aren't sure how to fix it. If they are unlucky enough to think that an "edit request" tag will get attention, what will happen is a rude reply:  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. And it is rude. They tried to help and we fobbed them off. They won't bother to report the next problem they notice. Who gains by this? Certainly not the encyclopedia. Zero^talk 12:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

This exact issue arose at Talk:Mandatory_Palestine#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_6_June_2020 yesterday. The IP made a very reasonable point, albeit not in the exact format we Wikipedians are used to. The IP was fobbed off. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

While my experience is as limited as anybody's, what I see is widespread misuse of the edit request process. It is NOT designed or intended as a substitute for the "New section" link at the top of every article talk page. This is eminently clear to any user who takes a minute or two to read the information put in front of them during the process. I haven't a lot of patience for those who don't.

That said, I've seen recent comments that too much information is put in front of them, and they suffer from instruction blindness due to information overload. Lord knows few Wikipedians are very good at keeping things simple. This is the wrong venue for a major rework of those instructions; I suggest one of the Village Pump pages. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the responses are inappropriate. The source of the problem is the unawareness of the user of the distinction between the purpose of an edit request—to request a specific edit that one would make oneself if one had the access to do so—and to raise attention to some issue about the article—which isn't an edit request, it's a discussion topic, what every Talk page on every article, protected or not, is for. What would be helpful would be to explain this distinction to the user.

Perhaps a solution would be to have a template that editors responding to non-request requests can post explaining that edit requests are for specific edits, whereas comments and questions should be added to the Talk page as ordinary sections. Or even to add a parameter to the edit request, maybe |explain=yes, that would display the message. Largoplazo (talk) 10:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Birth place.

Purnea instead of patna Hritik Rajan (talk) 04:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hritik Rajan: You are in the wrong place. Put your request on the talk page of the article you are referring to. Providing a source for this information will help you get it accepted. Zero^talk 05:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2020

i wanted to change "Jealous" to a defensive nature and also highlight their marriage to Hera. Rowsea (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Edit requests. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2020

Just making some simple fixes on grammar, spelling, and formatting DairyKrazy (talk) 11:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. This is the talk page for the page Wikipedia:Edit requests. Please leave the edit request on the page that you're trying to edit, and leave your request in a "change X to Y" format. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 12:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2020

Please change Sushant's cause of death to "an on going investigation". ShadowQueenAria (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:Sushant_Singh_Rajput#Edit_warring_over_death_in_infobox and the later discussions – Thjarkur (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request Wizard

I've noticed that for many new editors, creating an edit request is a hard procedure, and many make mistakes in either their wording or technical format (see above). Because of that, I created Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. Do others think this would be a good thing to publicize on the page so that people can easily make edit requests? Sam-2727 (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Clarification: It's mainly for COI and paid editors, but the "protected" part is there as well for completeness. Sam-2727 (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

"Do others think this would be a good thing to publicize on the page so that people can easily make edit requests?" -- absolutely. Yes. It should be a banner with a direct link to the wizard. I just learned how confusing it is to make a semi-protected edit request when I moved a new request that was added within an old, answered one. (Too many experienced Wikipedia editors take things for granted and don't put themselves in the shoes of new and occasional editors.) Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary, one of the main problems I'm facing is publicizing it. If you have ideas on how to do that, that would be much appreciated. Sam-2727 (talk) 04:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

You created a discussion here, in the Edit requests talk page, and only I have responded so far. You tried the first step in trying to reach consensus among editors. You can now consider creating an RfC: WP:RFCOPEN. If you know an Admin, you should consider asking her or him about creating the RfC. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary, that is a good idea. I wasn't anticipating the need for an RfC to implement it, but since you think that would be necessary, I will do that. First, I'm going to bring this up at the Teahouse talk page, because often at the teahouse, editors will have to tell new users how to make edit requests, so they will likely have some input on improving it. Sam-2727 (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Teahouse is a good step. No significant changes happen without consensus here (it's how you shut down naysayers, too). If you do the RfC you can be sure that I will support it. Good luck! Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 23:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

As I have just pointed out at WT:TH, this wizard is a nice idea in principle but doesn't yet work properly, so why this was done so rapidly I have no idea. I suggest removing it and properly testing it and getting full agreement before exposing new editors to something that isn't ready. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Unique edit request section headers

I'm not sure exactly what template or tool creates edit requests, but the headers are always something like "Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2020". On active protected articles, like high-profile current events, we often get multiple edit requests on the same day, resulting in multiple sections with the same exact heading. These requests sometimes lead to substantive discussions. Yet, it's difficult to link to them, especially when they go into talk page archives, because they have the same heading. Renaming the heading might confuse the new editor making the request (as well as break any prior links). My suggestion is that the section header should be: "Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2020 by [EDITOR]". Anybody think this is a good idea, or have suggestions for alternatives? Lev!vich 18:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, I would support this change, because it's easier to link to unique section headers that way. I would recommend you ask on a higher visibility forum, because it seems that the edit request page is sparsely watched. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree that allowing for the possibility of duplicate headings is poor design.

When someone opens a new discussion, they don't put the date or their username in the heading. That's because neither is particularly needed or useful in the heading (both are available in the signature of the first comment). So, from a usability standpoint, all these headings need is the type of edit request (type of protection) and something to ensure a unique heading. Username would still not be foolproof because there is nothing to prevent multiple requests on the same day from a single user. I would suggest a simple unformatted timestamp with one-second precision: "Extended-confirmed-protected edit request 20200828172408". ―Mandruss ☎ 17:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich, Sam-2727, and Mandruss: This title comes from Module:Submit an edit request/config - while it won't gauruntee uniqueness, adding the timestamp along with the date stamp should be easy. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

c.f. mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions##time for available parameters, we are currently using [j F Y] on that. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd oppose "Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 August 2020 at 17:24:08 (UTC)" as too long, adding unnecessary clutter to TOCs and page histories. Again, it isn't there for human informational purposes but only to ensure uniqueness. It doesn't need to be readable. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss: changing [j F Y] to [YmdHis] would change the date part to a plain date like 202008281737. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Minute precision would not be enough, need second precision. Note that I'm also dropping the word "on" as unnecessary. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss: my example above does include seconds (the s parameter and the "...37" part). I really don't mind the 'on' - it explains to a reader what the string of numbers is. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

37 can't be seconds unless your format is yyyymmddhhss or yyyymmddmmss, both of which are highly unlikely. Any time-of-day with second precision is six digits long. And I submit that a reader doesn't need to know what the string of numbers is, although one could figure it out if they really cared. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

"[type]-protected edit request 20200828172408" sounds like a good solution to me. Lev!vich 19:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Oops, indeed - I kept leaving some precision out of the example (the mins I think) - not the parser code. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't the ideal solution be to make Module:Submit an edit request automatically detect if the header already exists and automatically add a suffix like (2) instead of increasing the precision of the timestamp and therefore making things less human-friendly in the common case? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, that would be good, too. On the one hand, it makes it more human-friendly to have a readable date (28 August 2020) followed by (1) and (2), etc. On the other hand, it would make the code more complex, but I really have no idea how difficult or expensive that is from a technical standpoint, i.e., is it worth the extra coding and computing. Lev!vich 19:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

 Coded at Template:Submit an edit request/sandbox, tested at Template talk:X10 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Pppery! How can I test it? And what's the process for making the change live? Lev!vich 16:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

You can see from my contributions what I did: I placed Template:Submit an edit request/sandbox at Template:X10, then clicked the button several times, cretating several blank edit requests with increasing section numbers (the intervening edits to Module:Submit an edit request were me fixing a bug I found while testing). I also manually added headers for 5 through 9 in case some unforeseen bug happened when the counter hit 10, but it didn't. The process for getting my change live would be (assuming consensus supports it as opposed to one of the higher-precision-timestamp proposals) to make an edit request at Template talk:Submit an edit request on a different day from 9 other edit requests on that page * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• I am surprised at the cryptic `20200828172408` suggestion, how can human read this comfortably? This format is meant for machines not humans; and the heading, as far as I know, is for humans not machines. Actually this suggested solution is worse than the duplicate heading problem. I'd rather deal with a duplicate heading than read date and time in a format meant not for humans and that requires more time for cognitive parsing. I will really suggest not do this.

  Many people will not care about these duplicates, because for most requests there's a little reason to refer to them after archiving. I am not convinced there's a problem to solve here in the first place, especially with a solution that will exacerbate it being advanced.

  If you absolutely need to do this then "28 August 2020 at 17:24:08 (UTC)" is more human-friendly, unless if the titles are no longer meant for human readers. I don't agree with the length and clutter argument about it, that issue stems from the very design of the heading boilerplate. If the length need to be reduced may be consider changing the heading fom for instance "Extendern-confirmed edit request 15 May 2024" to just say "Edit request on 15 May 2024". To my knowledge, these requests are already being categorized in some way, and anybody can see the protection level in the article if the want. I never find the extra verbosity in this heading useful. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit request user script for new vector (fixed width)

I have been working on a userscript which should format on the new (fixed width) vector skin without extending past the page or having unexpected formatting created by the fixed width article and talk pages compared with the legacy vector. I have been testing it on edit requests and appears to work as intended, if you are interested it is Edit Request Closer. Terasail^[✉] 15:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Terasail: How does it compare in terms of functionality with Wikipedia:EditProtectedHelper? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: You can do most things that edit protected helper can, apart from changing the protection level and the "page to be edited" part of the template. The other changes are mainly in how the the buttons and drop down menu look. Terasail^[✉] 17:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Moved to User talk:Terasail/Edit Request Closer

 – RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit Notices Creation Requests

Not sure if this is the place to request the creating of edit/page notices. But here goes. Since the List of Canadian journalists its own edit notice, I thought it would be good for the List of CTV personalities and List of Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to have an edit notice like as well. Unless there is a way to add said edit notice to the two lists as stated. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Fishhead2100: Try the instructions at Wikipedia:Editnotice; or if you're not sure you can probably leave a request on the talk page there. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2021

I have noticed that there are major discrepancies regarding the recognition of Hamas as a terror organization, depending on the value's language.

In English, there is a specification of countries and their relation to Hamas (do they recognize Hamas as a terror group or not) 1. USA - recognizes as terror organization 2. EU - recognizes as terror organization 3. England - recognizes as terror organization only the military wing

In Hebrew, it is recognized as a terror organization, no note regarding other countries

In Arabic it states that the EU have removed on 2014 Hamas from the list of the terror organization because of lack of data.

In German it relates to the case of 2014 and then adds that on 2017 Hamas was again regarded as a terror organization. The following is the source Europäische Union: EU darf Hamas als Terrororganisation einstufen. In: Die Zeit. 26. Juli 2017, ISSN 0044-2070 (zeit.de [abgerufen am 27. Juli 2017]).

Personally, I must disclose that I am Israeli and although I understand the complexity of the situation, I believe Hamas is a terror organization.

Having said that, it is not my intention to promote my opinions on Wikipedia.

What bothers me above all is the isolation of information between values. Each value shows "convenient" information for the major native speakers of the language (Arab values "omits" the 2017 decision of EU court, Hebrew defines Hamas as a terror group with no regard to global views)

I would like to ask for permission to edit those values to reflect these complexities.

Adding the information regarding EU and global view to the hebrew value as well as to the english and arabic one.

I appreciate the Wikipedia project and thank you for your work spreading valid information for free the world.

Available for you at yuvalyitz@gmail.com 84.229.57.55 (talk) 11:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: This is the talk page for the documentation on how edit requests work, not anything to do with Hamas. You should discuss at Talk:Hamas, without opening an edit request, as edit requests should be written as "Change X to Y" with sources provided. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

New DSA Chairman Appointed June 9, 2021 - Please Help Me Update this Information

Dear Wikipedia Editors -

Yesterday, the DSA Board of Directors voted in its new Board of Directors, and Kevin Guest is now the new Chairman of DSA.

Please follow this link to view this news.

When you have a moment, please replace Ryan Napierski's name with Kevin Guest, who is the CEO and Chairman of the Board for USANA Health Science, Inc.

Thank you very much for your assistance - Brad Reichard BradReichard (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2021

Replace "{{edit interface-protected}} for sitewide javascript" with "{{edit interface-protected}} (shortcut: {{IPER}}) for sitewide JavaScript". Kleinpecan (talk) 06:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Volteer1 (talk) 06:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Sample edit requests

I created a page with some samples of well-written edit requests at WP:Sample edit requests. They are contrived, but I am hopeful they may more tangibly illustrate the "change X to Y" format we so desperately wish to see (and so rarely do) in edit requests. While some of these examples would probably be the kinds of changes we'd hope to see consensus for before an edit request was made, I've noted that where relevant, and still think the examples are useful. Tweaks/additions/feedback welcome! GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Please provide me sample of stylish editing page. Upendra Kr Das (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Requiring verbatim suggestions

Background:

• When transcluded to a talk page, the {{edit semi-protected}} template shows the instruction: specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it (emphasis mine; see Template:Edit semi-protected/testcases to see where this appears). This only shows after the request has been made.
• The edit intro that most editors see when making an edit request doesn't specify that the request needs to include a verbatim copy of text to be added.
• The widely-used edit request response template {{ESp|xy}} shows Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. This does say that "specific" changes should be requested in an "X to Y" format, but again doesn't mention that verbatim suggestions are required.

This leads to issues like at Talk:Laura Loomer#Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2021, where a request that's (in my opinion) quite clear about what changes are being requested, but doesn't provide a verbatim copy of text to add, is declined with the "it's not clear what changes you want to be made" template. In the follow-up discussion at User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish/Archive 2#Edit request it's clear why ScottishFinnishRadish chose the template, but I fear it's not sufficiently clear to the requesting editor why the request was denied.

So: should we change the edit intro and the templated reply so that editors understand that a request may have been declined because it was missing a verbatim suggestion? Or should we change the display text in {{edit semi-protected}} template and discourage edit request reviewers from declining requests where the requested change is clear but not presented with the verbatim text that ought to be added? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I think we should edit the intro and the reply to be a bit more clear about it. We shouldn't be asking the volunteers patrolling edit requests to write the prose as well as making the edit. I'm of the mind that an edit request should be a fully formed edit, and you're just asking someone with the correct permissions to make sure the edit is acceptable and then make it, rather than help with writing prose. Writing prose to match sourcing is just a regular talk page discussion.

The response template could simply add something to the effect of Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please provide the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must provide the exact edit to be made. I've bolded changes and new text. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

This touches somewhat on some other thoughts I've had about the request edit template as well, actually, and it's maybe related to the discussion between Volteer1 and ElHef at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Edit requests#Some problems I've noticed with the protected edit request system. I see a lot of edit requests, including the one I linked as an example above, that really ought not to be using the edit request template because they are controversial and need consensus. However I think even though it includes "for now" the {{ESp|c}} template is altogether too final, with its red icon and bold text that may encourage other editors of the talk page to skip over the section as "handled":

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.

It might be better to have something less obtrusive that conveys that the edit request has been procedurally closed but that discussion should continue among talk page participants in that section. Right now I think the response conveys "you've done something wrong, and you need to go do something now to begin this discussion again".

Regarding "We shouldn't be asking the volunteers patrolling edit requests to write the prose as well as making the edit", I think that's true, though there are often two groups of people who handle edit requests: those patrolling the queue, and regular contributors to a given article who are watching the talk page. In the latter case it's not unusual for edit requests to be implemented even when verbatim text isn't provided. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

We can add There might be an ongoing discussion relating to the matter of your edit request (if this is actually the case) and Other editors should be given the opportunity to discuss your request before it is implemented. 15 (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with that, and that response is my generic go-to for almost any edit request on a page related to any controversy whatsoever when the request isn't a copy edit or wikilink or the like. Perhaps change that to a different icon, then Not done for now: it is not clear that this edit will have consensus. Please establish a consensus through discussion on this talk page before using the template.

I also believe that a response should be added to the template for along the likes of Note: this edit request has been closed as this seems to be commentary on the article, rather than a request for a specific edit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Strongly support some sort of WP:NOTFORUM response. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Also a second "needs consensus" reply that specifically states The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. As such this edit request will require consensus before being made. Or something along those lines. There's quite a few I've closed as needs consensus because I know the article is controversial and I don't think an edit request patroller who likely has no meta-knowledge of the article should be on the hook for the contents of the edit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

+1, again. I think a "controversial" response like that as well as the "no consensus" answer should maybe not have an icon, and explicitly state that discussion can continue in the same section. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Based on the recent edit requests at Talk:Palmer Report perhaps the needs consensus templates need explicit directions to continue the discussion by editing the section for the request or staying a new section with some wikilinks to explain. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps, although that particular IP editor has been around before and seems to have an unusually difficult time with a number of talk page conventions, so maybe shouldn't be taken as a representative example. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

This discussion also shows a new user having some issues. Maybe the "get consensus" language should be elaborated on since it's pretty unlikely someone with no exposure to the back end of Wikipedia would have any idea what it means. Luckily that was a good faith user that learned and took part in the discussion, but I can see someone being discouraged from not knowing how to proceed. You can even see that they opened a second edit request "to gain consensus" due to unfamiliarity. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Both these suggestions seem good to me. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

(ec) I don't think all requests not matching the "Change X to Y" format should be denied. There is (I believe mainly thanks to you) virtually no non-COI edit request backlog. Those patrolling can spend more time on each request to type up whatever the reviewer suggests or wait for whoever has watchlisted the page to do so. 15 (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, there are many requests that don't meet the "change X to Y" format that I still complete. On contentious articles, or with suspect requests, I'm much more likely to use the "change X to Y" format to see the exact edit they'd like to have made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Considering the large backlog at COI edit requests, I think it should be made more explicitly clear before the request is made that the requester should provide an exact copy of the text that they want added to the article, preferably with an indication of where they would like the citations. This makes fulfilling the requests much easier to assess and implement. Z1720 (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

To answer your original question: both, IMO. For the edit intro, firstly I don't think most people read Please provide a specific description of the edit request anyway, as it's at the bottom of a decent chunk of text, with no bright colours right next to it like the rest. I also do think it should be more strongly worded, and strongly encourage "change X to Y" style formatting. But that might not matter if no one is reading it anyway.

I also think verbatim copy of the text that should replace it... the request must be of the form "please change X to Y" is too strongly worded and shouldn't be in {{edit semi-protected}}. It's firstly not actually true – I've implemented many edit requests where the suggestion was something of the form "can you say something about how Y", and I've found a source and figured out the wording myself where it was easy enough to do. This is not a universal course of action though, and in the past the edit request backlog would get 60 entries long filled with such requests from weeks ago that no one could be bothered to find a source for/figure out how to word/etc. This doesn't happen now and the backlog is usually only a couple of articles long (4 at the time of writing), mostly because they are closed by ScottishFinnishRadish before it gets to that point.

Possibly others disagree with me, but I think people responding to edit requests should wait a sec before closing imperfectly formatted requests. If you think the thing they're adding is unverifiable/not answerable/whatever, then sure close it right away with {{ESp|rs}}/{{ESp|xy}}/whatever. But I see a lot of edit requests of the form "Please add that Joe Biden's wife is Jill Biden in personal life", where they didn't provide a source/a proposed wording, but both would be easily procured and the edit request easily implemented. In such cases I really do think you should wait and see if anyone else is bothered to help them out, and if it's been idk a day or two and no one has, then close it. That avoids both (practically) unanswerable edit requests stinking up the backlog and from implementable edit requests from being denied unnecessarily. That Laura Loomer edit request you linked above would be a good example of such a thing where waiting a sec before closing would be good, if it was easily verifiable with a quick google search and not plagued by the other issues. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

What your describing isn't a requested edit though, its a regular talk page discussion. "Person X mentions Y and Z on their website. Should this be mentioned in section 1?" An edit request is to request an actual edit that they can't make themselves because of protection, not requesting that someone make an edit they'd like. I also have found sources and formatted good faith edit requests in the past, but that should not be the expected behavior. See Talk:United_Arab_Emirates#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_29_July_2021 as an example of what happens when it's expected that other editors will read the sources, write the prose, and hope that they're actually writing what was requested. It also shows that, in general, the consensus among those patrolling edit requests is that they should be as specific as possible. It's also worth noting that at the time editors were dealing with that request the backlog of semi-protected requests was over thirty. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Pinging some people who have closed recent edit requests. I'm sure this list isn't exhaustive, as there's no easy way to see who answered requests as far as I can tell. If there's anyone else anyone wants to ping I think this discussion could do with a few more eyes. Melecie, Ganbaruby, Qwerfjkl, Melmann, FormalDude, Sirdog, Pupsterlove02, and Asartea. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. I concur with ScottishFinnishRadish in that edit requests should be nothing beyond someone explicitly declaring something productive be added, thus a verbatim copy of requested text should be given. That said, I think an editor overturning a declined request to complete it should be normalized. A decline should serve simply to remove it from the queue, and not to mean that the request has been authoritatively declined.

While I acknowledge that the backlog for edit requests is very low, I don't think that should effect the scope of the requests. However, I see no issue with allowing a request to sit for 24-48 hours prior to declining it to see if a more gun-ho editor wishes to tackle it (presuming the request is reasonable, such as the Joe Biden example). This is a bit of a stretch, but maybe even add a template that says Note: This request does not provide a specific revision but it may be beneficial to consider. Please do not close until X for the sake of visibility. with X being a a day or so after the template is invoked.

As an aside, I fully support the addition of all the new templates mentioned above. —Sirdog (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• I generally deactivate ER's on IP/FP pages that don't have verbatim text requests. The way I see it, ER's are an important check on page protection, especially when the change is not related to a contentious element that led to the page protection in the first place. If the ER is just a suggestion to change something, but not what to change I see it as (a) asking someone else to come up with brilliant prose for you, which doesn't require sitting in the admin backlog; (b) something that could use some collaborative discussion, which I encourage with a note to feel free to reactivate the ER when the change is ready. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with @ScottishFinnishRadish as well, for several reasons. It can be difficult to evaluate edit requests that are not written verbatim. Sirdog makes good points that edit requests need not go beyond a specific good-faith contribution to add to the article, and that it should be normalized to overturn a declined request. I think this is especially the case when the decliner did not understand the requested edit to be made. ––FormalDude talk 02:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Saw this advertised at the edit requests WikiProject and have only now had the bandwidth to look through this discussion. I think GW's proposed changes to the templates sound good. I think while ideally the person posting the edit request does put it in an "X to Y" format and gives a source, it feels unnecessarily bureaucratic to deny it purely on a procedural basis. If you can't parse the request, fine, fair enough. But if you understand it and the source is a Google search away, it takes all of a couple of minutes to knock up something respectable to plonk into the prose. I think the work here in edit requests is sometimes similar to being a pending-changes reviewer: you will occasionally come across unsourced changes pending. In that instance, you have two options: you either revert it as unsourced, or you just find a source yourself. That feels roughly analogous to this problem. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  The problem with that is expecting volunteers to do the leg work. In that case they're not requesting an actual edit, they're opining on the talk page that it would be nice if something were added. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  I won't think less of someone who refuses to do the leg work. I'm just saying it would be good practice. With the exception of COI edit requests, people submitting edit requests are less experienced than responders. It's natural that there will be mistakes in the way the request is phrased. If it's a relatively easy fix, why not? Sdrqaz (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  It might also be worthwhile for reviewers who don't wish to do the legwork to leave the request open for just a bit longer, in case talk page watchers or other reviewers are willing to do so. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  I agree. There's no rush. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  Not saying I disagree, but does it make a difference to talk page watchers if there is a formal edit request open? If the request itself is closed the text of the request is still there to be seen by any talk page watchers. It does remove it from the list of open requests, so other patrollers won't see it, but that has pros and cons. It is possible, though unlikely, that another patroller would want to go through additional legwork within 24 hours. It is more likely that a number of other patrollers will waste time opening and reading the imprecise request, then go on to other requests in the queue. I guess I would have to see how long imprecise requests should be left open, and what people think the cutoff for precision should be. I think the end result would be in 95 percent of cases the request sits for x amount of time, then gets closed as xy. Meanwhile the queue grows and editor time is wasted checking on requests that will end up closed anyway. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  Not to talk page watchers, but I do think it makes a difference to the requester. I think it is a better experience for them to wait a bit longer but potentially see their request implemented, rather than get a very quick "nope" (or at least it reads as such—I know it's meant to encourage them to go out and find a source). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Mandatory copyright attribution redundancy

Under "Responding to requests and mandatory copyright attribution" The following text is written twice:

"Edits made on behalf of other editors must be appropriately attributed in the edit summary to comply with copyright. An example copyright attribution edit summary appears below:

Implementing talk page edit requested by [[Special:Contributions/NAME|NAME]] – short description of changes made

"

I believe having it once would be sufficient, and I believe that that would make it quicker and easier for people to read the page. FreeToDisagree (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Issues with editor reviewing Requested Edits

Hi everyone. I wasn't sure where to post this, but I guess this forum is most appropriate, especially considering they've been told about this behavior already. I came across User:Quetstar while reviewing COI requests, which I have started doing regularly for several months now, after becoming indirectly acquainted with COI at NPP, AfD and AfC. What first struck me was the fact that a user with a mere 400 edits was handling what are often highly complex requests that require hours of thorough due diligence. I looked further, and my worst fears were confirmed when examining their reviewing history. Not only are they rash and careless, but notably rather aggressive and seemingly want to portray themselves as some kind of definitive COI authority, I am sure to the dismay of dozens of good-faith COI submitters. See here.

To mention just a few instances, they have repeatedly failed to provide valid rationales for declining requests, such as here and here, which in my view is completely counter to how this part of Wikipedia is supposed to run. After all, aren't we meant to guide users to do the right thing or risk subjecting articles to further COI editing? If one doesn't have time to carefully review requests, one certainly shouldn't be declining them without allowing other more experienced editors the opportunity to do so. Note these are a mere few of the user's absurd declines amongst the 400 edits; I encourage editors to peruse their history and perhaps we might be able to fix some of the harm done. Furthermore, they've actually "invented" their own set of nonsense decline reasons, including what can only be described as kangaroo dismissals, such as here, here, and here. On an unrelated note, whoever heard of a 400-edit user closing a 3-day old RfC by themselves to which they were a party by already closing a prior discussion?

Overall, I believe their irresponsible editing is most egregious, the fact they might have actually performed a handful of incidental correct closes notwithstanding. Why they do this is anyone's guess, but I can only be concerned as to the nature and purpose of such reckless editing. I mean, some of this stuff is beyond possible explanation and the backlog is not large enough that such sloppy editing could even be contemplated. This person should at the very least desist from performing such reviews until deemed fit to do so, wouldn't you agree? Thank you, PK650 (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@PK650 I admit I've gone overboard with my responses and rash attitude. I am going to take a break from this, as COI requests have been consuming my patience. Quetstar (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for making the right decision and if you want to be involved perhaps volunteer to have a mentor? These things require lots of patience and quite a of empathy and attention to detail. That's my suggestion at least. PK650 (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2021

Christian Bale is an American actor Feministdicaprio (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

ye Feministdicaprio (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Edit requests. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:ER" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:ER and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 22#Wikipedia:ER until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion that may be of interest

I opened a discussion in the wrong place; if someone wants to move it here, that's fine, or please come there and participate. valereee (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2022

Please republish "Impact of Vietnam war" of Quốc Anh Nguyên 115.79.138.176 (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Edit requests. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Relevant wishlist proposal

I encourage folks here to go support Make the edit request process easier. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• Have done so - this would be a huge improvement to the process Nosebagbear (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete Section : "Abu Dhabhi Last Lap Controversy "

please remove this part, as it's biased and false. Jabdul1234 (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Edit requests. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Weird text?

The section "Responding to requests and mandatory copyright attribution" includes "Under the title, add the word "Malumba" as instruction which seems weird/vandalistic to me. Wanted to discuss it first since I'm not entirely sure and I couldn't find the corresponding edit that added this in. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 22:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks like it was added here. Does seem odd. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Thinker78, can you clarify what Malumba means? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure. It means it is just an example of how an edit request is done. The word itself (Malumba in this case) doesn't need to mean anything. Thinker78 (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Thinker78: Got it, I've changed the wording and phrasing a bit so it's a little clearer. I've also gotten rid of some typos/errors. I hope you don't mind! ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 17:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't mind. Anyone can edit. I was looking into it also, I may edit too. :D Thinker78 (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

All good, I just wanted to make sure you were cool with it because I don't want to seem like I'm doubting your experience or competence, since you are my senior by far (as an editor), haha. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 17:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

In Wikipedia I have learned that seniority many times has nothing to do with the quality of an edit, although in general one would expect correlation. So don't be afraid to challenge a senior editor's edits although if you don't have much experience in Wikipedia, many times that challenge is best done in the talk section, although at times maybe is better if you are bold and edit.Thinker78 (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah! Hence why in this case considering it's a template that is frequently used I deemed it wise to first consult the original author to make sure it wasn't of (big) importance. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 17:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on changing Edit Request response template wording

More input welcome at Template talk:ESp#change commonly-used template wording? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2022

Under 'Controversies' subsection 2022, please remove the duplicate 'one of'. 84.128.222.165 (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Edit requests. If possible, please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. If you cannot edit the article's talk page, you can instead make your request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for edits to a protected page. Cannolis (talk) 03:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Responding to “edit semi-protected request” on talk pages

I often see people reply to such messages with the canned response

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.

See, for example, the most recent two message here. I realize this is one of the established canned responses - it’s Template:ESp(c) - but it bothers the heck out of me. This response is not only unhelpful and dismissive, it is illogical. When someone posts a "semi-protected edit request on (date)“, it is because they tried to make an edit to the main page, were unable to because of page protection, and got a message and link suggesting they could edit the talk page instead. So they follow the link to the talk page, make their request or comment, and it gets published under the section heading "Semi-protected edit request on (date)". So far, so good. But then they are immediately told they should have established consensus before making their request. Establish consensus first? How were they supposed to establish consensus BEFORE making their very first edit to the talk page? This is basically just a rubber-stamp way of saying "go away and don't bother us". If it were up to me I would outlaw this response entirely. We should at least give the user the courtesy of a response to their request or comment. We could write a sentence explaining why the article is the way it is, or how they can request a change. Or we could cite the "be specific" or "reliable source" canned response. What do others think? What would be a better (more populated) forum to raise this issue? MelanieN (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

There have been some discussions about alternative wordings and possibly expanding the number of responses, so there would be a "contentious article" response that explains that the article is contentious and any changes to the contentious material should be discussed. I'll see if I can dig up some links to the discussions while I'm smoking peppers. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

See Template_talk:ESp#change_commonly-used_template_wording? and Wikipedia_talk:Edit_requests/Archive_1#Requiring_verbatim_suggestions for some recentish discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, ScottishFinnishRadish. I see that the more recent discussion is still live on the talk page and has not been closed, so I will transfer my comments there. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be best to have the discussion here, as this page has over 200 watchers, whereas the template page has fewer than 40. Maybe leave a back link there so anyone watching that page and not this one will be made aware? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

A notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Edit requests would probably be good too. I think a wider discussion on this is probably due. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

How were they supposed to establish consensus BEFORE making their very first edit to the talk page? Obviously they can't. They can just post a talk page section and convince others that their controversial change is a good idea. That way, edit request patrollers aren't bogged down with controversial requests. I do think our message that pops up when you click the blue "Submit an edit request" button needs to be more clear that it should not be used for potentially controversial changes and suggest talk page discussion as the alternative.

We do nudge folks in the right direction a couple times. Before they click the blue button, they see that it's recommended "if you have noticed an error or have a suggestion for a simple, non-controversial change"; what counts as an error is up for debate. Once they click the button, they see it's supposed to be used for "straight-forward changes" (copyedits) or "more substantive changes, if they are justified with reference to reliable sources, and not the subject of ongoing discussion". I would like to beef up this guidance, and be more clear about what not to do. I also think we'd talked about strengthening the "change X to Y" language here, but I can't remember where the convo was or how it ended. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I linked to the "x to y" above as well. It's in archive 1. When it comes to the "x isn't far right" or "y didn't spread COVID misinformation" pretty much every patroller just hits the need consensus button and moves on. That response is trained from hundreds of those requests that come through from people who think the great die-off from the vaccination is just around the corner. If an article sees that a lot, eventually they just get removed as duplicate discussions.

Requests like that with a bit more of an explanation tend to get a bit more of a response, explaining that it is sourced and requires discussion to remove.

There's an essay somewhere that talks about editors not wasting their limited time on trying to help coi editors, and this is similar. There's no need to spend an extra 10 hours of editor time a week explaining to every edit requester at Marjorie Taylor Greene about sourcing requirements, RFCs and consensus building, when they're never going to look at the talk page again, and there will be another request in a few days for the same thing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:PAYTALK is what I was thinking of. It's not quite the same, but we do have to weigh our time against that of people disinterested in how Wikipedia works who are mad about content that is fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• I've said this before, but I feel we need some sort of filter on the listing of edit requests at Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests so that patrollers don't immediately see them for pages that are currently being heavily edited or have large numbers of watchers who've visited current edits. Patrollers seem to start with the newest requests, which often means they're answering within minutes. When possible, edit requests should be answered by editors working at or watching a page, because those are the people likely to be familiar with that page. It's when they aren't answered by those editors that we need to notify patrollers. Valereee (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Oldest living persons in Ireland

Hi. I want to rectify a name and date of birth in the oldest living persons in Ireland. Number 12th on the list should read Eileen Hynes date of birth 15th of December 1916. Thanking you Michael Hynes. 2001:BB6:653D:8358:39CB:A291:D418:E3DE (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for her date of birth? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I can find List of Irish supercentenarians but not the article you mention — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)