No articles about the 2024 election other than the actual article about the 2024 election. Created WAY too early. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Template:Edit semi-protected with Template:Request edit.
As I have (surprisingly) recently discovered, this entire family of templates auto-detects the protection level of the template for which the edit request is being made. This means that an ((FPER)) placed on a template-protected template will result in exactly the same thing as a ((TPER)). Because of this, it seems to me that there is little reason to keep these all as separate templates, instead using the more obvious and reasonably-named ((request edit)) as the base template for this family (instead of the latter template being used as a dab for all five). Primefac (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck ((request edit)) since most of the participants feel it's not well-suited for the final target. Primefac (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the first five together but keep ((request edit)) as is since COI edit requests are, and need to be, a separate process (a page someone has a COI with can also be protected). * Pppery * it has begun... 16:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps a parameter such as
COI=yes or type=COI could be used to flag the type of edit request that is being made, which would allow all six templates to be merged into Template:Request edit. That would still keep them a separate process. Adam Black t • c 16:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any reason to do that, though? It seems to just make things more complicated for everyone. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how it complicates things, it streamlines the process of requesting an edit. Btw, ((request edit)) has been deprecated, so you're already meant to use a different template - ((edit COI)). Adam Black t • c 22:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)Request edit used to be for COI, and it's a generic name that could refer to it or edit partially-blocked as well. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 16:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Merge (Non-Admin vote) Babysharkboss2 was here!! Dr. Wu is NOT a Doctor! 16:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Being an admin doesn't mean very much here--there's no need to point out you aren't one. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 17:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the first five and keep ((Request edit)) as a disambiguation per Pppery. I was also rather surprised and amused to find out that the edit request templates automatically emulate each other based on the page's protection level. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- As no one has suggested a title for the proposed merged template, perhaps ((Edit protected))? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Should probably have "request" in its name. Gonnym (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Then maybe ((Protected edit request)) to match the Module it invokes, though I should note that the possibly enticing shortcut ((PER)) is already a template for the Peruvian flag. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge first five unless there is some yet-to-be-discovered reason to have them separate. Gonnym (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ((request edit)) needs a new name, since that's not what it does. Other than that, I see no issue with merging the others. Izno (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: These do not behave identically when the edit request is to an unprotected page. For example, you could use ((Edit extended-protected)) for an article that is within an WP:ARBECR topic area but which has not presently been protected. (If the page is protected, you have to use
|force= to force a different protection level.) SilverLocust 💬 23:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Need to make sure the force stuff isn't broken, it is needed sometimes. — xaosflux Talk 15:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this template set is missing a template for requesting edits that are editfiltered, so autodetection doesn't help, when you need extra rights due to an edit filter instead of page protection. If these are merged, will a switch be available to select a rights level for that situation? -- 65.92.244.237 (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh Except the last, they're all wrappers for Module:Protected edit request with slightly different arguments, so in that sense they're already merged. But we should probably keep the slightly different behavior in that ((Edit fully-protected)) should default to fully-protected if the auto-detection fails, ((Edit semi-protected)) to semi-protected, and so on rather than turning them all into redirects to a single wrapper. ((Request edit)) should probably have no default, if that's reasonable. Anomie⚔ 12:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak merge, now that the last has been struck, keep different behavior defaults if feasible per Anomie. I also agree that with everything already under one-module it really doesn't make that much of a difference. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:4CF1:7456:BBC:F8B5 (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support merge - I do like Anomie's point about the default action Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional oppose merge per Anomie. These separate 'templates' are just wrappers for that edit request module really, so not any duplicated template code to worry about. Let's not possibly cause unintended behaviour for a template that's used at least hundreds of times everyday, especially with the auto-detect failover. There are other potential complications like what 65.92.244.237 has written above. Though, consider this vote invalidated if it's possible to merge all of these templates together without changing the behaviour and functionality of these templates. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional support creating a template with auto-detection, as long as the existing templates are kept per SilverLocust and Anomie. Rusty4321 talk contribs 14:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, but the target should maybe be ((Protected edit request)). ((Request edit)) may be the destination or redirect to a different merge target, since hatnotes can direct users to more appropriate templates. SWinxy (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unused as the template uses Template:Table cell templates/doc. Gonnym (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Template:Infobox mapframe/doc/templatedata with Template:Infobox mapframe/doc.
Merge the TemplateData to the main /doc template (Template:Infobox mapframe/doc#TemplateData). Since it was created in 2020 and hasn't been updated once since, the parameters need to be checked to see if they are still up to date. Gonnym (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear sidebar subpage. Unused and not a doc page. Gonnym (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a template that never really took off in usage when it was made in 2010. At this point, such reviews are handled by WP:FFD, and the ((Oldffdfull)) template points readers in the direction of relevant discussions for files. (Also, if this template is deleted, Category:PD reviewed files should probably be deleted per ((Db-g8)) as dependent on the nominated template.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment NFCC/NFUR and PD discussions were merged into FFD, so this should be a remainder of a defunct process -- 65.92.244.237 (talk) 03:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't used for either process though. It was a template that was created then never utilized. Steel1943 (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 09:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unused. If it was in use, there would be an argument for keeping it for historical purposes. However, it is not. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]