Wikipedia talk:Edit requests

Legitimate talk page comments incorrectly headed by protected edit request templates

The transaction consisting of an edit request answered with "Not done" at [1] is the latest such transaction I've seen fitting a pattern that concerns me. I'm talking about cases where the content of the request isn't for a specific edit but, rather, an unremarkable inquiry or suggestion such as one typically sees on talk pages, potentially leading to a constructive discussion. But because the user added it through the edit request mechanism, another user will respond "Not done, we need the specific changes you're requesting", close the request—effectively shutting down the discussion and leaving the original poster hanging, no doubt frustrating them and possibly deterring them from ever bothering again.

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

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

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

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

Procedure for requesting an edit to protected talk page

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

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

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

Partial-block extended to full ban

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

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

Archived edit requests

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

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

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