I think that when the |answered= parameter is set to yes, the icon should represent the level of protection instead of just being the default "Information" icon. This would have a few advantages:
It makes it easier for future editors to see the level of protection of the page at the time the request was created, as it may differ from the current one.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
It also reduces banner blindness. Any icon that's different from the default icons helps with banner blindness and will make custom-made information notices for a single page stand out more. That's why we have icons in the first place.
It wouldn't be confusing, since the small version is evidently less prominent compared to the full version. The text also helps. Together, the text and the icon clearly convey both what happened to the request, and the level of protection.
It reminds participants of ER discussions of the current protection level for the page, especially if the request was answered recently.
Because in the past it wasn't possible to detect the protection level. Once it was, the templates got partially merged, but not fully as IIRC there were still some corner cases. Anomie⚔15:00, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point, it's needless bureaucracy. When we merge templates, we leave redirects behind, so that old revisions of transcluding pages don't break, and we rarely invoke modules direct from articles - there's usually a wrapper template. {{TPER}}, {{FPER}}, {{EPER}}, {{SPER}} and {{IPER}} are all wrappers for Module:Protected edit request, so they're essentially merged already. In most cases, you can in fact use them interchangeably (even IPER); try going to the talk page of a fully-protected page such as Talk:Biryani, add two or three of these (different ones) and preview without saving - you'll see that there is no difference between the outputs. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point, it's needless bureaucracy There is, actually.For example, just the other day, I had used {{FPER}} to ask for an edit to a FP page. I posted the request on a semi-protected page and I specified the page in my comment, not in the template. And I didn't check the output because i knew I had used {{FPER}} so obviously it would show the FP banner, why wouldn’t it?Then a poor editor saw that the banner actually said "semiprotected" and marked it as done because "i could edit the page myself". Then an admin intervened, pinging the editor and telling them to be more careful, and then fixed the request for me. And then a different admin performed the requested change.If {{FPER}} had been a redirect, none of this mess would've happened and 2 fewer people would've been involved, because I would've used the more general {{ER}} template and I would've checked the output to make sure it detected the correct page. FaviFake (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there really no reason to keep them separate? The only benefit of keeping 5 different wrappers is this:
If one or more of the pages are unprotected, or multiple pages with different protection levels are specified, the page is categorized in Category:Wikipedia edit requests possibly using incorrect templates. Otherwise, if the force parameter is not set, it is automatically categorized in the correct protection level.
So basically the only benefit is: IFF the pages have different protection levels or are unprotected and the user wishes to force their choice of protection using the |force=y parameter, then they would have to manually add |template. This sounds like a terrible reason to keep these codebases separate, so I do plan on going to TfD if it really is the only benefit. FaviFake (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
TfD created. These template should be modified to add this at the top of each one:{{subst:Tfm|Edit protected|Edit semi-protected|Edit template-protected|Edit extended-protected|Edit fully-protected|Edit interface-protected|heading=Edit protected}}
The template has the correct image for the protection level. Even though you used {{IPER}}, the module is being smart and realizes that MediaWiki:Bad image list is not actually interface-protected as it's not a JavaScript or CSS page. It is instead fully-protected, due to being in the MediaWiki namespace (and not being a JS or CSS page). Anomie⚔14:09, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That result, even if it is correct, is unintuitive. I guess I used the wrong template.
But if the page is in fact just fully protected, then why does the info page for MediaWiki:Bad image list say "Allow only users with "editinterface" permission (no expiry set)" if normal admins can edit it? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
MediaWiki:Bad image list isn't actually protected. I know this because if I visit the page, it has a "Protect" tab at the top, not a "Change protection" tab; also, when I click that tab, the first selection is presently set to "Allow all users"; third, this code "{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit|MediaWiki:Bad image list}}" emits "" (an empty string). Regular users can't edit it not because of any protection, but because of a restriction built into the MediaWiki software itself. Whilst there is a protection entry in the page logs, the protection set up in 2005 was zapped when the page was deleted in 2018 - undeleting a page does not restore prot settings. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. This is confusing. So the "editinterface" permission is the ability to edit pages in the MediaWiki namespace, and it is given to all admins, so requiring that right to edit a page does not mean only interface admins can edit it. Why is it called "editinterface" then? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The MediaWiki namespace is used for site interface messages, like for example MediaWiki:nstab-main is the text for the "Article" tab. I suppose it is a bit confusing that "interface admin" is used for the group that gets rights like editsitejs, editsitecss, and so on. Anomie⚔21:49, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
TfD created. These template should be modified to add this at the top of each one:
Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 November 21 § November 21 FaviFake (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
. What am I missing? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 03:21, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
, will appear in the edit requested box. What you're seeing is situation normal. I tested the {{Edit interface-protected}} template on pages where the highest protection level is interface-protected, and the correct image, File:Interface-protection-shackle.svg, does appear in the template box. It can be a little complicated and confusing sometimes. Sorry about this. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 11:42, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
