Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Footer

Tweak for print

Could you please add

<noinclude>[[Category:Exclude in print]]</noinclude>

At the bottom of the template. This will greatly improve the appareance of several book editions of the Signpost. Thanks Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Made a slight mistake. The : should note have been there. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks. My fault! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost template category

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

I'd like for [[Category:Wikipedia Signpost templates|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]] to be added to the categories overleaf if possible. Skomorokh 10:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be a pain, but could you make that Category:Wikipedia Signpost templates rather than Category:Wikipedia Signpost? Cheers, Skomorokh 11:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just copied and pasted from your other request. Didn't realise they were different! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection request

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

The protection on this deprecated template needs to be removed so that it can be {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Deprecated}}. Additionally the code appears to be broken and that's affecting all of our 2007-2009-era archival issues, and I need to fix it. Please ping when you drop the protection, thanks, ResMar 16:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Resident Mario:

Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redrose64: Seriously? This is a quite uncontroversial case, the protection would be inappropriate if it were applied today, the locking administrator, Ral315, retired a long time ago, and I made this same request on another deprecated page just a few days ago that was quickly done without controversy. I respectfully ask that you not throw technical minutia at me and instead do your job. ResMar 22:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my job: I'm unpaid. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redrose64: Are you seriously going to deny this request and make me go through the effort of listing this in the technically appropriate way for no reason other than procedural formality? ResMar 22:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Resident Mario: Unlocked. Redrose64 ... WP:BURO, please. Seriously. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Resident Mario and The ed17: protection has been restored - not by me, by Galobtter (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really restored, the previous protection was full protection and this is only semi protection (because this page has more than ~500 transclusions and so could be used to vandalize a bunch of pages). Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]