Template talk:Contentious topics

This template is within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee, as one of its associated enforcement processes. Therefore, you must not make significant changes to the wording or functionality of this template without the Committee's consent. Thank you!

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Contentious topics template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1: 30 days

Template-protected edit request on 23 September 2024

This edit request to Template:Contentious topics/list has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Make consistent naming in "Area of conflict", for example

the Arab–Israeli conflict
Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts
the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy
the Balkans or Eastern Europe
India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
Keep same description for both MOS/Titles

This is part of larger set of minimal changes to make reading/scrolling through table of CTOP's easier both on the eyes and sorting inside the tables.

You can find a link to proposed changes in this sandbox {{Contentious_topics/list/cleanup}} ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The the is correct for each of those three examples, and adding the to the others wouldn't be. This template isn't just used to create the list at WP:CTOP#List of contentious topics. It is also used in editnotices and talk page notices to create sentences like "Parts of this page relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic." SilverLocust 💬 18:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverLocust That makes sense and precise grammar there is certainly preferable. Sometimes it refers to pairings of locations, the conflict shared by countries and sometimes just the countries, even though I don't believe the contentious reasons are different. Do you see any inconsistency with some of these current wordings?

the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed (also no wikilinks)
India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts
the Arab–Israeli conflict

Or with politics...

post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people
post-1978 Iranian politics

Either way, even if none of the wording changes here {{Contentious_topics/table/cleanup}} may mitigate that by thematically grouping them together, regardless of current/future wording and has far fewer implications (e.g regular readers wouldn't see new/different talk page banners). Thoughts? ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply further in the next 24 hours. (Ping me if I don't.) SilverLocust 💬 19:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shushugah: Your changes to Template:Contentious topics/table look fine to me, except I would leave the smaller 9pt font. On Vector 2022, the table can easily overflow onto the right toolbar.

I wouldn't want to rephrase the language used by ArbCom in defining each contentious topic area (beyond having "X and Y" and "Y and X" as options like for mos and at or for e-e and b). For example, see the motions defining the contentious topic areas for American politics and Iranian politics and Kurds and Kurdistan. SilverLocust 💬 14:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have boldly updated {{Contentious topics/table}} with your suggestions, including to keep font size 9. I do think further improvements could be achieved by replacing Wikipedia with WP. But will save that for another edit. I do understand that the letters represent different motions, but the links and templates don't get more granular than high level, so why is there a need for e-e and b? Could be they be listed on one one line, with aliases for each other? I get impression this is not done because of tight coupling between the 4 templates:

~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 20 November 2024

This edit request to Template:Contentious topics/editnotice has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In {{Contentious topics/editnotice}}, drop the U from "behaviour" because there's already "behavior" and replace the S in "authorised" and "familiarise" with Z for consistent spelling, as an American user named Wugapodes created that template. Santiago Claudio (talk) 04:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done I see no need to gratuitously change between American and British English. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, add U to "behavior" to become "behaviour"... agree? Santiago Claudio (talk) 10:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completed. Note that this template was created with this inconsistency in English spelling variety. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 16:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 27 November 2024

This edit request to Template:Contentious topics/alert/first has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change:

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have [[WP:ECR|500 edits and an account age of 30 days]], and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

To:

You must be logged-in and have [[WP:ECR|500 edits and an account age of 30 days]] to edit pages in this topic area. Users not meeting this criteria may edit [[H:TP|talk pages]] to make [[WP:EDITXY|specific edit requests]], but may not participate in general discussions.

Reasoning: This better explains the specifics of how WP:ECR works to new users. In the past few months there have been a lot of instances of non-EC editors making non-edit request contributions to talk pages in the only topic area currently affected by ECR, and I find myself needing to explain specifically that they're not allowed to do that.

(Also they don't need to be told about the revert restriction if they can't edit at all)

Alternatively, would there be cause to create a new, specific notice template for introducing WP:ECR, explaining that they can only post t0 the talk page to make an X-to-Y edit request, not to participate in discussions generally? AntiDionysius (talk) 11:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 16:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AntiDionysius: This alert is also sent to extended confirmed users, so the 1RR alert should not be removed. I've mentioned this request to the clerking coordination chat channel; the rest of the suggested change might be made after consultation among the arbitrators.

Undone for now.

@Paine Ellsworth: Please leave non-minor edits of contentious topic templates to arbitrators or arbitration clerks. See WP:ARBPROC#Enforcement templates and procedural documents ("Arbitrators and arbitration clerks may, after consultation with the Arbitration Committee, update and maintain templates and procedural documents related to arbitration enforcement processes (including the contentious topics system).") and this template's group editnotice. You could ping the clerks with {{@ArbComClerks}} if one hasn't noticed and responded to a request after a while – I for one am subscribed to this talk page. SilverLocust 💬 19:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, you make a very solid point on the 1RR - I was being silly. Discussing with arbitrators makes sense, thanks! AntiDionysius (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads up! Perhaps a specific edit request template is needed for requests like this? (or maybe these types of templates need to be fully protected?) P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request / idea

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

Hello, I find that my Contentious topics/aware banner is pretty large. I would like to be able to collapse it (and preferably set that state as a default) so a user isn't bombarded with notices when they first open my talk page. (I admit this is partially my fault due to my overuse of headers, but I think it would be a useful feature for everyone). Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 12:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: Disabling the edit request template until there is an actionable code change request here. I poked around the code a bit and did not see any easy way to collapse an mbox template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well that sucks! Cheers for checking, let me know if you see anything Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 18:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting here that ArbCom and the Clerks are discussing. Primefac (talk) 18:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thank you! Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 19:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it vertical space you would like to remedy? I think supporting the list as a horizontal list probably makes sense. Collapsing isn't particularly difficult either, but I'd be a little less in favor of that - then it really is just another banner for others to skip over. Izno (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either would work, I'd prefer both options with a warning about what you mentioned. Isn't the point of the template to automatically warn a user when they try to leave a "contentious topics" notice anyway (idk if that requires certain software like twinkle) Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 20:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that I mean a warning in the documentation. Anyone missing it can be informed that it's there, and if it keeps happening then the talk page owner should probably uncollapse it. Personally I'd warn anyone and archive their notice if they missed it. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 20:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]