Template talk:Warning RS and OR

Ambiguous sentence

The boldface sentence in this snippet, says the opposite of what is intended:

If your complaint is about a description used in the article, check first to see if it is supported by reliable sources. If it is, it is highly unlikely that your request to change it will be granted.

The subject of the second sentence (it, in: "If it is") is an unclear pronoun reference, as its closest antecedent is "if it is supported by reliable sources". The first reading of this is, that any request that is supported by reliable sources will be rejected; hardly the intended meaning.

As a secondary issue, I found "If your complaint is about a description used in the article,..." a bit opaque, and I'm still not certain I know precisely what is meant by that. Does this mean, "If you disagree with an assertion of fact in the article"? Maybe that could be clarified at the same time. Adding @Beyond My Ken, GorillaWarfare, and Newslinger:. Mathglot (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've just made an edit to address both things, but if you have a better idea for wording I'd say just make the change yourself. Thanks for pointing that out/the ping! GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me! Mathglot (talk) 07:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, Mathglot. The fixed wording looks correct. Thank you both. — Newslinger talk 09:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legibility

anyway to make this legible?? color contrast does not work. https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/visual-audio-contrast-contrast.html check]--Moxy 🍁 11:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does it "not work"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not comply with AAA accessibly as seen here--Moxy 🍁 15:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse reverted

@Beyond My Ken: I believe ProcrastinatingReader at least found it helpful. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? The entire purpose of the warning box is to attract attention, and thereby stop some of the repetition of annoying edit requests for inappropriate changes on controversial articles which are protected. Having it collapsed entirely defeats that purpose. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Banner blindness. There has been a wider discussion happening at the village pump. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was a good idea. You need to lure editors in with a shorter, snappier summary, which this change did. I don’t think there’s evidence that throwing a wall of text in front of people, especially with no prompts or guides, actually improves the odds that any of it is read, especially by the kinds of audiences these notices are aimed at. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, banner blindness is a thing, a cumulative thing. That's why it's pink and at the top of the talk pages it's used on.

Two paragraphs of 47 and 92 words hardly constitutes a "wall of text". The headline only is not sufficient to attract attention, in my opinion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn’t tell you what the notice says, funnily enough. I bet most regular editors who have seen this don’t bother read it. Why would we expect some new editor with an agenda to read two paragraphs? Maybe they’ll read two sentences, though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:TIES issue

Currently, the template uses the word "familiarise" with British spelling. Call me pedantic, but I would be miffed to see this spelling transcluded on the talk page of a post-1992 US politics article.

So I propose to either a) add and document a parameter to change the spelling; or b) reword to avoid this issue.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]