Template talk:Contentious topics/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Template-protected edit request on 17 July 2025

−

Wikipedia’s norms and policies

+

Wikipedia's norms and policies

per MOS:CURLY --cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 22:32, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Sure,  Done, though curly apostrophes can be used in non-article namespaces where the Manual of Style doesn’t apply. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 00:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Including a link to the specific restrictions for a given CT

The template output identifies the specific CTs for a given article, and says "Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page." But it doesn't say anything about the specific restrictions for the CT that prompts the appearance of the template on that talk page. If someone isn't already familiar with the restrictions for that topic, it requires going to Wikipedia:Contentious topics, then down to Wikipedia:Contentious topics#List of contentious topics, and then clicking again to see what's said for that specific topic. In addition to the general notice naming the CT(s) in play, is there any way to add a direct link to information about the specific CT restrictions for the identified CT?

An example: the Zohran Mamdani article has BLP and AP restrictions, plus A-I restrictions for one section of the article. Is there any way for the template's output to link directly to WP:CT/BLP, WP:CT/AP and WP:CT/A-I? FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Most CTs don't have any automatic restrictions, so the template doesn't automatically list any. If an article is under a CT that does have automatic restrictions, they should be manually added to the template. For example, at Mamdani, someone should add custom restrictions with the 1RR, ECR, and word limit restriction. I'm neutral on linking the cases, but we shouldn't rely on a link to the case to explain the active restrictions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't ever used this template, and I hadn't looked carefully at what options were available, and I see now that it can already accomplish what I think it important, as long as an editor makes use of those options. Do you know if there's any WP:__ page that lists which CTs have custom restrictions and what they are? Or, if the editor who adds the template doesn't already know, does that editor need to go to that case to check? FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

It's not up-to-date, but Wikipedia:General sanctions is the closest to what you're looking for. If anyone has time, ARBPIA4 needs to be update to ARBPIA5 and the Indian military history case changes need to be effected. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Edit request regarding SA

Regarding South Asia CT, didn't you mention Bhutan on the area? Ahri Boy (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 17:26, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ahri Boy: Bhutan wasn't one of the countries that the Arbitration Committee voted to include. The countries that were selected had each been mentioned as part of WP:CT/IPA, WP:GS/CASTE, or WP:CT/SL. This has been brought up at WT:ACN#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Indian military history closed, but the list of covered countries will only be expanded if the Committee votes to do so. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 19:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Simplify wording

Hey, I think the wording of this template could be simplified a bit:

−

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics:

+

This user is aware of the designation of the following as contentious topics:

Thoughts? FaviFake (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done; thank you for the suggestion :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 12:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

topic b(alkans) principles

Our current alerts don't tell people about the principles of WP:ARBMAC. The boilerplate warnings seem bland and bureaucratic, as opposed to the original principles. --Joy (talk) 09:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Talk page and editnotice templates need ECR param

@ArbCom Clerks: ECR is now applied to multiple contentious topic areas. Since both PIA and SA suggest preemptive protection, and since many such pages will need protection and application of two CT templates, it would be very helpful if ECR were added as its own parameter to templates like Template:Contentious topics/talk notice and Template:Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:56, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

{{contentious topics/talk notice}} already has |ECR= for the topics within which ECR is authorized; is that not working on particular template?

I can look at adding the functionality to Template:Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

HouseBlaster, thanks! I think I didn't realize there was an ECR param for the talk notice because it's not mentioned in the documentation. Can we add a mention? Also, an unexpected behavior of ECR=yes for South Asia topics is that the banner suggests ECR applies to the whole topic area, rather than just castes/IMH. If it's possible to use a template argument to narrow the message, that'd be great. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

HouseBlaster has been improving the talk notice. In the /sandbox version |sasg describes the subtopic rather than just the same thing as |sa. For now, it's fine if the talk notice doesn't mention the ECR (you can just ECP an article without using |ECR=yes). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 21:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Getting a tailored message for ECR-covered is my next task for the sandbox; I hope to have that complete sooner rather than later.

Looking into the fine details about how ECR is handled in the PIA editnotice, it simply passes through |protection=ecp when creating the notice. I guess we could be more explicit about what ECR entails—it is more than ECP—but when you are editing the page they are identical (unless it only applies to part of the page, which is something not currently supported in the editnotice banner and will be a much bigger project). Thinking through some technical details:

• We could probably expand Module:Contentious topics/talk notice to handle edit notices, too
• For my mediocre Lua skills, that would be a bigger job than a weekend project, but it is on my list of things to do

In the meantime, I have added some bits to the Template:Contentious topics/talk notice/doc documentation about |ECR=yes (and |RSCR=yes). Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster I made a couple of changes in the sandbox at Special:Diff/1312615088/1313337153. First, pages such as Talk:HAL Tejas, which are in a CT where ECR is an additional-available restriction, were just displaying , which is subject to the extended-confirmed restriction, so I added code to addECR() to check the additional-available table and args.ECR, and I also added a fallback of This page, in whole or in part,... which can display at the start of that sentence if all else fails. I also added the category Category:Wikipedia pages subject to the extended confirmed restriction, which can be used for automated detection of all pages subject to ECR, not just those in Category:Wikipedia pages subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, per the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#User Intarface encourages actions that are against rules and can have unintended consquences for new users. With your approval, I can merge it into the main template. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:59, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

To make the category happen, you just add it to Template:Contentious topics/Category database.json, which is covered by Module:Contentious topics/talk notice#L-408--L-410. Those improvements are otherwise amazing, and I would love for them to be merged—thanks for your help :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:54, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:54, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 27 § Template:Ctop

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 27 § Template:Ctop. Toadspike [Talk] 12:44, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 September 2025

Please remove the empty newline at the end. it causes issues when other talk header templates follow below which may result in a empty line between (eg if the next thing after is an invisible anchor or so) Raladic (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

A line break is always present at the end of a Wikipedia page being edited. It cannot be removed. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 16:41, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I want clear, I meant the extra one here, which isn’t triggered by the automatic blank newline, but because the noinclude documentation in this case is adding ANOTHER blank newline, which needs to be removed (by putting it on the same line as is usual for header templates to avoid this, see Template:Moved discussion from) as it results in a double blank newline for pages transcluding the {{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} template:

−

}}}}</includeonly><noinclude> {{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice|a-a|1RR=T|protection=ecp}} {{documentation}} </noinclude>

+

}}}}</includeonly><noinclude>{{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice|a-a|1RR=T|protection=ecp}}{{documentation}}</noinclude>

Hope that makes sense. Thanks. Raladic (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

1. Removing a line break that is inside noinclude tags will not affect transclusions.
2. Template:Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice and Template:Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice are different templates. The editnotice template is not for use on talk pages (with "other talk header templates").
3. It appears that where you are seeing extra whitespace is Talk:LGBTQ people. It is still there even if you remove the contentious topics template. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 17:40, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

   I believe the whitespace on Talk:LGBTQ people was because the notices are <table> block elements that cannot be within a <p>, so the <span> anchor between two tables is placed within a separate <p> to contain it. I've just moved the anchor. (Alternatively, using <div>{{anchor|...}}</div> would also remove the whitespace.) ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 18:31, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Option to have multiple topics for one template?

I recently made an edit request to an editnotice page, and someone brought up how much clutter there is from Template:Contentious topics/editnotice appearing multiple times on the same editnotice, but for a different topic. For example: at Template:Editnotices/Page/Killing of Iryna Zarutska, this whole message appears twice, with the only difference being that "post-1992 American politics" is the subject of the first message and BLP is the subject of the second message. Everything else has literally the same exact wording between the two templates. Because of this, I really think there should be an option to allow multiple topics to be selected for one transclusion to reduce clutter. 137a (talk • edits) 00:38, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Possibly related: this 2023 discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

It is on my list to extend this functionality from {{contentious topics/talk notice}}. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:42, 30 September 2025 (UTC)