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

Contentious topics/talk notice tmbox type and TALKORDER priority

Perceived problem: I sometimes clean up talk page bannerspace according to WP:TALKORDER. It is rarely the case that Template:Contentious topics/talk notice is properly prioritized, i.e., placed high enough.

Hypothesis on the cause: Controversial articles' talk pages that have got the matching CT banner(s), also often contain Template:Controversial and Template:Not a forum. These two are intuitively perceived as top-priority and "critical" because of the orange border. It's more natural to put them above all templates which do not have such "see this first" color coding. Whenever these templates are on the talk page, relative to them, the Contentious topics talk notice subjectively feels like paperwork and is often put below them or last ... However, the Contentious topics talk notice is the true critical warning template that needs to be heeded. It is a lot more important and also more helpful than the generic "this topic is controversial" banner, and especially more helpful than the "not a forum banner" which just restates what the standard talk header says. According to TALKORDER, the CT talk notice has priority over the generic warning templates.

Solution: Contentious topics/talk notice tmbox type should be changed to "content", so that it also gets the orange border and looks like this

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Longevity of darts-loving weather forecasters, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

In brief: This is a proposal to put the orange border around the CT talk notice.—Alalch E. 23:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

... I did not want to post an request initially, but perhaps this doesn't really need prior discussion, as it isn't a particularly significant change.—Alalch E. 21:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. I have synced the /sandbox for you so that you can easily make the suggested change. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95 Thanks. Please perform this change: Special:Diff/1289323585. To see what it looks like, see Special:PermanentLink/1289323816 —Alalch E. 22:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. If this is controversial for some reason, any template editor is welcome to revert with an explanation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding a sentence

Would it be possible to bold this sentence (which is very important, yet often overlooked by new editors)?

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days (found in Template:Contentious topics/alert/first).

Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 13:05, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster and Rosguill: could you please share your thoughts on this when you have a moment? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That seems appropriate to me. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 19:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster and Rosguill: thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine my surprise...

that my post at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) about banner fatigue/multiple contentious topic notices on article talk pages has been discussed before on this page. So, I'm asking if something can be done to possibly streamline/simplify contentious topics into (maybe) one "super" container, but have each line pull from their broadly construed ArbCom rulings? I know, I know, it's a unicorn but do people really pay attention to the 3 on Talk:Anthony Fauci or the 3 on Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or the 5 talk page banners on Talk:LGBTQ rights in the United States, 2 of which are contentious topics notices. From the Archive 1 thread it doesn't look easy or maybe it's not even possible. Not sure, so I thought I'd ask again. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 01:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can look into this over the weekend, but I think this is a good idea. I'll flag it on clerks-l for the Committee's attention. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. - Shearonink (talk) 05:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HouseBlaster Wanted to again mention that there is a concurrent discussion about this issue going on at WP:Village pump (technical). - Shearonink (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]