Contents

Template talk:Contentious topics

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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days

I did some work in Module:Sanctions/sandbox (and Module:Sanctions/data/sandbox) to add support for ArbCom sanctions to the module. I want to suggest to ArbCom that maybe they use this or a similar module for contentious topics? It would reduce the amount of overhead from the current system of templates and whatnot when a sanction is added, modified, or removed, as well as allow for one set of templates to be used for both community and arbitration designated contentious topics. There is consensus at Special:PermaLink/1219827352#RfC:_Converting_all_current_and_future_community_discretionary_sanctions_to_(community_designated)_contentious_topics_procedure to update the terminology used for community sanctions, but no consensus for the specific details. I just wanted to bring this up as having single templates able to handle a wide variety of cases is better than having multiple fragmented templates only able to handle single cases. Awesome Aasim 00:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't oppose the idea of using a centralised Module:Sanctions if the community system is either largely or completely based on WP:CTOP. If the system is modified, then using a centralised module may make the module more complicated than it was when two template systems existed.

I think more work is needed to support all the use cases of the Template:Contentious topics family of templates. For example, Template:Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice has a placed-date parameter that would need to be supported and doesn't seem to be supported in that module. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamy Jazz Do you want to maybe add those features into the sandbox version of that module? Awesome Aasim 17:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have that much experience with Lua, so I'll need to take a look into the docs before I could comfortably make those modifications.

I would also say that the {{Contentious topics/alert/first}} text shouldn't be changed and I would note that the text in the buildFirstAlert method has been modified slightly. Is also seems to need further changes if this template was used for community first alerts. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamy Jazz I think the wording might have changed slightly in the alert/first text since then that were not reflected in "buildFirstAlert". I think unifying the modules would be a great idea.

Also, wouldn't WP:GS/RUSUKR fall additionally under WP:CT/EE?Awesome Aasim 00:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not fully. The community authorised general sanctions impose a topic-wide extended confirmed restriction, which means that we would still need to have them both. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Through experimenting in June 2023, I found that {{Alert/first}} and {{Alert/DS}} get their list of CTOP areas from one place, and {{Alert}} gets its list from somewhere else. Whatever we do, I'd like to encourage us to unify these to all use the same source of data. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I started throwing something together while unaware of this discussion while trying to get to the point where a feature request at Template talk:Contentious topics/talk notice could be implemented. Currently an equivalent to {{Contentious topics/list}} is sitting at User:Tollens/sandbox (wrapper template) + Module:Sandbox/Tollens/Contentious topics/list + Module:Sandbox/Tollens/Contentious topics/data.json. Being aware of this discussion now, I clearly shouldn't put any more effort into this as a separate module. @Awesome Aasim: I would be happy to work with you on this to try and expand Module:Sanctions to include code and data for this group of templates if you were interested. Tollens (talk) 08:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russo-Ukrainian War is, unsurprisingly, tagged as a contentious topic. I'm trying to use the warning template over a 5RR issue, but it requires a magic code and I can't see one listed for the Russian invasion. Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 10:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the contentious topic is Eastern Europe (the magic code is typically e-e), and on top of it we have community imposed sanctions specifically for Russian-Ukranian conflict detailed in WP:RUSUKR. Ymblanter (talk) 10:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Change You must be logged-in, have 10 edits and an account age of 4 daystoYou must be logged-in to an [[Wikipedia:User access levels#Autoconfirmed and confirmed users|autoconfirmed or confirmed]] account (usually automatically granted to accounts with 10 edits and an account age of 4 days)
• Change You must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 daystoYou must be logged-in to an [[Wikipedia:User access levels#Extended confirmed users|extended confirmed]] account (automatically granted to accounts with 500 edits and an account age of 30 days)

Obviously fine if someone can come up with a more succinct way to put this, but as it stands the wording doesn't quite match with what's actually required. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 23:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check about this. Here's what it would look like:

You are subject to additional rules when you edit this page. If you do not follow these rules, you may be blocked from editing: You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (automatically granted to accounts with 500 edits and an account age of 30 days) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this page (except in limited circumstances) This page is related to discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, a contentious topic. Pages related to this contentious topic are subject to additional rules as authorized by the Arbitration Committee. Before editing, please familiarize yourself with the contentious topic policy.

You are subject to additional rules when you edit this page. If you do not follow these rules, you may be blocked from editing: You must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually automatically granted to accounts with 10 edits and an account age of 4 days) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this page (except in limited circumstances) This page is related to discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, a contentious topic. Pages related to this contentious topic are subject to additional rules as authorized by the Arbitration Committee. Before editing, please familiarize yourself with the contentious topic policy.

SilverLocust 💬 07:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the demo. I think examples of the old text are also needed to form an opinion on this. IMHO, it would be a mistake to add excessive precision to a we really want you to read this notice. Some pages point out that EC is not automatically granted at 500/30: apparently it is the 501st edit which does the granting. The simple "You must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days" is a lot easier to grasp than the proposal. Johnuniq (talk) 07:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the live template:

You are subject to additional rules when you edit this page. If you do not follow these rules, you may be blocked from editing: You must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this page (except in limited circumstances) This page is related to discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, a contentious topic. Pages related to this contentious topic are subject to additional rules as authorized by the Arbitration Committee. Before editing, please familiarize yourself with the contentious topic policy.

You are subject to additional rules when you edit this page. If you do not follow these rules, you may be blocked from editing: You must be logged-in, have 10 edits and an account age of 4 days You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this page (except in limited circumstances) This page is related to discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, a contentious topic. Pages related to this contentious topic are subject to additional rules as authorized by the Arbitration Committee. Before editing, please familiarize yourself with the contentious topic policy.

SilverLocust 💬 07:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, what this is motivated by is a recent experience I had where I had to revert an administrator because they were (presumably) thinking of XC as simply straightforwardly 500/30, so they just assumed I must not be based on my edit count. That made me think of the inconsistent way I'd seen it worded in various messages, which was very confusing until I finally realized that anywhere that says 500/30 actually just means "be extended-confirmed", so once I successfully got it manually granted for this account it would be okay for me to do anything under ECR. I actually wonder if it might be better to just say be logged in to an extended confirmed account for the sake of concision and let the link do the detailed explaining. (I'd appreciate feedback on that idea btw, @SilverLocust, Johnuniq, and Paine Ellsworth.) I just didn't necessarily want to assume that it was okay to throw out the explicit mention of the numbers with my proposal here and my bold edits to other templates. (I edited a few essays and such too, but obviously I feel a bit more comfortable going into explanatory detail in those cases so there's less of an issue.) Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 12:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be a good idea to at least link the "logged in" phrase, as in:

• You must be [[Wikipedia:User access levels#Autoconfirmed and confirmed users|logged in]], have 10 edits and an account age of 4 days and
• You must be [[Wikipedia:User access levels#Extended confirmed users|logged in]], have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days

...which would appear the same except for the linking. The hyphen isn't needed in the "logged in" phrase, so I omitted it. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 07:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this idea for sure. In the case that my rephrasing isn't accepted, I think it'd also make sense to at least make have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days and have 10 edits and an account age of 4 days into links as well. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 12:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]