Template talk:Gs

GS Alert Changes

A discussion affecting {{Gs/alert}} is ongoing at WT:GS, here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Calling the alert template using a sanction alias instead of a full sanction name

Hi ProcrastinatingReader, and hi all!

Sanctions, as defined in Module:Sanctions/data, have both sanction names and aliases. The {{Gs/alert}} documentation often recommends using the alias instead of the sanction name: for example, irp or uku instead of iranpol or ukunits.

This doesn't work. Really, you need to use the full sanction name.

Whenever I try to call the template using the alias, as the documentation recommends, it will fail to reveal which sanction I was referring to. And, in the sentence "The specific details of these sanctions are described here", the word "here" links literally to the disambiguation page https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Here.

Let me show you an example of this breakage.

{{subst:gs/alert|topic=irp}}

results in the following result (collapsed for brevity):

Result

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. Please carefully read this information: A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to . The specific details of these sanctions are described here. Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Is this a known issue?

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

The issue is just that {{Gs/alert}} isn't synced with sandbox, and the helper method doesn't seem to work great with aliases. The latter may be a problem for {{Community sanction}}, but as far as {{Gs/alert}} is concerned it just needs syncing from sandbox. I'm going to do that now, given no objections for 2 wks WT:GS and it's been in the sandbox for that time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear ProcrastinatingReader: Excellent, thanks! The template works much better now. I have only one minor quibble left: the template generates stray punctuation. Let me show you an example.

{{subst:Gs/alert|uku}}

generates the following result:

Result

{{ This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in measurement units in the United Kingdom. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions - such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks - on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Please note the presence of two stray left curly braces near the upper-left corner of the light-blue box.

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Good catch. Fixed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

All caps in {{Gs/talk notice}}

Hi!

This is a useful template which fit in well with the talk-page color scheme. One quibble: I'm not a big fan of the all-caps phrase WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS. MOS:ALLCAPS discourages the use of all-caps in article space, and WP:SHOUT discourages the use of all-caps as part of discussion comments on talk pages.

Instead of WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS, I personally would most prefer Warning: Sanctions are in effect. instead. But, if you don't like that wording, I would be okay with Warning: Active community sanctions. as an alternative.

If you insist on keeping the all-caps, you can, but I would like it very much if we could please fix it. :)

Thank you for reading this! Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

It's based from {{Ds/talk notice}}. The MOS doesn't really apply outside mainspace, for the most part, including on templates not transcluded in mainspace. The aim is to get attention to alert people that sanctions exist. The caps stand out across all the banner blindness. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear ProcrastinatingReader: Fair. I admit that banner blindness on talk pages is probably real. Still, {{Ds/talk notice}} never uses all-caps. :) Perhaps, instead of all-caps, {{Gs/talk notice}} could use huge header text, or unusual colors. Here are some possible rough ideas to start; I dunno if you like them or not.

Huge font

Enormous font

Bluish background

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the derivatives of {{Ds/talk notice}} (which would be {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}}, {{IPA AE}}, {{American politics AE}}). From a general web design standpoint, allcaps is not bad design (in many cases it is good design). I do think these templates have issues, including in design, but I'm not sure the caps is one of them (in my view, at least). More broadly, the DS and GS templates are indeed in need of reform. My reforms mostly just made the system more consistent, updated it to look like the DS one, and make it easier to add/remove/manage sanctions. As for the layout of the templates itself, I think both the DS and GS ones should be updated, with consideration to the actual purpose of these templates, but I neither currently have a clear plan on how to achieve that, or the time at this very moment. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Sig

Just as a note, |sig=yes when substing {{gs/alert}} doesn't actually add the signature. Primefac (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Just saw this, sorry for delay! Unnamed param 2 and |sig= were removed intentionally (I see they're still in the /doc). I personally didn't see the point when the suggested usage is template + ~~~~, and scripts like Twinkle automatically do it the ~~~~ way (eg [1]). Unless there's usages I didn't consider? Still reconsidering some aspects but put them on hold until I can talk to L235 re these (speaking of...). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I was attempting to use Twinkle and didn't see the option for a gs alert, and when you append ~~~~ it puts it outside the box, which to me always looks dumb. If that's the way it is, though, I'll keep doing it! Primefac (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Will look into it. In any case, I suppose it's worth staying consistent with ds/alert in that sense, incl para sig. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Primefac this should be done now ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you much! Primefac (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Table of topic codes

I tried to update {{Gs/editnotice/doc}} to include a table of topic codes, in order to match the text which refers to "A topic code from the list below", but using {{Gs/topics/table}} (similar to what is done for {{Ds/editnotice/doc}}) produces a table showing {{Gs/editnotice/doc}} instead of {{Gs/editnotice}}. At this point, I felt I should ask someone familiar with how the table is produced and used to look into it. Also, {{Gs/alert/doc}} includes {{Gs/topics/table/sandbox}}, which I'm assuming is just a missed cleanup item. Can someone please help? isaacl (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Done -- you had it right originally. It shows /doc on the doc page (in view preview) since based off page title. When viewed on template page itself, it doesn't. Fixed the sandbox part, too. Thanks for raising both issues! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

It would be desirable for the correct template to be shown even when viewing the documentation page directly, since people may link to the documentation. (By comparison, {{Ds/editnotice/doc}} shows the right template.) Thanks for looking into it. isaacl (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Can the module be modified so the generated template code strips off any trailing "/doc" from the page name? isaacl (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah -- I'm still meaning to look into this and Primefac's sig comment above. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 30 October 2020

Change the open hyphens (" - ") to be closed em dashes ("—") in accordance with the manual of style section on dashes. (An open en dash (" – ") is fine too, but I preform the former.) Perryprog (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah: just saw that the community sanction template uses a closed em dash, so it's probably better to go with that. Perryprog (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Oops—I've just realized that this is an edit request for the wrong page. The Sanctions module is where I should have made this, and I'm moving this there. Perryprog (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

This was the correct talk page.  Done ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

 Self-trout, my apologizes! I was checking on my phone to see if there was a Lua module associated with the template and didn't even think to read the talk page notices. Thanks! Perryprog (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:Consensus required

The WP:Consensus required restriction is currently being edited and discussed. Once the page has stabilized can we provide a link to it from the Gs template? The page should clarify and be consistent with the short description in the template: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, do not make the edit. There is no consensus yet for the text at WP:Consensus required and it has gone through several iterations. [2], [3], [4], [5] Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Problematic template - uses second person. Edit request

This thread is in reference to Template:Gs/editnotice

This template is problematic for a few reasons. New users whose first editing experience involves coming across it might be put off for good. However, the major problem is that it is rude. It uses the second person "you" to address the editor in an "in your face" personal manner and continues with a threat - "if you breach …" and "you may be blocked …" (my emphasis). It's a bit like a notice in a shop window proclaiming "If you steal from this shop we'll call the police", rather than "shoplifters will be prosecuted". At the very least, the use of the second person should be removed from this template, but ideally the whole thing should be toned down to be more in line with, for example, Template:Editnotices/Page/COVID-19 pandemic. Is it possible to adjust this template to remove use of the second person? Thanks, Arcturus (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Would you mind giving a sample of what the text might look like after this removal? Primefac (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, yes. How about replacing "If you breach the restriction on this page, you may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned" with Breaching the restriction on this page may result in a block or other sanctions" (I'm not sure if 'sanctions' needs to be singular or plural). Arcturus (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I've done a first draft at making this editnotice more understandable, including your change. What do you think? Template:Gs/editnotice/sandbox ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader Looks good. It's now much less abrupt and intimidating. Thanks for making the change. Hopefully anyone else interested will be happy with it. Arcturus (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I've cross-posted to AN. Primefac (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

My suggestion is that we want it to be in the face and intimidating. We didn't put the page under GS without cause. --Izno (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and probably cause a significant number of new editors to be put off contributing. Nothing on Wikipedia should be intimidating. Basically, if you can't get a point across without resorting to lazy, intimidating language, then you shouldn't be trying to get the point across in the first place. Arcturus (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

If the direct "you" is what scares them off a page with a GS notice, did we really want them to edit here? (Rhetorical, since I don't know the answer, and can jimmy up a rationale supporting either way on top of that.)

Nothing on Wikipedia should be intimidating. This I simply disagree with. ARBCOM is intimidating and there's no other way around that. AN(I) are intimidating. Sanctions are and should be intimidating. Don't edit intimidating things if it's simply the fact it's intimidating that is, er, intimidating. New editors can as easily find a page on a random small village in eastern Europe to edit if they don't want to deal with "intimidation".

Lastly, I contend it is not lazy. It is direct. It informs the editor that they are responsible for their edits in such areas. Your suggested wording was as lazy if anything, because it doesn't say who will earn the block. In the same world where the previous text was intimidating, yours has the air of the unknown to this new editor: "I wouldn't want an innocent other editor to be blocked because I edited." That's as bad, IMO. --Izno (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Most editors will never reach ArbCom or even ANI or get sanctioned. When a user joins, the HostBot does not send them a message warning them to be on their best behaviour or a kind Wikipedian will refer them to ANI. We should not be threatening the avg non-problematic editor to a normal article either. These editnotices are on thousands of pages. And one should note that none of these page restrictions can be enforced without a {{ds/alert}} or gs/alert anyway, so the editnotice should be mainly informational of the restriction. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that nothing on WP should be intimidating. If you are in a really bad place for new editors to be in, you should know that. I'm happy to word it better -- "If you are new here, this is a terrible place for you to be editing" -- but yes, newer editors should be warned Here Be Dragons. —valereee (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it's tricky to generalize. For some specific articles, perhaps most users who are editing the article for the first time are, on the basis of history, likely to be make inappropriate edits. I suspect, though, for most articles subject to general community sanctions, that most first-time-to-the-article or inexperienced editors are making benign or beneficial edits. While I don't have a problem with providing warnings (even with direct language), I disagree with advising all newcomers to go elsewhere. Everyone starts out as a first-time editor for every given article, or an inexperienced editor. isaacl (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think it makes any difference in that sense. It's in big letters in bold anyway. More words and more clutter is just distracting from the point, rather than emphasising it.

Also, consider the negative impact "in the face and intimidating" text has on editing. Some editors may be put off by overly threatening templates, even though they didn't intend to make such a violation in the first place. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Skipping your second paragraph, I tend to agree that less is more. The specific wording is the wrong "less is more" though. --Izno (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Strenuously disagree that we want it to sound intimidating. A GS notification is supposed to be given to someone simply for editing in the topic area - there's no reason to think they've done anything wrong at that point. On top of this, editors receiving them will often be new and inexperienced. Intentionally trying to get in-your-face and intimidating with random users who haven't done anything wrong solely to make them more likely to follow policy in the future is WP:BITE-y. I suspect it's also completely counterproductive - even though GS notifications are meant to be neutral, and even though you get one simply for editing in the topic area, the reality is that they are fairly often given by someone a user is in a dispute with (because, even if it implies no wrongdoing, part of the practical weight of a GS notification is that it establishes grounds for a later DS report if the user does violate the sanctions.) Making such messages sound threatening sends entirely the wrong message about how to handle disputes on Wikipedia. --Aquillion (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

In this case, it's the edit notice wording that is under discussion, so it is shown indiscriminately to everyone. I don't have an issue with wording that addresses the editor directly, because it might be one of the few ways to get editors to pay slightly more attention to the edit notice (even still, I suspect most people remain blissfully blind to it). I agree the message shouldn't assume any wrongdoing, or try to scare people away from editing, although I don't think using the second person as the subject does this. As I said when I participated in the rewording of the discretionary sanctions alert, I think most newcomers unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works don't realize that normally administrators can only block for specific reasons (such as direct violations of policy), and already assume they could get blocked at any time. The important aspect of the notice is to let editors know what page-specific restrictions are in place. isaacl (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• I've created a version two on the same page, which I think is better than version one as well. Copyediting may be needed. Thoughts appreciated! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I prefer the second version. The warning about sanctions is up front and then the explanation is given on why there are sanctions which seems more explanatory (although the words are basically the same in both, the first version uses two sentences while the second uses one). Neither uses "you" but I think they are effective. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 June 2021: Please add Uyghur genocide to data

In light of recent community sanctions, this needs to be updated to include WP:GS/UYGHUR. The following code should be inserted after line 46, (the line before ukunits):

uyghur={ topic = "Uyghur genocide", scope = "Uyghur genocide", wikilink = "WP:GS/UYGHUR", restrictions = {['ds'] = true}, palias = "Uyghur" }, — Mikehawk10 (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I think. Again, Mikehawk10, let me know if something doesn't look right. Go Phightins! 21:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Gs/talk notice amendment

I made two changes to {{Gs/talk notice}} in the sandbox, see Template:Gs/talk notice/sandbox:

1. Scrap the two 'standard' and 'mini' classifications and just have one small sized notice. Having two sizes was an arbitrary decision in the first place. The default is now the 'mini' size. Since it doesn't have a paragraph break that saves a bunch of space on talk pages, and this template usually appears on pages littered with banners like {{round in circles}}/{{controversial}} etc anyway, so that's useful. No loss in clarity, since it was only two sentences in the message anyway.
2. Change the message to focus on the expected behaviour in the topic, rather than the technicalities of awareness, which are checked by the enforcing admin, given in alerts, and required to be checked before reports at AE anyway. Info still available in the "Remedy instructions and exemptions" dropdown.

I think these two changes improve the clarity of the template. Good to merge in? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 18 September 2022

For the substitution on the uyghur topic area, replace Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, and topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide with Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide.

My reason for requesting this is because the template currently renders as You have shown interest in Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, and topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide rather than You have shown interest in Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide. The former would imply that an editor is interested in all three, while the latter implies that an editor is interested in at least one. The latter seems to be more in line with the recent expansion's scope, which is to include edits about Uyghurs that are not related to the Uyghur genocide in addition to the already existing restrictions on Uyghur genocide. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC) — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 10:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 February 2023

I have recently made changes to Module:Sanctions/data/sandbox to reflect the fact that there are now community sanctions for the WP:RUSUKR topic. I believe that this change should be moved to Module:Sanctions/data. This will allow for talknotices, editnotices, sanction notices, and alert notices to be given out for the area. This will also update {{Gs/topics}} and {{Gs/topics/table}} to accurately reflect the (relatively) new GS area.

As a side note, there were several sandboxes that were pulling directly from Module:Sanctions rather than Module:Sanctions/sandbox (either explicitly or implicitly). To actually test that Template:Gs/topics and related properties would work properly after the update, this requires Template:Gs/topics/sandbox to be changed to directly invoke the sandbox version of the Sanctions module rather than the production version of the sanctions module. I've made that change to allow me to preview the end-result of the changes all the way through on all of the pages, but I'm not sure if those need to be reset to use the production version going forward in case someone breaks a sandbox version of one of those modules. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

 Completed. I've seen several cases where sandbox versions call or invoke other sandbox versions. Should be okay to remove the sandbox calls, because other editors can always add them back in if needed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 14:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: Hi, I notice you have removed the Uyghur related ban, is it lifted? (since it caused many talk pages become weird, I think I'd ask) --ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 19:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

To editor ときさき: very sorry for causing those problems on talk pages. We'll do our best to see to it that it does not happen again. Thank you very much for your patience and understanding! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 07:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Editor Red-tailed hawk, can you please address the above question from editor Tokisaki Kurumi? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 23:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth and Tokisaki Kurumi: The GS/UYGHUR sanctions are still in effect. They were apparently never added to the sandbox version of the template when they were added to the main template when the sanctions were first authorized in 2021 nor when they were expanded in 2022. I've now fixed the sandbox instance to also include the Uyghur sanctions.

To fully clarify: I only changed that my addition to the sandbox in these edits were sufficient to add the RUSUKR topic to the template; I had not checked that the remainder of the entries in the data were still valid entries. The sandbox also contained COVID and IRANPOL, both of which have since been superseded, and which I have removed from the sandbox version.

My lesson learned: always make sure the sandbox is up-to-date before making changes required for testing new additions. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

and  edited. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 02:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 April 2023

In Module:Sanctions/data, Please change Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, and topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide to Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide.

This currently renders in the {{GS/alert}} template as if the user has been involving themselves in all of them, but the template should be able to be given to people who edit about Uyghurs even if they don't edit about Uyghur genocide. See this discussion for more context. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 12:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 10:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

GS templates using "contentious topics" wording

Many of the GS templates (e.g. Template:GS/alert and Template:Gs/talk notice) prominently feature and link the phrase "contentious topics". Is this intentional? Did I miss a step where all community-imposed GS were folded into the CT system? Aren't there still differences between the two, as laid out at WP:GS? Is it not a problem that the templates don't link to the main GS page? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Community-authorized discretionary sanctions are said to usually follow the Arbitration Committee standard discretionary sanctions model.. Now that the link target for "standard discretionary sanctions" is a redirect, there's a gap. The standard set of sanctions defined at Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Standard set is, in practice, the set of common restrictions imposed under discretionary sanctions. So although using the link text "contentious topic restrictions" in {{Gs/alert}} may not be technically accurate, it's probably mostly close enough. The talk page notice strays farther from the technical truth, though, since the community hasn't converted its previous authorizations for discretionary sanctions to contentious topic designations. isaacl (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it is a problem that the templates don't link to the main GS page. They definitely should, since people not familiar with them are not going to understand what this is, and community sanctions are different from whatever ArbCom decides to do with CTOP/DS going forward; the two are independent, and should not be conflated. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I see two options: 1) bring back a page describing the discretionary sanctions procedure, placing the process under the authority of the community; or 2) have the community approve the conversion of all community authorizations for discretionary sanctions into community designations of contentious topics. Following 2, the community can optionally take over responsibility for the contentious topic process and procedures, working with the arbitration committee to ensure its requirements are met. The arbitration committee could still tailor the process for arbitration committee-designated contentious topics, but this way the base process and the pages describing it would be owned by the community and wouldn't disappear in future if the committee decided to move away from the contentious topic process.

The key challenge I see, though, is that this is pretty process wonky stuff, and most editors don't have an strong interest in adopting a change unless they see a clear benefit. I'm not sure there's enough here to convince a sufficient number of editors to weigh in and form a consensus. isaacl (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

The solution is very simple: the community authorized sanctions that mirrored DS at the time that those sanctions were passed. If we go with the original public meaning of the community's sanctions, we have a coherent and consistent way to apply them that was backed by the consensus at the time. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Sure, you can enact option 1 on your own initiative, if you like. isaacl (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Unclosed p tags in Module:Sanctions/sandbox

Awesome Aasim, can you please close all of the <p> tags that you have added to Module:Sanctions/sandbox? The unclosed tags are leading to new Linter errors in Template space, for example at Template:Contentious topics/alert/first/sandbox. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 Forgot to ping you but all done. Thanks for pointing it out! I thought Lua would handle it... 🤔 Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 02:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

There are still missing </p> tags at {{Contentious topics/alert/first/sandbox}}. You can see where they are if you paste the template into Special:ExpandTemplates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't see. @Jonesey95 Can you take a closer look at the module? Maybe you can identify the issue. 🙂 Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 16:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

It's a bit subtle now, because the closing tag is present but not actually used. Here's an example of the offending code:

<p>Within contentious topics, editors should edit <strong>carefully</strong> and <strong>constructively</strong>, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:<ul><li>adhere to the [[WP:NOT|purposes of Wikipedia]];</li><li>comply with all applicable [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|policies and guidelines]];</li><li>follow editorial and behavioural best practice;</li><li>comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and</li><li>refrain from [[WP:GAME|gaming the system]].</li></ul></p>

<p>...</p> can't wrap <ul>...</ul> lists. Thanks for continuing to work on this. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 Better now? Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 18:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes! Well done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 18 October 2023

−

"[[Russo-Ukrainian war]]"

+

"the [[Russo-Ukrainian War]]"

Please add this missing "the" and fix the capitalization to reflect the article's actual title and how it is written at WP:GS/RUSUKR. This currently appears in {{Gs/talk notice|rusukr}} as

The article Russo-Ukrainian War, along with other pages relating to Russo-Ukrainian war, is designated by the community as a contentious topic.

SilverLocust 💬 01:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done , thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: The other part of the request was changing the capitalization of "war" to "War". Could you change that as well? SilverLocust 💬 01:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Also done. Thanks again! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Additional parameter: portions of page

Is it possible to get an additional optional parameter added to this, that would change the text to state that the sanctions are only applicable to a relevant portion of the page, exactly like how the {{Template:Contentious topics/talk notice}} has the "section" parameter which modifies the language as such? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)