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. 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 recently made this edit using the "new section" link at the top of the page. I was adding the {{Alert/first}} to the page, and I expected it to give me the edit filter notice to provide me the link to check the edit filter log to see if they have been notified before. However, when I clicked the button to add the new section, it immediately added the new section and didn't give me any edit filter warning whatsoever. Of note, since I manually input it, I did forget to subst: the template initially. When I went back to subst: the template manually (by editing the entire page), it did trigger the edit filter, and I verified there was no prior CT notification before saving.

I'm not sure if this is something that has been previously pointed out or if it's even possible to fix. But if the trigger is based on subst: the template, and/or if it doesn't trigger if the "new section" feature is used, those both seem like issues that need resolved, imo. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't because it was a new section. That edit filter does depend on substing it (or pasting in part of what would be the result of the subst). Hmm. SilverLocust (Jenson) 04:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - thanks for explaining. Is there a reason the edit filter is limited to if it's subst:'ed? I feel like I can't be the only one who's forgotten to subst: it in the initial edit. I feel like even accounting for {{alert}} or {{tl|alert}} (or similar cases) should be possible, and would at least warn on posting the alert. The case I pointed out I did go immediately to verify they hadn't been alerted prior manually, but it took me a couple minutes. And had I not realized that it was due to not having subst:'ed the template, I wouldn't have noticed it and it likely wouldn't have been logged in the edit filter. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I struggled a bit to understand the error "Lua error in Module:Contentious_topics_talk_banner at line 227: attempt to index a nil value." introduced at Special:Diff/1286083691 on the page Talk:Bob Casey Jr.. The problem was caused by using a date format which Module:Date doesn't understand in parameter |placed-date=. In such cases function _Date returns nil.

I propose adding error handling for cases when parameter |placed-date= cannot be parsed, something similar to Special:Diff/1294125902/1296791853, with a corresponding addition of

	"invalid-date": "Wikipedia pages with contentious topic restrictions with an invalid placed date",

or

	"date-error": "Wikipedia pages with contentious topic restrictions with an invalid placed date",

to Template:Contentious topics/Category database.json to produce a new tracking category Category:Wikipedia pages with contentious topic restrictions with an invalid placed date. —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I just saw this now. I massively improved the detection functionality; it now recognizes everything that works with {{#time}} as well as YYYY Monthname DD (e.g. 2020 September 1). If the date is so funky that these don't work, it should throw a softer error: The banner still works; it just says Restrictions placed: Error: Invalid time. and populates Category:Pages with parser function time errors. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:32, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is Contentious topics/alert/first required to be the *exact* first template used for RUSUKR (“If this is the editor's first alert, you must use this template if you alert them”)? I got a very different template for my warning on RUSUKR before I had XC, which mentioned nothing about not being allowed to edit the “broad” topic (and implies the opposite) unless if you decide to read through the nine links: Template:Gs/alert, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LordDiscord&diff=prev&oldid=1294698905

If not, can this be a requirement? It is annoying to be accused of ignoring a warning when the “warning” appears to be an automated message saying to be extra careful “when making edits related to the topic” (when in fact you are not allowed to make edits related to the topic at all). And it wastes time for everyone, because I (and presumably many others) obviously would not have continued editing the area had I gotten this first template with the bold letters saying you need to have 500 edits. LordDiscord (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CT/A/F has to be the exact first template used for ArbCom-created contentious topics. RUSUKR is a community-created general sanctions regime, so GS/A was the right template. You're right that it would have been helpful for the editor who alerted you to explicitly mention the 500/30 restriction. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:02, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you. I will go to that template talk page then. LordDiscord (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]