Template talk:Contentious topics

A wording concern

Having just put {{Contentious topics/talk notice|apl}} on Talk:May 1915 Triple Entente declaration, the wording of it raised my eyebrow. It implies that both the 'Polish history during World War II (1933-1945)' and 'history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland' subtopics of WP:CT/EE are subject to extended confirmed restrictions, while the wording on CT/EE indicates the ECR only applies to the latter (and checking the case, this is indeed the case). This should probably be changed I think? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:30, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 September 2026

Grammar fix: In Template:Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice base, "this talk page message" is ambiguous, and certainly shouldn't refer to this editnotice. Change it to "the talk page message".

−

|{{#if:{{{BRD|}}}|You must follow the [[WP:BRD|bold-revert-discuss cycle]] if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message}}

+

|{{#if:{{{BRD|}}}|You must follow the [[WP:BRD|bold-revert-discuss cycle]] if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of the talk page message}}

Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 21:50, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

talknotice template parameter for discussions

There are occasions when discussions are covered by a contentious topic designation but the associated article/page is not, see for example Talk:Rail transport in Taiwan#Requested move 24 October 2026 where the notice states that "parts of this article relate to articles titles and capitalisation", which is not true. The requested move relates to that contentious topic but the article does not. It would be good to have a parameter (or some other solution) that changed "(parts of) this article" to "this discussion" or similar wording to resolve this. Thryduulf (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Wording concern for the welcome template

I made an edit (Special:Diff/1382424941) indicating that the presence of the welcome template on someone's user talk page did not necessarily imply that there were problems with their editing, but was reverted by @HouseBlaster. I thought the text sounded a little WP:BITEy given that the user is still new. With regards to the ArbCom template above, I personally did not (and still don't) view that edit as a significant change to the wording in terms of meaning, only as a clarification for inexperienced editors so that they do not get the wrong impression if they make a good edit that just happens to be in a CT area. I did not see the ArbCom warning template at the top of this page until later, but in my view, the ArbCom warning template likely did not apply to that edit because I saw the change in meaning as limited or insignificant. The reasoning behind the edit was to make sure the message did not discourage new editors from contributing if the applicable policies allow for it. Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 17:17, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

That addition really adds a My "does not necessarily imply" T-shirt has people asking a lot of questions already answered by my shirt vibe that people have complained about since the original awareness templates. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm a little confused on what you mean by that. (For the record I was not aware of those previous complaints either, mind linking me to them?) Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 17:22, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

While I won't do a search for past discussion, quite often we would put these welcome templates on people's talk page when they start doing iffy things and want to make sure they know the rules are strictly informed. It's a weird combi if you put this welcome on someone's talk page, open a conversation about their edits being problematic, but also saying they might not be problematic. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 17:25, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

There's no mention in the message that their behavior is at issue, so by saying "this doesn't necessarily imply" that their behavior is an issue it also means that "this doesn't necessarily imply" that their behavior is not an issue. This template is a quick welcome and a speed limit sign. You don't add "this sign doesn't necessarily imply that you are speeding" to a road sign, and we don't need to raise the specter of their behavior being at issue in a welcome message. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Ah, that analogy makes sense. I, as someone who doesn't normally edit in contentious topics (except to revert clear vandalism), misinterpreted how the template was intended to be used based on its wording. Thanks for clarifying. I just thought to myself that if I had gotten this message when I was a newer editor, the first thing that would have come into my head would have been "oh my gosh, did I break a rule?". That can be pretty discouraging, you know? I still think the wording isn't perfect in that regard, but I'll defer to others and can accept the consensus. Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 17:36, 28 October 2026 (UTC)