Template talk:Contentious topics#mobile notice

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

{{tmbox

|type = content

|small = {{{small|}}}

|image = File:Commons-emblem-issue.svg

|text = 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)

{{edit template-protected|answered=yes}}

... 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)

:File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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)

::@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)

:::{{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)

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

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

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

:{{re|HouseBlaster|Rosguill}} could you please share your thoughts on this when you have a moment? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

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

::{{done}}. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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)

: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, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

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

:::{{u|HouseBlaster}} Wanted to again mention that there is a concurrent discussion about this issue going on at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#What_to_do_about_possibly_excessive_talk_page_header_notices/warnings... WP:Village pump (technical)]. - Shearonink (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Just a note, as discussed in Special:PermaLink/1292433544#Extended-Confirmed Restriction not showing up - notices such as this, on talk pages, are buried under an information button for mobile editors. As such, noone should ever assume that these are read. According to developers there is no way to make these prominently show on mobile. If you want a notice to show up about editing for mobile users, it needs to be an edit notice, not a page banner. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:This should probably be documented more. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::Wikipedia:Contentious_topics#Restriction_notices suggests these may suffice, when they appear to be inadequate. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Xaosflux: Thanks for flagging this. Do you happen to have the ticket number at which the developers confirmed that there is no way to show these prominently on mobile? I glanced at the discussion you linked but was unable to find it in the tickets. I'll plan to have a conversation with the foundation folks involved about whether an exception could be created for banners that affect the editing experience because they describe mandatory restrictions like these (and therefore are highly disruptive to the editing experience if they are improperly messaged). Maybe that will be useful to fold into a broader discussion about the way the editing experience interacts with ArbCom and community imposed topicwide restrictions. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::We didn't open a special ticket for this, just the confirmation that all of the lede section of talk pages was collapsed. I suppose someone could open a feature request to have a class that doesn't get absorbed in to the hidden lede information, that certain templates could emit. I suspect that would either (a) be ignored, (b) be declined --- but I'm a bit pessimistic on that topic.... (Feature request form link [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/task/edit/form/102/?tag=DiscussionTools here] if you are interested, just type in plain english what your "user story" is, you don't necessarily need to have a specific solution in mind.) Two possible current workarounds:

:::#Use edit notices. These "popup" for mobile users. They may be intrusive for people that you don't want to see them (experienced users).

:::#Start a section 1, call it something like "IMPORTANT RULES FOR EDITING THIS PAGE - READ FIRST". Put your notice in there, then put a 'dont archive' tag on it.

:::Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 23:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm less pessimistic than that! It's possible we may be even able to request more bespoke features than that, but at a minimum I will speak with them about what they recommend given current software constraints. I'll report back when I know more. Thanks, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:There isn't a presumption that people read talk notices even on desktop, especially considering that people don't read them. The presence of a talk notice isn't a basis for presuming awareness as required to impose sanctions. Rather, an apparently unaware user generally needs to be sent a contentious topic notice for the topic on their talk page. – JensonSL (SilverLocust) 08:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)