Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

Iranian politics is listed twice

Inside Wikipedia:Contentious topics the following duplicate entries for Iran are listed. They have two different ways to refer taf the topic but are otherwise the same:

• {{Contentious topics|topic=irp}}
• {{Contentious topics|topic=iranpol}}

~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. There are other duplicate codes listed there as well. Previous discussion has been had about improving the display. If you believe you can, an edit request to the relevant module would probably be appreciated. Izno (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I hard coded the table inside Template:Contentious topics/table/ShushugahDraft for simpler maintenance and copied over other template/documentations, so it should be ready to replace entirely what's inside Template:Contentious topics/table. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

... Hardcoding the table defeats the point. Izno (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Izno I went down a rabbit hole and see there are multiple template transclusions. I would suggest a mix of editing the text for data consistency, some template/UI improvements. Please bear with me.

Inside {{Contentious topics/table}}

1. Replace class="wikitable" style="font-size: 9pt;" with class="wikitable sortable"
2. Add a sortable key, so that related decisions can be found together, e.g the topic subpage could be used when sorting.
3. Manually change order so that aa2 and a-a (Armenia) are grouped after a-i (Arab-Israeli)
4. remove the word: name in first column {{subst:template name|topic=a-a}} to {{subst:template|topic=a-a}}
5. Substitute Wikipedia prefix with WP where possible on both decisions and Topic specific subpage
6. make consistent naming in "Area of conflict", for example
   1. the Arab–Israeli conflict
   2. Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts
   3. the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy
   4. the Balkans or Eastern Europe
   5. India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
   6. Keep same description for both MOS/Titles

~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Izno any thoughts on these? ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I would guess that clear and obvious improvements would be accepted. To me that is only #1. I am neither a current arbcom member nor clerk so I don't think I'm the right person to sell on edits otherwise.

The previous commentary I referenced at Previous discussion has been had about improving the display. was related strictly to duplication of various codes. I had forgotten that we were using a "cheat" to render this table. It would probably require making the relevant series of templates into a single Module:Contentious topics to best support what I think should be done. Izno (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

This seems like an improvement to me. I'd also suggest just having one line per topic area, with another column for aliases (e.g. gg vs. gas). We could also drop that line about tpm vs. ap at the bottom. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers I know what you mean, but think it might be more complicated, because they refer to multiple valid templates/categories that are created with each prefix.

🎉 I implemented my suggestions 1,3 in this proposed change at {{Contentious topics/table/cleanup}} and implemented suggestion 6 in {{Contentious topics/list/cleanup}} (you'll need to inspect source code since it doesn't render directly).

An admin/template editor would need to implement the live change to {{Contentious topics/list}} and I can directly change {{Contentious topics/table}} but did not out of natural caution of course. cc @Izno ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure all the templates that use the list are generating identical output for the synonymous topic codes. Are you saying that's not the case? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

They link to identical Wikipedia pages, but have slightly different output messages (trivial imho) e.g b=the Balkans or Eastern Europe versus ee=Eastern Europe or the Balkans which would slightly affect the edit notice messages/banners for each. Could they be merged and have same message? Yes imho. I do not see other differences here, but do not preclude that possibility. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha. At the very least, the ones that do have identical output could be merged. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Moved technical discussion

I updated {{Contentious topics/table}} just now with conservative improvements including:

1. Sorting
2. Synonymous grouping of topics (Article and MOS and MOS and Articles are next to each other, Israel-Palestine isn't divided by Armenia and so on)
3. Removed bloated edit button and note at bottom of table.

summary above is TLDR version

Moved from Template talk:Contentious topics § Template-protected edit request on 23 September 2024 Make consistent naming in "Area of conflict", for example the Arab–Israeli conflict Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy the Balkans or Eastern Europe India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan Keep same description for both MOS/Titles This is part of larger set of minimal changes to make reading/scrolling through table of CTOP's easier both on the eyes and sorting inside the tables. You can find a link to proposed changes in this sandbox {{Contentious_topics/list/cleanup}} ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC) Why? The the is correct for each of those three examples, and adding the to the others wouldn't be. This template isn't just used to create the list at WP:CTOP#List of contentious topics. It is also used in editnotices and talk page notices to create sentences like "Parts of this page relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic." SilverLocust 💬 18:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC) @SilverLocust That makes sense and precise grammar there is certainly preferable. Sometimes it refers to pairings of locations, the conflict shared by countries and sometimes just the countries, even though I don't believe the contentious reasons are different. Do you see any inconsistency with some of these current wordings? the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed (also no wikilinks) India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts the Arab–Israeli conflict Or with politics... post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people post-1978 Iranian politics Either way, even if none of the wording changes here {{Contentious_topics/table/cleanup}} may mitigate that by thematically grouping them together, regardless of current/future wording and has far fewer implications (e.g regular readers wouldn't see new/different talk page banners). Thoughts? ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC) I'll reply further in the next 24 hours. (Ping me if I don't.) SilverLocust 💬 19:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC) @Shushugah: Your changes to Template:Contentious topics/table look fine to me, except I would leave the smaller 9pt font. On Vector 2022, the table can easily overflow onto the right toolbar. I wouldn't want to rephrase the language used by ArbCom in defining each contentious topic area (beyond having "X and Y" and "Y and X" as options like for mos and at or for e-e and b). For example, see the motions defining the contentious topic areas for American politics and Iranian politics and Kurds and Kurdistan. SilverLocust 💬 14:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC) I have boldly updated {{Contentious topics/table}} with your suggestions, including to keep font size 9. I do think further improvements could be achieved by replacing Wikipedia with WP. But will save that for another edit. I do understand that the letters represent different motions, but the links and templates don't get more granular than high level, so why is there a need for e-e and b? Could be they be listed on one one line, with aliases for each other? I get impression this is not done because of tight coupling between the 4 templates: {{Contentious topics/table}} {{Contentious topics/table/line}} {{Contentious topics/table/usageline}} {{Contentious topics/list}}

~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

"other restrictions that have been specifically designated by the Arbitration Committee for use by a single administrator in a particular contentious topic"

At Wikipedia:Contentious topics in standard set. What's the easiest way to see a list/lists of these? Maybe a single page that lists them all? Valereee (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I believe the other restrictions are listed on the pages for those sanctions. So, for instance, you can see the RfC restrictions for Iranian Politics at Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Iranian politics. I'm not aware of a unified listing of all such restrictions, which from a design perspective makes sense to me so that an individual administrator doesn't place a restriction they don't have authority to do. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, BK. I was thinking more of a table that listed what was specifically designated for each CT so that I can watchlist it and keep up, and so that I have one place to remember how to find. I'd probably put a link to it on my user under 'tools' or something so that when I wondered how I was authorized to solve a problem in a particular area, I only need two clicks to get there. Maybe it's just me who has to click around a bit to relearn everything she doesn't do daily. :) I guess it would need transclusion or something, though. Valereee (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee this table is available at {{Contentious topics/table}} but can definitely benefit from some improvements, which I've listed in thread above. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @Shushugah. How would you feel about a final column that specified either 'standard' or 'standard and specific' or something like that? For me, that would at a glance let me know that there was more to investigate for a particular topic, but that column would only need to be updated when there was something new from arbcom? Valereee (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Currently that list ONLY includes standard sanctions if I am not mistaken? If not, your suggestion absolutely makes sense. These are used widely and I find it confusing how/what's best to modify them, so been treading carefully. I see {{Contentious topics/list}} is closest to plain wikitext. Could add a column there, if standard/non-standards do exist within this list. I will make some suggested edits here to standardize grammar description (See above § Iranian politics is listed twice) ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

(Non-Technobrainiac comment) Stone me Shushugah, just get yerself a toolkit already. Then you can do it yourself without having to wake arbs from their slumbers! SerialNumber54129 18:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

If someone competent to do so wanted to edit the template to add a column for this information, would someone incompetent but technically empowered to do so be able to edit the template to fill that column without breaking things? Asking for a friend. Valereee (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Technically yes your friend could do that. And if your friend messes up. They would be able to easily revert without side-effects. Your friend could also grant me Template editor access and blame me if anything goes wrong. True accountability means having someone to point fingers at 🤣 More seriously, there are some thoughtful concerns [currently] at Template talk:Contentious topics/table (will move discussion above. And I would want our community to be confident before making any changes. They’re on modest side. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)