Template talk:Ds/Archive 3

Who may place Ds/talk notices?
Who may place Ds/talk notices? Everyone, or just admins? Once confirmed, we should add it to the template documentation. – Novem Linguae (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyone. See for discussion. As described in, Any editor may advise any other editor that discretionary sanctions are in force for an area of conflict. If there is any disagreement on the applicability of the authorization for discretionary sanctions, the community can resolve it through discussion (if that fails, a request for clarification from the arbitration committee can be filed). isaacl (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I definitely agree with whoever has said it above that completely uncontroversial talk notices should be able to be placed by any user. Ex: I recently placed the COVID-19 DS/talk on DRASTIC, an article about a group of internet sleuths who exclusively investigate COVID-19 origins. If they aren't covered by the sanctions, no article would be. I think it's just such an obscure quasi-orphan that no admins had seen it yet. This is exactly the case where I think any user should do it. I would contrast that with Gain-of-function research, which I would characterize as more of an open question, and so I asked ArbCom RfC about it, and they agreed it was an appropriate placement. I think this is like most PAG things. Where you might believe it's controversial, better to get consensus and then ask an admin to do it. Where a lot of admins agree it's controversial, you should probably go to Arb/RfC. Just my personal ruler.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 13:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC) (edited 15:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC))
 * On a related note, I had a discussion recently about whether placing such notices can be inappropriate. (Long story short: A newish editor who had never shown any interest in the particular DS area made a comment at a DYK for an article that would be covered by that DS, the DYK nominator thought the commenter was nitpicking and placed a DS on the commenter's page. I called it inappropriate, and the editor who'd placed the alert pushed back because of the Any editor may advise any other editor that discretionary sanctions are in force for an area of conflict language.) Can it be inappropriate to place a DS alert? Is our bar really anyone for any reason? DS alerts can be scary, especially to newer editors, and my feeling is that unless there's some reason to believe an editor might be in danger of getting themselves in trouble through not knowing there are different rules at that article, posting the alert can be intimidating. —valereee (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Editors placing an alert notice can always add a personal note after the alert template, explaining the alert is pro forma and just to give them a heads up that the area in question is contentious. They could also explain how to check in future for any other discretionary sanctions areas. I agree that indiscriminately alerting everyone probably isn't warranted, but I feel the amount of effort required to try to enforce specific rules is prohibitive. isaacl (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the insights. I was thinking more along the lines of article talk page notices. A couple of new COVID-19 origins pages were created today, and I wanted to make sure non-admins can place these before adding them. isaacl linked to a good discussion that answered the question, so I went ahead and updated Template:ds/talk notice. Feel free to adjust the wording. Thanks all. – Novem Linguae (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Isaacl, If I place an alert on the UTP of a relative newbie or for anyone who I judge might view it as scary, then I usually add my personal note *before*, not after (when it's too late to avoid the bite, so to speak). Valereee, I keep a copy-paste model of a less-bitey version in my Talk snippets page, here. When it's someone who's so new that even that might be too much too deal with, or if it's a newbie who I've already had to warn or advise about various minor violations already, then rather than pile on with a scary blue box I sometimes skip placing the D/s alert altogether, and just hand write something (possibly an adapted version of the snippet intro text) and then link to the D/s alert instead of placing it, which is a lot less scary. That won't place them in the category of "D/s awareness" for that sanction topic area so the alert might still need to be placed down the road, but I think it's an avenue worth considering to avoid BITE-iness in some circumstances. Adding Novem Linguae. Mathglot (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * My apologies; I meant "in conjunction with", rather than specifying a literal relative placement on the user talk page. isaacl (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * When the system was overhauled nearly 10 years ago, one goal was to de-stigmatize the DS alert, by changing from "warning" (which became a badge of shame so there were frequent arguments about the reason it was given) and instead use an "FYI did you know" sort of "alert". The only way to keep the new system from decomposing back into the old de facto battleground system is to abundantly and freely give them to anyone in a topic area (but never more than 1 in 12 months). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * With English Wikipedia's current decision-making traditions on content, I disagree that admins should be asked to place controversial notices on talk pages to inform users of the applicability of discretionary sanctions. A discussion ought to be held on the talk page or another appropriate, more highly visible location (with a pointer to the discussion from the talk page). isaacl (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , Yes, that is fair. I agree, it's better to involve others and develop consensus before involving admins.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 15:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19
Currently the topic code covid adds the language "and edits about COVID-19". In the context of the alert, this creates a grammatical error. It would probably be best if the added language were just "COVID-19". I know this issue applies to ds/alert and ds/aware, and am not sure what else. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

In Template:Ds/topics, please change "covid=and edits about COVID-19" to "covid=COVID-19". In other words, please delete "and edits about", as the unnecessary words create grammatical errors in (at least) Template:ds/alert and Template:ds/aware. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ I copied the text directly from the Arb case decision, Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19, so that we don't have to interpret anything here. I did leave out one "all" that made the message not make sense in this context. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That looks great. Thank you very much. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Brief version of the template?
(or any template editor) could you please also make this change for the "brief" version of the template? As in: "DS/notice|covid|brief"? It has the same error.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 02:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ (as to the immediate edit request) - this page is not protected. Feel free to discuss this request further below and implement when ready. —  xaosflux  Talk 12:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't know which page is being referred to. The page I changed was Ds/topics. I am not familiar with the code here, so I don't know what "DS/notice|covid|brief" refers to; there is not a page at Ds/notice. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm relatively certain Shibbolethink is talking about Template:Ds/talk notice. Shibbolethink, when I test out the brief version I get: "The use of discretionary sanctions has been authorized by the Arbitration Committee for pages related to edits about, and articles related to, COVID-19, broadly construed, including this page. Please consult the awareness criteria and edit carefully." It looks pretty good to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I get why it isn't an error now that I look closer at the above section, but I find the wording "pages related to edits about" very confusing and counterintuitive... is that the Arbcom language?-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 21:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That could be better for sure. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I guess my suggestion would be: "The Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages or articles related to COVID-19, broadly construed, including this article." Just from a wikipedia policy perspective, "pages" includes talk pages, WP: policies, and articles. But enumerating articles makes sense. I guess I don't understand what "pages related to edits about" is covering that "pages" would not also cover?-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 21:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like the two templates need better grammatical alignment. /topics results in You have shown interest in edits about, and articles related to, COVID-19, broadly construed. That parses fine. Is there guidance on how to construct the notice text so that it is compatible with both templates? – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , why wouldn't we just fix the parameters fed from Template:Ds/topics to be "COVID-19, broadly construed" ? Wouldn't that fix it? It appears that language would be compatible with both Template:Ds/alert and Template:Ds/talk notice. It would be similar to the Shakespearean authorship question example currently used on Template:Ds/talk notice.
 * alert would read: You have shown interest in COVID-19, broadly construed.
 * notice would read: The use of discretionary sanctions has been authorized by the Arbitration Committee for pages related to COVID-19, broadly construed, including this article.
 * -- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 23:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with the proposal. All other topic areas have similar constructions, dropping the "edits about" from the beginning. Ds/topics is template protected. If we don't get any response, we could try another edit request.
 * Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ (trimmed). It would be nice to have some guidance in the documentation for template editors who process these requests but are unfamiliar with this system of templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thank you!! Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks! I guess I thought it would be protected or somehow prohibited in some way as an arbcom DS notice. But I was also on mobile at the time and couldn't tell that wasn't an admin, so that was my mistake. :) Will discuss and achieve consensus, thanks for the clarification and sorry for the trouble.-- Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ (trimmed). It would be nice to have some guidance in the documentation for template editors who process these requests but are unfamiliar with this system of templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thank you!! Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks! I guess I thought it would be protected or somehow prohibited in some way as an arbcom DS notice. But I was also on mobile at the time and couldn't tell that wasn't an admin, so that was my mistake. :) Will discuss and achieve consensus, thanks for the clarification and sorry for the trouble.-- Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit request for Template:Ds/editnotice: 1) add "consensus" parameter to "restriction" and 2) add "and consider posting on the talk page first"
See the draft I put in the sandbox. 1) This is from seeing this template used here and noticing that this widely useful restriction doesn't have a param attached. 2) this is from noting that many many problems could be solved on the applied pages if people just talked before making controversial edits, and saw there was no consensus for their edit.

I would be happy to also make 1 more specific to the WP:Consensus required restriction language AKA limit editors from reinstating any challenged (via reversion) edits without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question, but I felt leaving it more broad was more useful. If an admin feels they could benefit from CR-specific "no revert" language, then it could still be entered as custom just like it is now. Thoughts, feelings?-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 19:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit request for the BLP template
It's rather remarkable that no link to the policy is in that template. All templates should contain prominent links to the proper policy or guideline.

Please wikilink and bold as done here: "articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles"

The wording could also be improved as BLP applies to "living or recently deceased people", not just articles, and not just those with articles here at Wikipedia.

Such wikilinking and bolding is called for in many of the templates. -- Valjean (talk) 07:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Primefac, what do you think of this idea? -- Valjean (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see any major issues with it; if there are no complaints in the next few days then I see no reason not to implement. Primefac (talk) 08:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Primefac, will you make the change now? -- Valjean (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Primefac (talk) 09:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Content model
Please change content model to JSON. Thanks. – Novem Linguae (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ * Pppery * it has begun... 16:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Seems open to abuse
I just had this added to my page by an editor which I have a disagreement with re. an edit. This template seems to me a great tactic to win an editing argument - especially with a newbie editor. It looks scary and the new person will likely back off, letting the editor who placed it on their page win by intimidation even if their position is incorrect. Seems having such a thing is open to all sorts of misuse. Rp2006 (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I give out a lot of DS alerts. I do get a decent number of negative responses from people, maybe 10% of my posts? Usually, people are insistent that they've done nothing wrong, or they perceive that I am posting it as a way of intimidating them or furthering my side of a content dispute. I think the template does a lot to minimize this, with early emphasis on "does not imply that there are any issues", but it's clear this isn't quite successful in all cases. Perhaps there's more we could do to tweak the template, though I know there are efforts underway to revamp all of DS. Firefangledfeathers 23:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is standard, and the people who usually give them out are opponents because they are the ones that notice activity. It's not a tactic as such, just standard procedure if you think an issue might one day be raised at WP:AE. By giving the notification, the notifier is also self-notifying because the giving of a warning implies that the giver is aware of the need to be careful. In your case, the claim would be that you might have added WP:UNDUE negativity to a WP:BLP without a properly WP:RS. That claim would only get traction at WP:AE if there was a discussion at article talk that failed to support your edit, yet you repeated the addition two or three times after someone reverted. If this issue comes up, either ping me or put a message on my talk and I will have a look and tell you if your opponents might have a point. There is nothing to be concerned about other than the ever-present need to be nice at BLP articles. Johnuniq (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Combine Ds/talk notice
ds/talk notice can be clunky when two or more are added to a talk page, especially when next to a talk header. The message gets lost in the bold text. Has anyone considered or explored a version of this that would combine multiple talk notices into a single module? czar 08:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This would be good but I do not know how to do it.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , would this be in your wheelhouse, similar to what you did with the module logic in ds/aware? czar  23:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I proposed this to ArbCom ~1.5 years ago, assuming it would require their permission. IIRC I was told they were considering the ideas, but never got a definitive answer on whether I could proceed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I also support allowing the Ds/talk notice template to handle alerts for multiple topic areas in a single banner. —  Newslinger  talk   15:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've filed a clarification amendment request for this suggestion at . Please feel free to participate if you're interested. —  Newslinger  talk   04:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC) Edited 04:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion - add Wikilink to Template:Ds/aware into ds/alert?
In my (anecdotal) experience as an editor, not a lot of editors seem to be aware of the Ds/aware template. Would there be any benefit to adding a neutrally worded note and Wikilink into the ds/alert template suggesting that an editor may wish to place it at the top of their talk page? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I proposed this in the 2021 review, and there was some support for this. Implementing this suggestion is as simple as adding a sentence such as "You may opt out of receiving messages like this one by placing the Ds/aware template on your user talk page." to Ds/alert. —  Newslinger  talk   15:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm glad other editors have thought about this. Given that this directly ties into the discretionary sanctions system, would any proposed addition require a motion/clarification request at WP:A/R or is this something an editor with the template permission can just make here? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The documentation of Ds/alert is tagged with this warning telling which says, "you must not make significant changes to the wording or functionality of this template without the committee's consent", so we would need to either file a formal clarification request at WP:ARCA or at least start a discussion at WT:AC. —  Newslinger  talk   18:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC) Edited 05:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I have a vague memory of reading that when I made my original post in December, though I've not looked at the template directly since then. Do you want to start the discussion/clarification request? I'm happy to contribute to or support either. We could also include the request below, for combining multiple DS/talk notices into a single banner. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've filed the clarification amendment request at . Please feel free to participate if you're interested. —  Newslinger  talk   04:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC) Edited 04:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions procedure page and templates closed
Amendment request: Discretionary sanctions procedure page and templates has closed. 3 changes to ds/alert/ds/talk notice were approved and will be implemented by the Arbitration Committee and the clerk team.

For the Arbitration Committee, &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ping to – do you or anyone have sandbox versions of the changes that you intend to make? We can review those and implement. If those haven't been developed yet, no worries, we've got time. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 19:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Color coding


I got a bunch of these alerts of my talk page, including one by a Latin bot like editor. The drab blue background makes it difficult to tell them apart. Could the template be modified so that they use color schemes appropriate for each topic? I took at stab at this over here, but it could be improved I just modified background and foregrounds. Like wouldn't it be cool if, say, the troubles warning were colour coded with an Irish flag in the background ? Besides the cool factor, this will make the alerts more visible and less likely be ignored, as it is they seem almost exactly the same with some minor text hidden away in the second paragraph after "You have shown interest in something something", this text isn't even in bold face, making these warnings appear nearly identical and easy to ignore. I thought at first I got the same box from all three postings. --StellarNerd (talk) 05:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the idea. But speaking generally, Wikipedians do not like colorizing things. Some of it is colorblind accessibility, some of it is just aesthetic. – Novem Linguae (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Novem Linguae, Maybe an image? What about bolding the topic area that is being warned about? As it is you get this standard box with a little bit of text in the middle that is different from the other boxes, the topic area under question is easy to miss. --StellarNerd (talk) 05:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd support bolding the topic. Seems like an easy-to-implement improvement. – Novem Linguae (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Color coding examples
Guns

India

Gender

Bolding versus no bolding
No bold:

Bold:

Wouldn't bold facing the topic make this more accessible and obvious what this box is about and how it is different from all the other little blue boxes ? --StellarNerd (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * A great idea, though I'd prefer color, or a reverse color background or something even more popping than just bold, and only applying that to the 2 or 3 words that are minimally needed to ID the topic area. No need to highlight the accompanying legalistic fluff. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Bolding or italicising the name of the specific sanctions would help make them pop out more from the text of the alert. Though from what we had to go through to get the ds/aware text added, it may require a similar Arbitration request to enact. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that's the process, but wonder if this is the time, since the whole kit and kaboodle is undergoing another semidecadal review?  Though comment is closed maybe this idea could get bundled into whatever they're cooking up for the next phase of discussion?  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, if we are all in agreement, we can just got ahead to Template:Ds/alert, click edit, and then save. It is a small change, just adding three 's before and three 's after. There is no ownership of content on Wikipedia and we have consensus. --StellarNerd (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's template editor protected. Would need to place edit template-protected on this talk page with clear instructions to edit that specific page and the code changes to make. There is also an ominous warning when you click "View source" that says Edits to this template, even trivial ones, are likely to break the associated system messages and filters. So whoever does it will need to carefully check for things that might break. For example, edit filter 602 looks like it'll be OK, it looks for  which our edit wouldn't change. – Novem Linguae  (talk) 06:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I tried to say something different. To have the desired impact, IMO, the formatting needs to be put on the fewest possible words to identify the full formal topic description.  This will tak custom finessing of the coding for each version of the template. Using the examples above, the words would maybe be "regulation of firearm ownership" and we could make that POP out of the bolded sea instantly in all sorts of ways.  Maybe the easiest for useability reasons is by used of linebreaks, so for example


 * I won't stand in the way of incremental change but I do think we'd be wise to do get some focus group input to see if I'm alone in thinking it needs more pop than just bolding the long formal case descriptions.
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Programmatically simpler solutions are more likely to be actionable, I think. Happy to hear other opinions though. – Novem Linguae (talk) 08:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I like User:NewsAndEventsGuy's formatting, but like User:Novem Linguae I am not sure it will be easy to implement. Just bolding the topic is easy, even I know how to do it to the template code. Agreeing on specific bolding schemes for each DS area would be a process that might take a while. A middle ground would be to place the topic, e.g. governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. on a separate line, tabbed in, and with bold. This could be done without topic specific coding. --StellarNerd (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed; ARBCOM would probably have to agree on something like "short descriptions" for each case, and then its a relatively simple matter for skilled coders to apply that to the wizardry behind the scenes. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I placed an edit request below. We all agree that bold facing the topic area is an improvement. If someone wants to petition ArbCom so that they craft short descriptions for their topics, and then apply bold face to the short descriptions then go ahead, but that doesn't stop the simple improvement of bold facing the topic inside of the repetitive box text. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 25 June 2022
Following the discussion above in which all agreed bold facing the topic area was a good thing, please ADD three 's after "You have shown interest in " and before all the curly brackets, and add three additional closing 's after all the curly brackets but before the period. This should bold the topic area being warned about. StellarNerd (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Didn't work. Placing the bolding ''' in those spots just turned
 * See #topic codes for options
 * into
 * ' See #topic codes for options '
 * It italicized the sentence and two apostrophes appeared at each end. You might want to fiddle with this a bit and then reopen when you have fingered it out. And please note all the warnings in the documentation.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 00:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It works fine after substitution (checked on my talk), but you're right it messes up the formatting of the template page itself. Working on it at Template:DsAlertBold and will resubmit when it works. --StellarNerd (talk) 05:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Please copy the code in Template:DsAlertBold to Template:Ds/alert, it adds bolding to the topic code. I tested it on my talk and it renders fine and has the tag as well. The issue in the previous suggestion also worked after subst, but behaved wrong in the view of the template itself because the Wikipedia parser did not handle a ' adjacent to a curly bracket properly. --StellarNerd (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * . --StellarNerd (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 05:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Template:alert
Right now, the documentation of Ds/alert is recommending the use of the alert template, rather than Ds/alert itself. Is that correct? I can't figure out who made the change or when. (There seem to be several layers of templates obfuscating what happened, e.g., the recommendation to use alert in the table of alerts shows up only on Ds/alert itself; when editing the documentation page Ds/alert/doc directly, Ds/alert shows in the table.)

Mentioning alert strikes me as a little problematic because the template doesn't seem "finished" to the usual standards; there's no documentation subpage, and no template protection, which strikes me as odd for something that's part of an Arbcom-mandated process. Additionally, Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions specifies the usee of Ds/alert specifically, not a synonym for it, and the documentation of Ds/alert and Arbcom's description of their process should likely be consistent with each other. --ais523 16:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

multiple topic edit notice
Some articles, for example List of ethnic cleansing campaigns or List of military occupations, have portions of the article that are applicable to several different arbitration decisions. Is it possible to include multiple topics in a single edit-notice template? Including multiple iterations of the template will take up a ton of space otherwise.  nableezy  - 00:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * This was most recently discussed at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 121, though to date I believe only request #1 has been actioned. Requests 2 and 3 have been approved, and I believe the only outstanding issue is that no-one has actually written the required changes to both templates for code review prior to insertion. I'd take a stab at it myself, but it's not immediately obvious to me how the template code actually works. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

DS/topics code length
At Arbitration/Requests/Motions, participants found that DS topic codes that are longer than four characters are unusable for editor who posts alerts with the Twinkle-based userscript User:Bellezzasolo/Scripts/arb. It also stops admins from using the block and sanction features of the script. Changes to the script might be able to resolve the issue, but we could also help here by adding short form topic codes. I think the benefit for users of the script outweighs the harm in extending the length of the list. As of right now, it would mean adding new codes for: Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC) striking and inserting 03:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If abbreviations are used (presumably as an alias so both covid and cov would work), it's best to use the first few characters so people don't have to remember something special. Unless there is a reason that "iran" would be not be desirable, I suggest using iran and not ipol for the second example. Johnuniq (talk) 03:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Love it. Struck and inserted above. Yes, I'm thinking aliases, not replacement. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Finally handling "legacy topic areas"
This seems to keep coming up, and is currently the subject of an ARCA request by Interstellarity. It is confusing to people to see something like Watergate being covered under post-'92 American politics. In cases where a page restriction remains in place after a full DS regime has been repealed, the editnotice and talknotice templates are just incorrect. For instance, the talknotice at Talk:Muhammad will become incorrect in the near future.

What I propose is this: Thoughts? Will cross-post this to ARCA. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 09:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * At Ds/topics, assign codes for "legacy sub–topic areas" like AMPOL '32–'92 (e.g. ) as needed.
 * At Ds/topics/doc:
 * Add a new subheader for legacy sub–topic areas.
 * Draw a distinction between "legacy topic areas" (ones where at least one sanction or page restriction remains in place) and fully obsolete ones (either because they were time-limited, ArbCom abolished them without a legacy clause, or all sanctions in existence at time of abolition have since been repealed).
 * At Ds/editnotice and Ds/talk notice:
 * Add wording for legacy sub–topic areas like The use of discretionary sanctions has been authorized by the Arbitration Committee for pages related to, previously extending to the ; sanctions and restrictions imposed under the previous authorization remain in effect, including on this page.
 * Add wording for legacy topic areas like The use of discretionary sanctions was previously authorized by the Arbitration Committee for pages related to ; sanctions and restrictions imposed under that authorization remain in effect, including on this page.


 * Seems like a good idea. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 12:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)