Template talk:Legal order

Can the template dynamically add two links here?

This bit:

Further details may be available in the article's talk page or deletion log.

Make it this?

Further details may be available in the article's talk page or deletion log.

Is that possible? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done by HouseBlaster and I. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:38, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I've removed the part about the deletion log because Caesar DePaço's deletion log does not actually contain any further details. Mz7 (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Link to article history then, last 5000?

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caesar_DePa%C3%A7o&action=history&offset=&limit=5000

Like so? People can then at least see the scope of coverage for transparency. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

5000 lines may be slow to load. Show 250, say, and let the user choose to see more. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Convert to talk page notice?

This template feels like something that would be better suited as either a talk page notice or editnotice rather than a maintenance template on the article itself. I've gone ahead and added this to the talk page for the time being. Mz7 (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

True, but at the same time, the fact that the article fails NPOV is something that readers should be warned about. If the article was POV for any other reason, it would be clearly shown as a maintenance template. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

We need both. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:26, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Has it come to this?

Happy that the template is written to work efficiently, but very sad if it is to matter how efficiently it works, and augurs grim times. jp×g🗯️ 03:37, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Categorisation

This template should categorise articles; in the short term Category:All Wikipedia neutral point of view disputes (and its dated subcategories), as used by {{POV}}, may suffice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I think it should be setup as a category of it's own: Category:Wikipedia articles censored under court orders. Why pussy foot around it? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

For purely practical reasons; Because there is presently only one such article. Hopefully soon to be none, and even more hopefully it will be a very long time, if ever, before there are two. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Right. But the way I see it, that's a good move as a literal additive to the protest notion: you wanted this outcome, we'll flag it, and do so forever, outliving you, and anyone else who tries this. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Please change the left bar to solid red from solid black

It looks much better in a preview and should be more bold to clearly draw attention to the template. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted this under the following edit summary:

see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Article message boxes#Categories and colours: red would mean deletion discussion which this is not. black is usually associated with office actions, see also WP:BlackLock

Aaron Liu (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry! -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

"covered material" parameter

Does it make sense to be more explicit via a "covered material" parameter? Right now the text displayed is:

Content from this article was removed following a court ruling. Consequently, it may not meet Wikipedia's standards for neutrality and comprehensiveness. The removed content must not be restored. The legal judgment can be found here. Further details may be available on the talk page. (August 2025)

With a link to the judgment. It is a very long judgment and puts a considerable onus on future editors to translate, read, and contextualize the order. I wonder about changing it to something like:

Content from this article was removed following a court ruling. Consequently, it may not meet Wikipedia's standards for neutrality and comprehensiveness. The removed content concerning [a direct quote from the order] must not be restored. The legal judgment can be found here. Further details may be available on the talk page. (August 2025)

The question, obviously, is whether quoting directly from a court order could violate said court order. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I think that detailing which material should be removed would be better suited to a talk page notice as this information is more relevant to the editors. Inter-rede (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I have added it as a parameter. The appropriateness, or not, of using it does feel like it can be hashed out on an article talk page. Currently it's very long and so may not make sense to completely detail in the template (as opposed to an edit notice). But as this was written for use beyond this one instance, I do think it's an appropriate parameter for the template to have. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking today while working that I would add such a parameter; I think it makes sense for the template to support it, even though we'd have to be careful about what we actually say and may decide not to say anything. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Uncensored language parameter

If I were a judge and had ordered somebody not to write libel, and they had responded by replacing the libel with a link to somewhere else where the libel could be found, I would not be amused (to say the least). —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:36, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In Special:Diff/1304548856, I added support for an interlanguage link to this template, which would allow the template to link to a version of the article on a non-English Wikipedia that is unaffected by the legal order. For example, on the article Caesar DePaço, applying the langcode=es parameter would let the template display this additional message:

Read an unredacted version of this article in: Spanish

This feature addition was reverted by Compassionate727 in Special:Diff/1304550624 with the rationale that it is "potentially legally problematic". I disagree, as every article on the English Wikipedia already links to the corresponding articles on non-English Wikipedias. On the Caesar DePaço article, you can already click on the "6 languages" dropdown at the top-right of the page on a desktop computer (or tap the language icon at the top-left of the page on a mobile device) to show links to these non-English articles, including es:César do Paço. As a result, providing a link in this template does not show any additional information that the page does not show before; it only makes the link more prominent.

Additionally, per the WP:NOTCENSORED policy, we should not proactively censor information that would be helpful for readers. If the Wikimedia Foundation finds an interlanguage link in the template to be an unacceptable legal risk, they are free to remove it themselves via an office action; it is unnecessary for the community to take extraneous precautions on behalf of the WMF, when the WMF is fully able to determine the minimum level of action needed to protect themselves legally.

For these reasons, I propose that support for an interlanguage link be restored to this template. — Newslinger talk 18:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between a pre-existing, nondescript link that the Court and/or plaintiff overlooked and one that is specifically added to draw attention to ways to circumvent the court's restrictions. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:47, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § Office action: Removals on the article Caesar DePaço, many editors do not recognize the court's jurisdiction in this matter. Unless the WMF issues an office action to remove an interlanguage link from this template, or a statement indicating that they will do so, I do not see any problem with drawing attention to content that a court in Portugal has hindered English Wikipedia readers from accessing. — Newslinger talk 18:58, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I would prefer we not try and have this template do everything we need to do around these issues. At some point the template becomes too long and people will zone the whole thing out. I think we're at that level now and I wouldn't change any of the current parameters for the interlanguage links. So my first choice would be to leave off the interlanguage links. If we decide to include it, I'd prefer something more neutrally written along the lines of "Alternative language articles" and we as editors, including in the template instructions, can say "only link to articles where there has been no court ordered change". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Appearance on mobile

This template only shows two lines when viewed on mobile devices. Shouldn't we find a way to expand it?  — 魔琴 (Zauber Violino) [ talk contribs ] 05:32, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree it is an issue. This is why it looks small. I don't have any idea of how we can fix it. FaviFake (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Logo

@FaviFake: I strongly object to using the WMF logo in this template, and feel it should be removed. The message is not an official WMF communication. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:00, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

How about just doing |image=none? This is not unprecedented, see e.g. {{Article for deletion}}. Mz7 (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Works for me! I like keeping the focus on the text, which is the important bit. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:54, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

As i said, the primary purpose of this template is to notify readers that the article they're about to read does not adhere to our standards for neutrality, because of an office action that's beyond our control. I don't think the logo necessarily implies that [t]he message is [...] an official WMF communication, that's just their logo.

I think there may be better icons, but I don't like the idea of just removing it. Icons are useful to catch the attention of readers, especially since this template is not just your run-of-the-mill maintenance templates. FaviFake (talk) 11:53, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

• Yeah, I don't view it as a WMF communication, I don't think the WMF does either or they would have said something by now. But perhaps there is a better icon to use, maybe the Wikipedia logo? 331dot (talk) 12:01, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

  How about a gavel? That is a symbol that conjures up judges and courtrooms. Seems appropriate here. P.S. The eraser icon introduced in a recent edit also seems fine. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:35, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

  What about a blank Wikipedia logo like in {{Courtesy blanked}}? The eraser icon is also fine. – The Grid (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  Maybe something like broken/crossed scales? Symbolizes both the courts and the violated neutrality. Well very well (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  I think there should be a logo as I think that visual indicator is an important signal to our readers - who these template is aimed at. A gavel makes sense to me. The foundation logo does not for the reasons others have stated. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with the idea of a logo as a visual indicator, although if I had to choose, I would prefer the eraser (with its connotations of, well, erasing), rather than a gavel which might give too much legitimacy to a borderline SLAPP lawsuit. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:22, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  Is there an icon that would represent an article that's not written in a neutral point of view? FaviFake (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  I have suggested such icon above. Well very well (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah. Or maybe an unbalanced scale? But we'd need to find a file. FaviFake (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2026 (UTC)