View source for Template talk:Disputed

{{oldtfdfull|date= 7 December 2023 |merge=Template:Misleading |result=keep |disc=Template:Misleading}}

==Link to Dutch wiki==
This page is semi-protected so I cannot edit it, however, could someone please give it a link to nl:Sjabloon:Twijfel ?
[[User:Salaskan|Salaskan]] 09:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

==Add [Category:Disputed] in the template ?==
By adding this category in the template, it becomes very easy to make the list of disputed pages : [[:Category:Disputed]].  This would be superior to the "What Links here" method (includes a lot of undisputed article), or the search method (not real-time update of the search index), both currently used in [[Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute]].  We plan to use this method in the new [[Template:Todo]].

I'm asking this because the template is protected, and thus I cannot change it. [[User:Pcarbonn|Pcarbonn]] 19:04, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:I agree, but the category ought to be [[:Category:Accuracy disputes]].  Also this template should use the standard <nowiki><div class="boilerplate" id="disputed"></nowiki> markup.  --[[User:Eequor|Eequor]] 11:40, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

:: I'm not sure what is this standard markup: where is the documentation ? Also, are you suggesting that one category should contain both the disputed articles and the disputed statements ?  My initial idea was to keep them separate ? [[User:Pcarbonn|Pcarbonn]] 20:50, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

==Yellow box==
How about a yellow box around this like the one for [[Template:Protected]]? Or maybe blue, if yellow isn't fitting enough. Either way, we should have some way of making this warning more visible. -- [[User:LGagnon|[[User talk:LGagnon|LGagnon]]]] 02:01, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

: I don't think it needs to be any more visible. But see also [[Template talk:NPOV]]. --[[User:Joy|Joy <small><small>&#91;shallot&#93;</small></small>]] 21:59, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

== Please add red hand ==

[[Image:Choco chip cookie.png|right|100px|A WikiCookie for you!]]

Please add the red hand logo to this template. [[User:Masterhomer|Masterhomer]] 09:31, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

:Done. Have a [[cookie]]. - [[User:Mark|Mark]] 09:40, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

== Proposed box ==

{{Message_box|
id	=disputed|
backgroundcolor	= beige|
image	=Stop hand.svg|
heading	=The factual accuracy of this article is [[Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute|disputed]].|
message = Please see the relevant discussion on the [[:{{NAMESPACE}} talk:{{PAGENAME}}|talk page]].}}

:I agree with whoever posted that box above.  Many similar messages are already standardized to this.  Just one thing:  I don't like the colour - but that's just my personal preference and no-one needs take any notice of it. [[User:Neonumbers|Neonumbers]] 10:41, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::I changed the box to the new layout. Thanks for the work -- [[User:Chris 73|Chris 73]] [[User talk:Chris 73|Talk]] 23:39, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

:I don't see what was wrong with using O RLY owl:

<div class="messagebox" style="width: 33em; background: beige;">
<div style="float: left;">
<pre> ___ 
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-
O RLY?</pre>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: 50px;">'''The factual accuracy of this article is [[Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute|disputed]].''' <br> Please see the relevant discussion on the [[:{{NAMESPACE}} talk:{{PAGENAME}}|talk page]].</div>
<div style="clear:left"></div></div>

--[[User:82.139.47.117|82.139.47.117]] 14:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

== [[Template:Disputeabout]] ==

I propose a new box [[Template:Disputeabout]], where a brief message about the topic of the dispute can be added. Often, long articles are tagged as disputed, just because one subtopic is disputed. A brief message about the nature of the dispute would greatly help the casual user. E.g. ''<nowiki>{{Disputeabout|the number of deaths|date=March 2008}}</nowiki>'' would look like 
{| align=center class="disputeabout" style="background: beige; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: .2em; margin-bottom: 3px; font-size: 95%; width: auto;"
| style="padding-right: 4px; padding-left: 4px;" | [[Image:Stop_hand.png|40px|]]
| '''The factual accuracy of part of this article is [[Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute|disputed]].'''<br>
The dispute is about the number of deaths.<br>
<small>Please see the relevant discussion on the [[:{{NAMESPACE}} talk:{{PAGENAME}}|talk page]].</small>
|}

Comments are welcome -- [[User:Chris 73|Chris 73]] [[User talk:Chris 73|Talk]] 23:49, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

== wastes whitespace ==

This template seems to include a couple of blank lines above it.  Can they be removed and/or can the template be made to look more like the other templates (that don't seem to waste space above)? [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] 15:38, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

== change needed ==

In order to avoid problems listed at [[Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered harmful]], please "subst:" this template so that it no longer directly depends on [[Template:Message box]]. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 08:04, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

== [[Template:disputed/perpetual]] ==
{| align="right"; width="25%; color="beige" text-align="left";
|[[Image:Stop hand.svg|float|left]] '''This article's [[Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute|accuracy]] has long been [[:{{NAMESPACE}} talk:{{PAGENAME}}|in dispute]]'''
|}

;[[Template:npov/perpetual]]

{| align="right"; width="25%; color="beige" text-align="left";
|[[Image:Stop hand.svg|float|left]] '''This article's [[Wikipedia:NPOV dispute|neutrality]] has long been [[:{{NAMESPACE}} talk:{{PAGENAME}}|in dispute]]'''
|}

== link to instructions in the template? ==

I think this template might be improved if it included instructions on how to complete the process, the way that [[Template:Copyvio]] had instructions added to it that, if you'd just added the tag, to make sure you wrote an entry at [[WP:CP]] as well.  Prior to that, a lot of copyvios were being mishandled because so many people thought that once they'd slapped on the tag, they'd done their part.  Right now I see the "disputed" tag being misused a lot by people who think it's what they slap on if they see ''anything'' in an article they disagree with, and that it goes on ''with'' the "dubious" tag.  It might be good if they got instructed to read and make sure they've followed the instructions at [[Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute]] when they put the tag on.  -- [[User:Antaeus Feldspar|Antaeus Feldspar]] 03:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

== Display problem ==

I wouldn't want to mess this up further myself, but the template isn't displaying correctly in the "Classic" skin. The stop sign is too big for the surrounding box, and the text therein as left justified (with empty space on the right). Thanks, -- [[User:Gyrofrog|Gyrofrog ]] [[User_talk:Gyrofrog|(talk)]] 13:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

: Fixed. Why isn't this template using Message_Box, though? --[[User:Zetawoof|Zetawoof]] 20:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

== section accuracy ==

is there a template for an accuracy issue thats restricted to a specific section and if not should i create one? [[User:Plugwash|Plugwash]] 00:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
:[[Template:Disputed-section]]. [[User:Jon513|Jon513]] 17:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

== Choice of icon ==

[[Image:Circle-question.png|left]] Wouldn't [[:Image:Circle-question.png]] be a more appropriate icon to summarize the message in this template, as well as the messages in {{tl|Disputeabout}} and {{tl|Sectfact}}? -- <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;"> [[User:Denelson83|Denelson]][[User talk:Denelson83|'''83''']] </span> 07:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

:Yes, it is far more appropriate. The stop hand, as mentioned in regards to {{t1|pov}}, sends the message that you shouldn't reach the article at all. Instead we should be saying that the reader should read with caution. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]][[User:Joturner|r]] 22:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[[Image:Circle-question-red.png|left]] Is anyone in favor of [[:Image:Circle-question-red.png]]?  I belive it is a bit more appropiate than [[:Image:Circle-question.png]] and far more appropiate than the stop hand.  --'''[[User:Domthedude001|<span style="color:blue">Dom</span>]][[User:Domthedude001|<span style="color:red">th</span>]]''[[User:Domthedude001/Esperanza|<span style="color:green">e</span>]]''[[User:Domthedude001|<span style="color:#FFBF00">dude</span>]][[User:Domthedude001|<span style="color:#66FF00">0</span>]][[User_talk:Domthedude001|<span style="color:#66FF00">0</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Domthedude001|<span style="color:#66FF00">1</span>]]''' 22:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)



*Personally, I was in favour of the stophand.  Disputed, unlike point of view, isn't just a question, it's trying to combat actual falsehood - a black-and-white contradiction of facts.  Disputed appears on the most war-torn articles around, and this template should really catch the reader and tell them not to believe what they're reading.  So, between the two, if it had to be a question mark, I'd definitely go for the red.

==This template should not exist==
I don't believe this template should exist. Factual accuracy is not relevant to policy. Official Wikipedia:Verifiability policy says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability] In other words, it doesn't matter whether anything is factual or not, but whether it can be found in a reliable source. Disputing whether something is factual takes debate off on in irrelevant tangent. It doesn't matter whether anything in the article is true or factual. [[User:Operation Spooner|Operation Spooner]] 03:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
:Factual accuracy is extremely relevant to the credibility of the encyclopedia.  Even though Wikipedia purports to be about verification and notability, verification against falsehoods only leads to ridicule and flight of users to other resources.  "Building an encyclopedia" implies "Building, to the best of our ability, a factually accurate encyclopedia". --User:Ceyockey (<small>''[[User talk:Ceyockey|talk to me]]''</small>) 01:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::No, you're wrong simply because what is "true" for one editor might not be considered by another editor to be true.  You see, the idea of '''''verifiability, not truth''''', as found in the Wikipedia '''policy''', '''[[WP:V]]''', is that whenever "factual disputes" occur, NPOV means that both or all sides of the dispute are covered neutrally in the article.  So I agree that this maint. tag should not exist.  It is completely against policy. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="color:darkblue; font-family:Ariel;">Paine&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]&nbsp;(&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="color:blue; font-family:Ariel;">C<small>LIMAX</small></span>]]&nbsp;)&nbsp; 15:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
::: Do you always think in black and white only? "you're wrong", "completely against policy"... In any case, to the point: your objection would be true in a finished and perfect encyclopedia, but not on Wikipedia, which is a work in progress. On Wikipedia, articles might contain statements that are factually incorrect. Either because they are not sourced at all, or they are taken from poor sources that should not have been used in the first place, or even from disputed sources. And although it would at first glance seem reasonable to say tat if so, a sourcing tag should be used, this tag adds additional importance to that by asserting that the statement is likely to be incorrect. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 01:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
::::My point exactly{{mdash}} the tag itself was "black and white" to imply that, if placed at the top of an article, the whole article is a pack of lies.  The addition that I made to the tag, plus the acceptable modification, will better alert editors to precisely what you bring out above:  That either the factual disputes need to be sourced if not already sourced, and they need to be reliably sourced if the existing sources are wanting. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="color:darkblue; font-family:Ariel;">Paine&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]&nbsp;(&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="color:blue; font-family:Ariel;">C<small>LIMAX</small></span>]]&nbsp;)&nbsp; 12:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

::::: So the current version is all good then? --[[User:Joy|Joy &#91;shallot&#93;]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 15:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

:::::: Well, I think it is better than it was before surely. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 00:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

::::::Ditto, and thank you both! &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="color:darkblue; font-family:Ariel;">Paine&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]&nbsp;(&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="color:blue; font-family:Ariel;">C<small>LIMAX</small></span>]]&nbsp;)&nbsp; 11:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

==Category problem==
To my knowledge, use of this template is supposed to put articles into [[:Category:Accuracy disputes]],  but it doesn't seem to be working.  Before I go on a debugging run, anyone have any ideas why the problem may have occurred? --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 10:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
: Ah, I see what's going on.  [[:Category:Accuracy disputes]] is tagged with <nowiki>__HIDDENCAT__</nowiki>, which means that it's not shown on member pages.  Wow, learn something new every day.... --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 20:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

== Dispute discussion on another page ==

In cases where an article dispute may be discussed on another page (e.g. a [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal]] discussion page such as [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-19 National Federation of Republican Assemblies|this one]]. At the moment this template will only forward to the talk page of the article. --[[User:DeadlyAssassin|Deadly&forall;ssassin]] 23:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

:Another example of this problem, which is currently in the news, is the article currently called [[Burma]], whose title is disputed.  The link from the template should go to the page [[Talk:Burma/Myanmar]], as this subject has been split out from [[Talk:Burma]]. --[[Special:Contributions/207.176.159.90|207.176.159.90]] ([[User talk:207.176.159.90|talk]]) 04:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

== Related template search help request ==

Are there any templates that permit tagging an article as not necessarily factually innacurate, but nonetheless misleading, out-of-context or not comprehensive? - particularly over-application of information that only applies to a subset of instances (not necessarily related to geogrpahy - c.f [[Template:Globalize]].

--[[User:ZayZayEM|ZayZayEM]] ([[User talk:ZayZayEM|talk]]) 23:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

== Language ==

{{tlx|editprotected}}
A suggestion has been made at [[Template_talk:Disputed-section#Language]] to add "Please do not remove this message until the [[WP:AD|dispute is resolved.]]" This would match the wording of {{tl|POV}} and {{tl|POV-section}}.  However, it would make no sense to make the change on {{tl|disputed-section}} and not here.  Any objections to this change?--[[User:Aervanath|Aervanath]] ([[User talk:Aervanath|talk]]) 09:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

===Copied from [[Template talk:Disputed-section]] to centralise discussion===
Shouldn't this template include language similar to [[:Template:NPOV-section]], i.e. "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved", except that it should link to Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute? [[User:Xasodfuih|Xasodfuih]] ([[User talk:Xasodfuih|talk]]) 08:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
:I would support the change, but I won't make it until someone else chimes in in support.  I'll also post this suggestion at [[Template talk:Disputed]], since the main template is probably used more frequently, and the two templates should have the same language.--[[User:Aervanath|Aervanath]] ([[User talk:Aervanath|talk]]) 08:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Two points:
#I think these messages should be as succinct as possible.
#I think disputes are often not resolved. They merely fade with time. So removing this template after no discussion has taken place for some time would be perfectly valid, even if the issues had not been resolved. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 09:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
#: On NPOV disputes that is sometimes the case (yet the language is there), but for accuracy, either the source(s) say or don't say what's claimed, so there's actually a stronger reason to invite people to actually solve these. [[User:Xasodfuih|Xasodfuih]] ([[User talk:Xasodfuih|talk]]) 10:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

== Change the display if no talk section is linked to? ==

In my experience, this template is often removed if an editor places it without starting a discussion at the talk page (a practice which I agree with, since just pasting the tag on without stating why is often just POV-pushing). Would it be worthwhile to add code that either a) adds a red warning/error message, or b) hides the template, if someone adds it without giving a link to a talk page. Doing either one would be very easy (for example, the second would work by just wrapping the template in <blockquote><code><nowiki>{{#if:{{{1|}}}| |<div style="display:none">}}</nowiki></code></blockquote> and <blockquote><code><nowiki>{{#if:{{{1|}}}| |</div>}}</nowiki></code></blockquote> <b class="Unicode">[[User:Rjanag|r<span style="color:#8B0000;">ʨ</span>anaɢ]]</b>&nbsp;<small><sup>[[User talk:Rjanag|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Rjanag|contribs]]</sub></small> 22:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

: Sounds like overkill to me. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 23:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
::I guess deciding when to remove a bad tag is something that humans are better at. <b class="Unicode">[[User:Rjanag|r<span style="color:#8B0000;">ʨ</span>anaɢ]]</b>&nbsp;<small><sup>[[User talk:Rjanag|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Rjanag|contribs]]</sub></small> 23:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
::: That's more or less my thoughts also. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 06:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

== Feature Request ==
{{FPER|ans=yes}}
Other warning templates like {{tl|Unreferenced}} has some extra code so that [[Help:Substitution|substitution]] of the template will automatically fill the date parameter. It is achieved by wrapping the template in <blockquote><code><nowiki>{{ {{{|safesubst:}}}ifsubst |<includeonly>{{subst:Unsubst|Unreferenced|1|{{{1|¬}}}|date|{{{date|{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}}} }}</includeonly>|</nowiki></code></blockquote> and <blockquote><code><nowiki>}}</nowiki></code></blockquote> --[[User:Quest for Truth|Quest for Truth]] ([[User talk:Quest for Truth|talk]]) 10:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

:[[File:Padlock-bronze-slash2.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''[[Wikipedia:GOLDLOCK|Not done]]:''' {{Tlx|edit protected}} is not required for edits to  unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages.<!-- Template:EP --> Just be sure to test it in a sandbox first. Thanks. :-) '''[[:User:KrakatoaKatie|<span style="font-family:papyrus;"><span style="color:FireBrick;">K</span><span style="color:#2F4F4F;">rakatoa</span></span>]][[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|<span style="font-family:papyrus;"><span style="color:FireBrick;">K</span><span style="color:#2F4F4F;">atie</span></span>]]''' 12:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

== "Usage" expansion ==
Similar to how [[Template:Pov]] operates, I propose the following be added to the documentation of [[Template:Disputed]] so it doesn't become a permanent resident at articles:

{{Pre|
== When to use ==
Place this template on an article when a serious dispute has arisen over [[WP:Accuracy dispute|factual accuracy]] and you wish to attract editors to the article who may be able to assist in the dispute's resolution. Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies.

An article whose factual accuracy is in dispute is one where some editors insist there is information present that is [[WP:V|verifiably]] wrong.  A factually accurate article presents information that is [[WP:V|verifiable]] using [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], [[WP:NPOV|unbiased]], and is [[WP:NOR|not original research]]. Personal convictions of Wikipedia editors that are not [[WP:Cite|cited]] to reliable sources are irrelevant.

=== When to remove ===
This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article.  Remove this template whenever:

# No discussion about factual accuracy issues was started on the article's talk page. 
# Discussion about factual accuracy issues is dormant.
# There is consensus in the discussion that the problems have been resolved.

Removing this tag may be tendentious—just like placing it on the article may be tendentious—but it is not an act of vandalism.
}}
I will proceed to notify the community at [[Wikipedia talk:Twinkle]] presently.—[[User:Biosketch|Biosketch]] ([[User talk:Biosketch|talk]]) 07:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

: The nr 2 point in "When to remove "is very problematic. The template is there to make people aware of that there are factual inaccuracy's in the article, as long as those problems hasn't been resolved, there is absolutely no reason to remove the tag. It also functions as a warning to the reader. --[[User:Supreme Deliciousness|Supreme Deliciousness]] ([[User talk:Supreme Deliciousness|talk]]) 01:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

== Edit protected ==

{{editsemiprotected|answered=yes}}
Please change this to look like a section template when "|what=section" is activated, or if {{tl|disputed-section}} is activated (which uses "|what=section" parameter)

<pre>
|small= {{#ifeq:{{{what|}}}|section|left}}
</pre>

Add the above line just above the "|date=" line

[[Special:Contributions/70.24.248.211|70.24.248.211]] ([[User talk:70.24.248.211|talk]]) 15:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

:[[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ESp --> No noticeable errors in the sandbox, so I'm fulfilling this request. '''[[User:Elektrik Shoos|<span style="color:#FFCC66;">elektrik</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Elektrik Shoos|<span style="color:#666666;">SHOOS</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Elektrik Shoos|talk]]) 00:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
::There is a problem with this: see next section. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 14:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
:::I've reverted this edit. See [[#Should the box be small when applied to sections?]] [[User:Uanfala|Uanfala]] ([[User talk:Uanfala|talk]]) 11:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

== Link to named talk page section doesn't work if called from disputed-section ==

When this template is called via {{tl|disputed-section}}, the feature to link to a named talk page section does not work.--[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler|talk]]) 03:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

: We probably need to add <code><nowiki>1={{{1}}}|</nowiki></code> to the code of [[Template:Disputed-section]]. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 07:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
::That's not the problem; the problem is that the {{para|fix}} text is not displayed when {{para|small|left}} is set, as described at [[Template talk:Disputed-section#Talk page link feature seems to be broken]]. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 14:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
{{FPER|answered=yes}}
Is an admin willing to fix this year-old problem?  If not, I guess I/we can try to create new template(s) w/o this problem… --[[User:Elvey|Elvey]] ([[User talk:Elvey|talk]]) 16:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
:[[File:Pictogram voting keep.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Unprotected'''. I'm not really sure of the best way to fix this, but {{tl|disputed-section}} only had 300 transclusions, so I reduced the protection to semi-protection, and this template was only semi-protected to start with. So you should be able to fix it without admin help now. (If you want help with the code, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page.) — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪ talk ♪]]</sup> 21:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
::Thanks.  I'm unaware of a ''proper'' way to fix this too; I was thinking of working backwards, with a fork of this template with the edits that broke it undone, just for disputed-section to use, in other words, a kludge fix. --[[User:Elvey|Elvey]] ([[User talk:Elvey|talk]]) 01:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
:::I've undone the original edit that caused this situation. Links should work now. A consequence of this is that {{tl|Disputed section}} is no longer small by default. [[User:Uanfala|Uanfala]] ([[User talk:Uanfala|talk]]) 12:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

== Edit request on 20 July 2012 ==

{{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->
The following entry has an error that I, the author's legal representative, would like to have corrected, or be told, simply, how to correct: 
Legal Name: Hope, William Edward S.           THIS NAME IS WRONG - THE AUTHOR, WILL STANTON'S, LEGAL NAME IS WILLIAM FRANK STANTON
Birthdate: 1918             BIRTHDATE, FULLY, IS OCTOBER 16, 1918
Biography: Bio:Will Stanton             IF THIS READS "WILL STANTON, AUTHOR" IT WILL LEAD TO THE AUTHOR'S BIO ON WIKIPEDIA
Bibliographic Comments: Author:Will Stanton       
Author Tags: Merril04 (1) , Merril05 (1)
Shortfiction
Barney (1951)
The Pioneer (1952)
The Girl in the Flaxen Convertible (1953)
The Last Present (1956)
Dodger Fan (1957)
Over the River to What's-Her-Name's House (1958)
Who Is Going to Cut the Barber's Hair? (1959)
You Are with It! (1961)
The Scarecrow of Tomorrow (1962)
The Gumdrop King (1962)
As Long as You're Here (1963)
L'ultimo regalo (1965)

<!-- End request -->
[[Special:Contributions/75.34.67.15|75.34.67.15]] ([[User talk:75.34.67.15|talk]]) 17:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
:{{not done}} You need to put the template on the talk page of the article in question.--[[User:Canoe1967|Canoe1967]] ([[User talk:Canoe1967|talk]]) 01:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

== Image ==

I changed the exclamation mark symbol to a magnifying glass symbol. I think that magnifying glass is better, beacuse one should investigate the sources in order to find out if they are correctly represented in the article or not. --[[User:Ilaiho|ilaiho]] ([[User talk:Ilaiho|talk]]) 16:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

== Request for comments on an issue in a tag similar to this one ==

Hi, there is a general issue with a tag that is related to this one, and I would like to request some feedback since the problems are similar to some of those that have been discussed here earlier.

Please have a look at [[Template talk:Unreliable sources]], and reply in that talk page if you want to comment. The reason why I'm posting about it here is because it doesn't seem like anyone is watching the other template's talkpage. [[User:Anonimski|Anonimski]] ([[User talk:Anonimski|talk]]) 15:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

== Change ''are'' to ''be'' ==

I think that it would be better that it be changed because it is expressing a condition, and I do not see how my change would be controversial. (Because that would probably be a problem with our changing templates with no protection, why do not we just lock those templates for administrators?) [[User:Gamingforfun365|<span style="color:yellow"><s><span style="color:#541854">Gamingforfun</span></s></span><sup><u><span style="color:red">3</span><span style="color:green">6</span><span style="color:blue">5</span></u></sup>]] [[User talk:Gamingforfun365|(talk)]] 01:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

:[[User:Gamingforfun365|Gamingforfun365]], you are suggesting that we change the "Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced." sentence? [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 01:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

::What? It is only a minor thing for us to use more formal English (because the template is suggesting a conditional clause). [[User:Gamingforfun365|<span style="color:yellow"><s><span style="color:#541854">Gamingforfun</span></s></span><sup><u><span style="color:red">3</span><span style="color:green">6</span><span style="color:blue">5</span></u></sup>]] [[User talk:Gamingforfun365|(talk)]] 01:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

:::[[User:Gamingforfun365|Gamingforfun365]], I was asking what part of the template's text you are looking to change (there is the tag and then there is the guidance on how to use the tag). I didn't state that I object to any change. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 01:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

::::Well, that was at first ambiguous. Anyways, yes. [[User:Gamingforfun365|<span style="color:yellow"><s><span style="color:#541854">Gamingforfun</span></s></span><sup><u><span style="color:red">3</span><span style="color:green">6</span><span style="color:blue">5</span></u></sup>]] [[User talk:Gamingforfun365|(talk)]] 01:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

:::::How does "Please help to ensure that disputed statements be reliably sourced." flow better than "Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced."? [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 01:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::The use of the [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subjunctive subjunctive] in conditional clauses is more formal, and we have a [[WP:FORMAL|formal]] wiki. [[User:Gamingforfun365|<span style="color:yellow"><s><span style="color:#541854">Gamingforfun</span></s></span><sup><u><span style="color:red">3</span><span style="color:green">6</span><span style="color:blue">5</span></u></sup>]] [[User talk:Gamingforfun365|(talk)]] 03:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::::'''Hello?''' [[User:Gamingforfun365|<span style="color:yellow"><s><span style="color:#541854">Gamingforfun</span></s></span><sup><u><span style="color:red">3</span><span style="color:green">6</span><span style="color:blue">5</span></u></sup>]] [[User talk:Gamingforfun365|(talk)]] 21:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

::::::::I asked about flow. The suggested "Please help to ensure that disputed statements be reliably sourced." does not flow as well to me as  "Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced." If you want more opinions about this, ask about it at [[Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute]]. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 01:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

::::::::: IMHO "are" sounds better than "be", so I propose keeping things as are (not be). [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 08:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

::::::::::''Are'' is what we almost always hear in everyday speech; ''be'' may be used in such formal passages, such as those in conditional clauses. Surely, it may sound awkward, but it is correct. [[User:Gamingforfun365|<span style="color:yellow"><s><span style="color:#541854">Gamingforfun</span></s></span><sup><u><span style="color:red">3</span><span style="color:green">6</span><span style="color:blue">5</span></u></sup>]] [[User talk:Gamingforfun365|(talk)]] 18:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

::::::::::: Correct as it may be, "are" seems to enjoy [[WP:CONSENSUS]], so I'd propose to close this discussion as "no consensus for change". [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 22:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::: Concur. There seems to be a feeling that "be" in this construction would be awkward/stilted. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 15:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

== Coding problem ==

As presently coded, if the page on which this template is placed has no talk page, then the talk link will not appear even if the {{para|talkpage}} parameter is specified, which impedes the ability to centralize discussion (especially if some new stub with no talk page repeats a disputed claim in a more established article and the discussion should be centralized at the talk page of the main article).  We can either remove the test for the existence of the talk page, or have separate tests for the existence of the parameter and the existence of the page. I would advocate the former, since in the event that the dispute is localized to a single article and it has no talk page, it's perfectly fine for it to be a redlink, since the next step in making it an actual dispute is to click that redlink and go create the talk page by adding the dispute as a thread to it.  Regardless, the behavior should also be normalized at {{tlx|Disputed inline}}, which is presently testing for the existence of the parameter, and thus making it impossible to just use the talk page of the extant page by default, as this template does and would continue to do.  I would just fix this myself, but I figure these are used often enough there should be some discussion about the exact desired behavior, if anyone has contrary opinions. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 12:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Update: I've adjusted the code at the inline version to behave better, and think that it should be borrowed for the non-inline template. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 15:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
:{{reply to|SMcCandlish}} I think there's an error in the template's documentation. I tried to use this template with the {{para|talkpage}} parameter, but it didn't create a link to a section of the talkpage: {{tlx|Disputed|talkpage{{=}}Talk:Page name|section name|date{{=}}{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}}} [[User:Jarble|Jarble]] ([[User talk:Jarble|talk]]) 18:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
::{{ping|Jarble}} It's working fine for me here: [[User:SMcCandlish/sandbox20]]. PS: {{para||section name}} doesn't mean section of the talk page, but section in the article that is being disputed. If you wanted to link to a specific talk section, it would be {{para|talkpage|Talk:Talk page name#Section name}}. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 03:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

== Should the box be small when applied to sections? ==

After [[#Edit protected|this request]] back in 2012, if the template was applied to a section (as opposed, for example, the whole article) the message box is small and floating left (it looks like [[Template:Disputed-section|this]]). There's probably a good reason for this that I'm not aware of, but I'm planning to revert that for consistency with similar message templates (for example [[Template:POV section]] or [[Template:Unreferenced section]]), which retain their full size. This will also fix [[#Link to named talk page section doesn't work if called from disputed-section|this four-year-old problem]]. [[User:Uanfala|Uanfala]] ([[User talk:Uanfala|talk]]) 18:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
: No objection here. The template should be small, only if the editor indicated specifically it should be small, not because of the mere fact it regards a section. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 22:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
:: I've edited it now to allow users to individually set the parameter "small", both directly on this template and when invoked from {{tl|Disputed section}}. [[User:Uanfala|Uanfala]] ([[User talk:Uanfala|talk]]) 11:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

== template for one piece of information ==

What if only one piece of information within one line or phrase or even a word, what would be the right template for that?--[[User:Abu aamir|Abu aamir]] ([[User talk:Abu aamir|talk]]) 16:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

: {{ping|Abu aamir}} There are a number of inline tags, depending on the nature of dispute. As it happens, I keep a list of them on my user home page. [[User:Eperoton|Eperoton]] ([[User talk:Eperoton|talk]]) 04:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

== RfC of potential interest ==
An RfC is underway that could affect this template and may therefor be of interest to watchers of this page. The discussion is located at [[Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#RfC regarding Twinkle maintenance tags that recommend the inclusion of additional sources]]. Thank you.--[[User:John Cline|John Cline]] ([[User talk:John Cline#Top|talk]]) 05:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

== Template-protected edit request on 1 November 2021 ==

{{edit template-protected|Template:Disputed|answered=yes}}
The parameter "talkpage" could be renamed to "discuss", as used in other templates, such as [[Template:Merge#Other_options|Template:Merger]]. To make it backwards compatible, as alias or synonym could be left behind. Thank your. [[User:Fgnievinski|fgnievinski]] ([[User talk:Fgnievinski|talk]]) 05:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
:I believe ''talk'' is the standard parameter for this, which the template already accepts. Do you have anything to support your opinion that ''discuss'' is widely used? On [[Template:Merge]] the ''discuss'' parameter holds the full page name, whereas on this template ''talk'' is merely the section heading. I think conflating these may get confusing. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 07:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
:{{to|Fgnievinski|s1=fgnievinski}} [[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''not done for now:''' looks like this needs a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]. Please garner the needed consensus '''[[Wikipedia:Edit requests|before]]''' using the {{tlx|edit template-protected}} template again. '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''&numsp;-&nbsp;[[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'r&nbsp;there</sup>]]&nbsp;<small>02:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)</small>
::The following templates support "|discuss=" parameter pointing to the talk page and section: [[Template:Merge]], [[Template:Merge to]], [[Template:Merge from]], [[Template:Split]], [[Template:Split_section]], [[Template:Original research]], [[Template:Globalize]], [[Template:Being merged]]. [[User:Fgnievinski|fgnievinski]] ([[User talk:Fgnievinski|talk]]) 02:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Fgnievinski}} I added a {{para|discuss}} parameter alias. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 03:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
::::Thank you! [[User:Fgnievinski|fgnievinski]] ([[User talk:Fgnievinski|talk]]) 03:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

== Feature request 2 December 2023: template:multiple issue ==
When used with the {{tl|multiple}} template, the {{talk quote inline|Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page.}} text and link to the talk page are not shown. Please add that link? Perhaps shorten to {{talk quote inline|Discussion: talk page}}? There are templates that leave longer lines: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khangar_(community)&oldid=1187993310 Example page]. Thank you [[User:Adakiko|Adakiko]] ([[User talk:Adakiko|talk]]) 19:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

== Edit request to complete TfD nomination ==

{{Edit fully-protected|Template:Disputed|answered=yes}}
[[Template:Disputed]] has been listed at Templates for discussion ([[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 December 7#Template:Misleading|nomination]]), but it was protected, so it could not be tagged. Please add:

<code><nowiki>{{subst:tfm|help=off|1=Misleading}}
</nowiki></code>

to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. <!-- Template:Xfd edit protected -->[[User:Kinopiko|<span style="color:#F3C">'''Kinopiko'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kinopiko|talk]]</sup> 06:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
:[[File:Pictogram voting comment.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Note:'''<!-- Template:EP --> I attempted to do this, but was blocked by existing template on the /doc, I think. -  [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 13:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)