This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Disputed section template. |
|
I can't find the TfD, but we have other section-specific dispute templates. I'm restoring the non-redirect version. BenB4 11:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
This can easily be subclassed to {{ disputed}} (note: not the same as merging), which ensures consistency between the two. Code is in the sandbox, just needs synced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
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? Xasodfuih ( talk) 08:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The feature to link to a named section on the talk page seems to be broken. This template passes the parameter to {{ disputed}}, but that template doesn't seem to display the link when "what" = "section".-- Srleffler ( talk) 03:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
{{
Disputed-section}}
, where it isn't working as intended. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 21:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
Disputed-section}}
but the Talk page link feature. What follows is an example how to replicate the problem. Edit
Katherine Jackson#My Family and preview: {{Disputed-section|Disputed: Katherine talking about her husband's adultery in ''My Family''}} (which is what I want to add) or {{Disputed-section|Parents}} (not what I want but a simpler example without italics). The only link in the resulting text will be to
Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute. --
82.170.113.123 (
talk) 00:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
Disputed}}
which is used here as a subtemplate. The problam is caused by
this edit in conjunction with
this one. The talk page link appears only in the |fix=
parameter (which has text like "Please help to ensure that disputed statements are
reliably sourced. See the relevant discussion on the
talk page."), but that parameter is only used when |small=
is blank. There are relevant threads at
Template talk:Disputed#Edit protected and
Template talk:Disputed#Link to named talk page section doesn't work if called from disputed-section.Broken for two years now... ( Hohum @) 20:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Still broken ... tried it here and the section reference does not work. SageRad ( talk) 12:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Is there a reason this isn't centered? If not, can it be centered? Thargor Orlando ( talk) 21:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. Yes, because it's small. Small-size maintenance banners are normally used in sections, such as {{
copy edit-section}}
{{
expand section}}
{{
news release section}}
- there are others. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 21:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
{{
ambox}}
, which has
two forms: these are partly defined in
Template:Ambox/small and
Template:Ambox/core, and partly defined in
MediaWiki:Common.css. The width of the small one is fixed at 238px (and is left-aligned); the standard one uses 80% of the available width (and is centred). --
Redrose64 (
talk) 21:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please move {{
Disputed unsection}}
to {{
Disputed section}}
. I was doing a long spree of template cleanup, and some stray characters got into this one by mistake; the target is an edited redirect I can't move over, and
WP:RM's "speedy" process isn't. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
It's not the job of Wikipedia editors to directly check the accuracy of facts. It should be an indirect result of verifiability. I suspect that the idea of the statement This section's factual accuracy is disputed
is simply that this is the first impression that pops up in our mind when we see the section and the associated discussion. Thus, it appears a simple
description that goes directly to the essence of the issue, as we first experience it. However, a template should not encourage such an attitude, even though it is natural. Wikipedia has a word that expresses the only thing that editors should focus on when factual accuracy is disputed: verifiability (in secondary sources). A template should reinforce this most important policy instead of weakening it by suggesting that we directly concern ourselves with factual accuracy. It should be something like This section's factual
verifiability is disputed
. I know that in common knowledge, "factual verifiability" means almost the samething as "factual accuracy", but in the context of Wikipedia, it means something clearly different. Note that I kept "factual" in the text, because I assume the concern is specifically about facts, not theories, etc.
Dominic Mayers (
talk) 16:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Disputed section template. |
|
I can't find the TfD, but we have other section-specific dispute templates. I'm restoring the non-redirect version. BenB4 11:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
This can easily be subclassed to {{ disputed}} (note: not the same as merging), which ensures consistency between the two. Code is in the sandbox, just needs synced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
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? Xasodfuih ( talk) 08:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The feature to link to a named section on the talk page seems to be broken. This template passes the parameter to {{ disputed}}, but that template doesn't seem to display the link when "what" = "section".-- Srleffler ( talk) 03:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
{{
Disputed-section}}
, where it isn't working as intended. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 21:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
Disputed-section}}
but the Talk page link feature. What follows is an example how to replicate the problem. Edit
Katherine Jackson#My Family and preview: {{Disputed-section|Disputed: Katherine talking about her husband's adultery in ''My Family''}} (which is what I want to add) or {{Disputed-section|Parents}} (not what I want but a simpler example without italics). The only link in the resulting text will be to
Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute. --
82.170.113.123 (
talk) 00:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
Disputed}}
which is used here as a subtemplate. The problam is caused by
this edit in conjunction with
this one. The talk page link appears only in the |fix=
parameter (which has text like "Please help to ensure that disputed statements are
reliably sourced. See the relevant discussion on the
talk page."), but that parameter is only used when |small=
is blank. There are relevant threads at
Template talk:Disputed#Edit protected and
Template talk:Disputed#Link to named talk page section doesn't work if called from disputed-section.Broken for two years now... ( Hohum @) 20:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Still broken ... tried it here and the section reference does not work. SageRad ( talk) 12:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Is there a reason this isn't centered? If not, can it be centered? Thargor Orlando ( talk) 21:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. Yes, because it's small. Small-size maintenance banners are normally used in sections, such as {{
copy edit-section}}
{{
expand section}}
{{
news release section}}
- there are others. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 21:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
{{
ambox}}
, which has
two forms: these are partly defined in
Template:Ambox/small and
Template:Ambox/core, and partly defined in
MediaWiki:Common.css. The width of the small one is fixed at 238px (and is left-aligned); the standard one uses 80% of the available width (and is centred). --
Redrose64 (
talk) 21:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please move {{
Disputed unsection}}
to {{
Disputed section}}
. I was doing a long spree of template cleanup, and some stray characters got into this one by mistake; the target is an edited redirect I can't move over, and
WP:RM's "speedy" process isn't. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
It's not the job of Wikipedia editors to directly check the accuracy of facts. It should be an indirect result of verifiability. I suspect that the idea of the statement This section's factual accuracy is disputed
is simply that this is the first impression that pops up in our mind when we see the section and the associated discussion. Thus, it appears a simple
description that goes directly to the essence of the issue, as we first experience it. However, a template should not encourage such an attitude, even though it is natural. Wikipedia has a word that expresses the only thing that editors should focus on when factual accuracy is disputed: verifiability (in secondary sources). A template should reinforce this most important policy instead of weakening it by suggesting that we directly concern ourselves with factual accuracy. It should be something like This section's factual
verifiability is disputed
. I know that in common knowledge, "factual verifiability" means almost the samething as "factual accuracy", but in the context of Wikipedia, it means something clearly different. Note that I kept "factual" in the text, because I assume the concern is specifically about facts, not theories, etc.
Dominic Mayers (
talk) 16:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)