This template was considered for deletion on 2006 September 27. The result of the discussion was "to keep". |
On 1 March 2021, it was proposed that this page be moved to Template:Disputed policy. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Template:Disputed tag is used on pages with disputed policies or guidelines. It allows to specify a list of blank separated shortcut links, typically one or two.
{{Disputedtag|shortcut links}} {{Disputedtag}}
Code with one parameter, a list of shortcut links:
{{Disputedtag|[[WP:CLS]] [[WP:CSL]]}}
Please don't confuse this template with:
Please add issues below as you see fit.
This template should not refer to the page on accuracy disputes, since that page is about articles which are thought to be inaccurate. This should refer to a page on policy disputes, which is what I'm changing it to. I hope that is okay with everyone concerned. -- Cromwellt| Talk 17:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
No, "policy" and "guideline" are not "status", and to my knowledge there exists no page that defines them as such. It is problematic that some people believe there is a "hierarchy" of pages in Wikipedia namespace, and that pages can be "promoted" or "demoted" in that hierarchy via some process (which, indeed, is not defined anywhere either). This is too bureaucratic and encourages further legalism. We had a dispute over a year ago where some people claimed that "pages with 60% support should be X, pages with 70% support should be Y, and pages with 80% support should be Z". That is precisely what I'm trying to avoid here. >Radiant< 14:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Every time I've put this on a page to indicate that the text of a guideline or policy is disputed, defenders remove it, stating that the tag "misleads visitors into believing that the page will be demoted to an essay or guideline". Or they claim that the page is policy and that a consensus is required to "demote" it.
As far as I know, this is not how policies and guidelines are made; there's no such thing as "demoting to essay". The wording of the tag should be changed to make this clear, so that it isn't removed in the future. — Omegatron 04:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
This page is a unused black hole in wikipedia if you looked in a book encyclopedia you would not see something like this. We must fix or delete! Denden136 02:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Denden136
We should add a note that this tag is only for ongoing disputes. It is still used by people who simply do not like a particular policy or guideline, who wish to have it permanently disputed; clearly that is not the point of this template. >Radiant< 13:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
There is this continued edit war on a page, where one editor removes a tag, stating "one editor does not make a disputed guideline" is it okay for one editor to add this tag? Ikip ( talk) 10:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
When should this be used? Over on Wikipedia:OTRS, there is not a wording dispute, nor some perpetual disagreement, but a current RfC on whether the page is and was accurately marked policy. I've had the tag reverted three times now by various OTRS users (supporters) who are arguing for keeping the page as policy. If it's not meant to be used to inform people of an RfC on the talk page, under what conditions should it be used? M 23:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
{{
underdiscussion|status}}
is the one to use (I think it used to say more about these tags at
WP:POL, before the recent changes.) This is only my opinion - some people like to use disputedtag like you did, but in my experience the underdiscussion format is less provocative and less likely to lead to unconstructive exchanges.--
Kotniski (
talk) 08:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Elli ( talk | contribs) 03:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Template:Disputed tag →
Template:Disputed policy – Confusing name. I placed this tag on a guideline whose wording is disputed,
but it was reverted by someone who mistook it for
Template:Disputed, which is a completely different tag with a completely different purpose.
Adam9007 (
talk) 15:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
This template was considered for deletion on 2006 September 27. The result of the discussion was "to keep". |
On 1 March 2021, it was proposed that this page be moved to Template:Disputed policy. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Template:Disputed tag is used on pages with disputed policies or guidelines. It allows to specify a list of blank separated shortcut links, typically one or two.
{{Disputedtag|shortcut links}} {{Disputedtag}}
Code with one parameter, a list of shortcut links:
{{Disputedtag|[[WP:CLS]] [[WP:CSL]]}}
Please don't confuse this template with:
Please add issues below as you see fit.
This template should not refer to the page on accuracy disputes, since that page is about articles which are thought to be inaccurate. This should refer to a page on policy disputes, which is what I'm changing it to. I hope that is okay with everyone concerned. -- Cromwellt| Talk 17:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
No, "policy" and "guideline" are not "status", and to my knowledge there exists no page that defines them as such. It is problematic that some people believe there is a "hierarchy" of pages in Wikipedia namespace, and that pages can be "promoted" or "demoted" in that hierarchy via some process (which, indeed, is not defined anywhere either). This is too bureaucratic and encourages further legalism. We had a dispute over a year ago where some people claimed that "pages with 60% support should be X, pages with 70% support should be Y, and pages with 80% support should be Z". That is precisely what I'm trying to avoid here. >Radiant< 14:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Every time I've put this on a page to indicate that the text of a guideline or policy is disputed, defenders remove it, stating that the tag "misleads visitors into believing that the page will be demoted to an essay or guideline". Or they claim that the page is policy and that a consensus is required to "demote" it.
As far as I know, this is not how policies and guidelines are made; there's no such thing as "demoting to essay". The wording of the tag should be changed to make this clear, so that it isn't removed in the future. — Omegatron 04:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
This page is a unused black hole in wikipedia if you looked in a book encyclopedia you would not see something like this. We must fix or delete! Denden136 02:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Denden136
We should add a note that this tag is only for ongoing disputes. It is still used by people who simply do not like a particular policy or guideline, who wish to have it permanently disputed; clearly that is not the point of this template. >Radiant< 13:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
There is this continued edit war on a page, where one editor removes a tag, stating "one editor does not make a disputed guideline" is it okay for one editor to add this tag? Ikip ( talk) 10:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
When should this be used? Over on Wikipedia:OTRS, there is not a wording dispute, nor some perpetual disagreement, but a current RfC on whether the page is and was accurately marked policy. I've had the tag reverted three times now by various OTRS users (supporters) who are arguing for keeping the page as policy. If it's not meant to be used to inform people of an RfC on the talk page, under what conditions should it be used? M 23:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
{{
underdiscussion|status}}
is the one to use (I think it used to say more about these tags at
WP:POL, before the recent changes.) This is only my opinion - some people like to use disputedtag like you did, but in my experience the underdiscussion format is less provocative and less likely to lead to unconstructive exchanges.--
Kotniski (
talk) 08:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Elli ( talk | contribs) 03:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Template:Disputed tag →
Template:Disputed policy – Confusing name. I placed this tag on a guideline whose wording is disputed,
but it was reverted by someone who mistook it for
Template:Disputed, which is a completely different tag with a completely different purpose.
Adam9007 (
talk) 15:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)