This template was considered for deletion on 2017 March 9. The result of the discussion was "Keep". |
Inline Templates | ||||
|
Should the link to the Talk page really be talk:{{PAGENAME}}#Disputed? The relevant Talk section would have to be named Disputed. Shouldn’t there be a {{{1}}} thing to the actual section name (however that works)? — Frungi 04:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I do not agree with this. I used the template on the Ghost and to my great surprise one little sentence that I had listed as dubious was now a full-blown statement that all the article was disputed. The guidelines here Wikipedia:Disputed_statement haven't changed. So I do not see why someone would change this to a redirect unilaterally. QBorg 02:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Excerpts from the Guidelines: "If you come across a statement which seems or is inaccurate[...] First, insert a "Disputed" section in the talk page to describe the problem. [...] Insert {dubious} after the relevant sentence or paragraph." QBorg 02:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't think article pages should be linking to Talk pages. Sites that reproduce our articles rarely reproduce the Talk pages, and certainly any printed version would not. It seems to break the normal rules of namespace boundaries. A simple note that the fact is disputed seems adequate, and readers can consult the Talk page if they so desire. Soo 17:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
This tag is "dubious" but the text it inserts is "disputed". I think they should both be "dubious". After all, there is a template for disputed content. When I add this it isn't because I don't believe something is true it's because I am skeptical and think someone else should have a look. If I don't get comments here I may just be bold and change the text of this tempmlate. —Ben FrantzDale 06:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Ben FrantzDale's suggestion, at least as long as no other tag is available--as I don't think there is--to indicate an assertion of which one is suspicious, but which one doesn't necessarily dispute per se, because of a lack of counter-evidence. If the George Bush article were to say he likes eating houseflies, I would like to flag that as dubious, though I do not dispute it since I have no evidence to the contrary. Is there any reason why the text for this isn't "dubious" instead of "disputed"? -- CHE 16:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I am engaged in a dispute over a sourced, scholarly claim in an article. The editor who added the dispute tag, when challenged to directly quote from the cited source and show how it did not prove its point, declared that he felt he did not need to quote from the source as he felt it was entirely incorrect in every particular. He then claimed I should prove why I feel the source is correct. Note that I did not add this source to the article; it has been there for a long time.
The question is, is the burden of proof on the editor who adds the dubious tag, or on the editor(s) who defend the cited source? Ie., must he prove the source is wrong, or must I prove it right? Kasreyn 18:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Template:Dubious versus Template:DisputedAssertion. See WP:TFD#Template:DisputedAssertion.
Personally, I think that the name of the latter is more consistent with other templates, though the former (this page) has more history. Also, I like the idea of a picture separating a line item as a functional element of the page, and not a parenthetical. For the newbie's sake. If Template:DisputedAssertion makes it, this page may need to be differentiated from Template:DisputedAssertion, or merged with it. Again, my opinion, is to merge.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Inline templates. I've been meaning to do this for a while. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ contrib ツ 16:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Should the "Dubious" template be used in situations where the relevance, but not the accuracy of a statement is disputed? If not, what template should be used in its place? CJCurrie 04:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Disputed statement]] more narrowly, then {{ dubious}} could be relevant. (Also, some consider {{ Cleanup}} to be deprecated, per Wikipedia:Clarify the cleanup, so my recommendation to use it is now obsolete.) — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
re: edit by The Cunctator, who writes on the template, `try not to use,' : why? see discussion above. There are lots of situations where one is surprised by an assertion but doesn't +know+ that it's false, and so wants to call the attention of the other editors to it, or to the editor who added it that it needs support. This seems essential to a wiki. CHE 21:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Result: {{ disputable}} was redirected to {{ dubious}} in September 2007.
It is proposed that {{ disputable}} be merged into {{ dubious}}:
It is proposed that this template be renamed {{
disputed-inline}} (and its wording edited from "dubious" to "disputed" to conform), in keeping with other inline variants of page/section-level box templates like {{
disputed}}.
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. -- Stemonitis 07:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, I don't see why this template says "dubious" instead of "disputed", and I can't tell if there was a consensus for change in the little vote right above here.
I think "dubious" makes it seem as if editors, or Wikipedia, are personally making a judgment about some facts within an article, whereas saying "disputed" would express something more along the lines of "I personally don't have an opinion on this, but just so you readers know, it is under dispute right now". I used it in that sense, for example, on Suman Ranganathan just now, not intending to call something into question but just to mark a passage that is the subject of a dispute.
Would it be beneficial to change the way this template appears? Or would it be better just to turn {{ disputed-inline}} into a new template that actually says "disputed"? I see that that template did say "disputed" for a while but was redirected here in September 2008...does anyone remember why? rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 14:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
This is yet another template designed to add inline criticisms of an article while allowing the critic to avoid actually doing anything about it. It serves no purpose other than to add to Wikipedia's chronic issue with unprofessional inline complaints.
Either users should FIX THE SODDING ARTICLES or they should actually post their issues on the relevant article's talk: pages. It serves no purpose to keep adding these kinds of template. Please, let's delete this one, and start to consider deleting most of the others too. -- 66.149.58.8 ( talk) 02:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Following discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Dubious_v_disputed, how about redirecting this tag to {{ Disputed-inline}}? Currently clicking on "dubious" in the template takes you to Wikipedia:Disputed statement, and the meaning of "dubious" is not really clear. Rd232 talk 17:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
In Bicycle braking systems I used the following tag: {{Dubious|Larger rotors == greater stopping power ?|date=February 2010}}
Here's the section title declaration: == Larger rotors == Greater stopping power ? ==
It produces a discuss super that takes me to the Discussion page, but not to the named section, which is way down the page, and the name of which is not visible to the clicker anyway. Is this how it's supposed to work? Seems kinda pointless to use the section title if so.
Hmmm. Maybe the double equals is confusing it. Let me try changing the title. Dmforcier ( talk) 19:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
"= greater stopping power ?"
through a parameter named "Larger rotors"
. Of course, having done that, the value is lost because {{
dubious}}
does not have a parameter named |Larger rotors=
.{{
dubious}}
has no suitable named parameter, so the following fudge could have worked:
{{dubious|1=Larger rotors == greater stopping power ?|date=February 2010}}
This message is to inform people monitoring this talk page that there is an "editprotected" request involving this and several other templates at Template talk:! cymru.lass (hit me up)⁄ (background check) 20:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
Will someone please put {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>NAMESPACE}}|<includeonly>[[Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates]]</includeonly>|}}
in the template, right after <!-- {{Failed verification}} begin -->
? This will categorize the page in
Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates if it is substed. Thanks! ---
c y m r u . l a s s
(talk me, stalk me) 02:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
What is the real purpose of this template? The documentation starts "Add {{Dubious}} after a specific statement or alleged fact that is subject to dispute (your own or someone else's)". It then goes "It is best to simultaneously try to resolve the dispute on the talk page."
So is this for alleged facts which are already disputed, or not yet? See also #Redirect to disputed-inline. -- Chealer ( talk) 19:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't this template be better named contested? I often hesitate adding dubious, because it really not clear that the right word. It's not citation needed either because there is sometimes a citation already. The more exact situation is that it is contested. So could the template and it's content be changed to Contested. Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 18:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I get dubious for {{dubious|K[X] is NOT integral}}. ᛭ LokiClock ( talk) 22:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
{{
dubious}}
template should not be
substituted - that is, don't use {{
subst:dubious|K[X] is NOT integral}}
- I have de-substituted the above example. Second, the template's argument is used to create a link, and links may not contain square brackets. This is partly because square brackets have special meaning in wiki markup; and partly because square brackets are forbidden in page titles which means that they are also forbidden in section headings - see
Help:Link#Disallowed characters. Since they have apparently been used in a section heading, you need to workaround this by using a technique such as
percent encoding, so use the form {{
dubious|K%5BX%5D is NOT integral}}
which produces
dubious . --
Redrose64 (
talk) 12:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)The specified format is: {{Dubious |Talk section name |reason=Summary of problem |date=June 2013}} It seems that whatever I put into the Talk section name, the dubious-discuss only links to the top of the talk page. Also, anything added to reason= does not display. Are these this intentional? Should the doc be changed? Thank you Jim1138 ( talk) 16:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
dubious}}
to, that are not linking? --
Redrose64 (
talk) 18:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)On the page for this template under the " Incorrect uses" section, it states: "This template is not to be used: to flag unsourced statements, and those which one simply thinks might be incorrect – use citation needed"
On the page for the "Citation needed" template under the " When not to use this template" section, it states: "The citation needed template is intended for use when there is a general question of the verifiability of a statement, or when an editor believes that a reference verifying the statement should be provided. ... claims that you think are incorrect should be tagged with dubious "
Have I misunderstood something?
It appears that the "Citation needed" page says that statements the editor thinks are incorrect should be tagged with Dubious, as the Citation needed tag is not for this purpose. Then the "Dubious" page says that statements the editor thinks are incorrect should be tagged with Citation needed, as the Dubious tag is not for this purpose. Which is correct? Which should I use under such circumstances?
Paranoid Android 2600! (
talk) 16:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
After all that is said and done, I still think there is an issue here. The above explains the issue according to the documentation page here on {{ Dubious}}. The instructions here state specifically that this template should be used only for sourced statements that are nevertheless dubious. On the other hand, the documentation page of {{ Citation needed}} implies clearly that this template is for all dubious statements, including non-sourced. My experience seems to support this second usage, and logic also dictates that the word "dubious" can pertain to any statement, without any relation to its sourcing.
In short, I propose to change the documentation here to reflect that this template can be used for unsourced statements as well.
In such a case it seems reasonable that a {{ Citation needed}} tag could also be added, but that would be up to the editor. After all, we are under no obligation to exhaustively tag articles, and pointing to an issue will usually open the discussion to such an extend that sourcing will also be dealt with. Debresser ( talk) 01:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
When I try to use the reason parameter it doesn't show up. Example dubious . The reason "She would have been his fifth grandmother" doesn't show up. How come? Contact Basemetal here 01:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
|reason=
parameter is a dummy, which intentionally does not display. It's mentioned in
the documentation, as "a dummy parameter, used to add a short explanation of the issue"; a fuller description should be left on the article's talk page. Also please note that parameter names are always case-sensitive unless the template has additional code to permit variants, therefore |Date=February 2014
should be |date=February 2014
--
Redrose64 (
talk) 10:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)There is an un-sourced claim that I believe to be incorrect. I looked at the description of several templates, and each says to use a different template. Specifically, {{ Citation needed#When not to use this template}} states For example, claims that you think are incorrect should be tagged with {{ Dubious}}, while {{ Dubious#Incorrect usage}} states to flag unsourced statements, including those which you think might be incorrect – use {{ Citation needed}}. Which should I use? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 21:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
{{
dubious|TSS/360 never officially released?|date=November 2014}}
because {{
cn}}
can't be linked to a talk page discussion. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 19:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
You see this? There is too much space between the s and the closing bracket. —User 0 0 0 name 05:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
<span class="metadata">
. This class is hidden on mobile. I have serious reservations about this practice in general, which seems to be aimed at keeping mobile readers as readers and not encouraging them to become editors (it also used to be the case for {{
main}} until several people complained about it being essential navigation material). I do most of my editing on mobile these days and having to switch to desktop view to even see a link to talk is very annoying.
Hairy Dude (
talk) 18:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Where's the sandbox for this template? AKA Casey Rollins User talk:AKA Casey Rollins 7:40 AM EST April 22, 2015
At Yehuda Glick I placed a dubious tag on a source, which is mainstream but said something that looks odd, after having searched the net for confirmation of that statement. I found no mainstream source independently containing this information. Thus the RS is a singleton. By placing a tag there, I asked other editors to find further evidence that I can’t find for this, to me, extraordinary claim. It was reverted by another user who habitually reverts me). I have difficulty in explaining the problem to the editor, who says that(after 9 years,) I still need to brush up on policy. Help, re the propriety of asking for further WP:RS with a dubious tag, anyone? Nishidani ( talk) 20:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Frankly, in the list of incorrect uses, I expected to find something like:
...per WP:BLPREMOVE, of course. Is there a reason why the above would not be an incorrect use? GregorB ( talk) 18:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the <span class="metadata">...</span>
tags. This prevents the link to talk from showing up on mobile, with consequences
discussed above.
Hairy Dude (
talk) 09:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template.
fredgandt 17:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
display:none;
in mobile.css - there are two fixes, one id to remove the declaration from the style sheet, the other is to remove the class from the template.@
Redrose64: Regarding
this revert, I'm well aware that |reason=
is undisplayed in many cases, since I'm the one who introduced that convention to begin with. Heh. In many cases we've moved toward actually displaying it (though some want to use to to entirely replace the tooltip content in inline templates, an unbelievably bad idea I'll get into later and elsewhere). When the template's own documentation doesn't state that the display is suppressed, and goes to the trouble of demanding a short value, this is a strong indication that the intent is to actually display the content in the tooltip. The labeling of it as a "dummy parameter" was intentionally removed in September 2015. Is there a particular reason you feel it must be suppressed in {{
Dubious}} in particular? It actually seems like a very good candidate for display, because the template itself is vague, and too often an actual talk page discussion is not opened about whatever it is that is being flagged as dubious. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
|title = {{{reason|The material near this tag is possibly inaccurate or nonfactual.}}}
, as usual.I used this template for {{ Inflation-fn}} when I moved three citations from deeply buried template documentation pages into this central repository. Two of these were already marked as dubious in the template documentation pages, and a third was merely a bare link in a hidden comment in the respective dataset. If possible, I would change the usage to direct to Template talk:Inflation-fn rather than the talk page of whichever article the citation appears on.
However, I suppose there is potential for mild misuse, if for example someone does something like {{ Dubious|talk=WP:WL}}. If another template or code would be more suitable for this situation please let me know or edit the other template to correct. Or would discussing each instance of inflation citation be preferred to happen on every article it is to be used on? djr13 ( talk) 06:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
dubious|Inconsistent values|date=April 2016}}
however that section still needs to be on the talk page for the page that the template is placed on. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 07:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
|discuss=
parameter on a few templates like the merge/split ones, because two pages are involved and we need to centralize discussion at one of them. That doesn't really arise with a template like {{
dubious}} or {{
citation needed}}. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Per this entirely too lengthy discussion on ANI, I wonder if some brief clarification might be helpful on the Incorrect Usage section.
Basically, the editor seems to be on the losing end of consensus over a relatively minor (but apparently deeply personal) issue, and has decided to use this template as a statement, pushing to include it as a way of saying that they're not changing the article per se, but they're bucking consensus anyway by tagging the line as dubious.
Seems like there could be some gently worded clause, reminding editors that this template is not a weapon. TimothyJosephWood 22:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
The docs say that it's for this purpose, and I use it, but the word "dubious" doesn't really convey that. Is there a variant (or could one be created) which says "sources conflict"? Or similar wording that says that I'm not expressing subjective doubt, but actually have a "deciding which source to believe" problem.
In some cases it's worth describing conflicting reports, as the uncertainty will never be resolved ("what were X's dying words?"), but in others ("what is the height of Mt. Y?") there's clearly one correct answer. 71.41.210.146 ( talk) 03:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add {{
subst:tfd|type=tiny}}
at the top of the
Module:Unsubst invocation, then change |link=
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 March 10
to |link=
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 March 9
, per a nomination by
TenPoundHammer.
Ppp
ery 12:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please wrap the tfd notice in noinclude tags, so that it doesn't continue to disrupt the numerous articles that use this template. The relevant change I'm requesting is to substitute the first two lines of the template code with the following:
<noinclude>{{Template for discussion/dated|page=Dubious|link=Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 March 9#Template:Dubious|type=tiny|bigbox={{#invoke:Noinclude|noinclude|text=yes}}}}</noinclude>{{ {{{|safesubst:}}}#invoke:Unsubst||$N=Dubious |date=__DATE__ |$B=
Thanks. – Uanfala (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The original copy of the Sean J. Conlon page was edited to remove the claim that he was "a leading real estate entrepreneur" Burfordbw ( talk) 14:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
{{
Dubious}}
. If possible, please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. If you cannot edit the article's talk page, you can instead make your request at
Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for edits to a protected page. —
Train2104 (
t •
c) 14:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)This should have the same pre-filled {{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}
as template:citation needed.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.167.60.171 (
talk) 01:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
{{
citation needed}}
, you can omit the date and a bot will later fill it in. But, provided that you subst it, as in {{
subst:citation needed}}
, the bot will not need to visit since it will be saved as if you had used {{
citation needed|date={{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}
which is to say {{
citation needed|date=April 2024}}
. I suspect that 71.167.60.171 is asking for a similar feature here, i.e. when you use {{
subst:dubious}}
, without a date, it will be the same as when you use {{
dubious|date={{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}
. This feature is already present. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 09:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Greetings!
As we know, the
Disputed inline template "is a more strongly worded version of {{
Dubious}}
, which indicates a potential dispute, most often a question about reliable sourcing for the statement/fact at issue".
Therefore, at the moment we do have all the templates for {{
Disputed}}
and it's variants. But could we have a template for a milder formation, {{
dubious inline}}
, as well? Cheers!
Jayaguru-Shishya (
talk) 21:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
<nowiki>...</nowiki>
-enclosed template name into an actual link, you will see that we already have it; it is a redirect to {{
dubious}}
and has been for a few years. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 09:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC){{
dubious}}
already is an inline tag. Sorry for the inconvenience, must have a short circuit in my head :-) Cheers!
Jayaguru-Shishya (
talk) 16:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Why doesn’t Template:Dubious display the reason parameter in a tooltip as Template:Vague does? I’ll have to use <ref group="Dubious"> instead to put my reason into a tooltip, but this has the baggage of needing a reflist somewhere.
Jim Craigie ( talk) 20:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
|reason=
is not a parameter of this template, but you may use it to add an invisible, short explanation of the issue. It will only be visible in the coding (e.g. when editing the page). This is the case with most cleanup templates: the few that do display something are exceptions. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 10:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
|reason=
is that it provides a short explanation for those editing the source or viewing a diff. If you need to be verbose, the relevant talk page should be used. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 14:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
@
TompaDompa:The added text is unclear. Do you use |reason=
{{
Hover title|reason}}
or do you wrap the entire {{
Dubious}} in the {{
Hover title}}?
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk) 13:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
The current form of the template does not allow linking to archived sections of the talk page, as it assumes a non-archived talk section is linked to.-- Ser be etre shi ( talk) 15:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I've only recently become more active on Wikipedia, but I can't be the only person who has trouble remembering which templates use |talk=
for linking to the talk page and which use an unnamed parameter. I frequently use the wrong one then have to correct it, especially with this template. Is there any reason not to let it accept both? Something like
{{#if:{{{talk|}}}|{{{talk}}}|{{{1}}}}}
at the appropriate point would do it, I think. (Assuming I've understood the syntax correctly.) NB I've not tested that. Musiconeologist ( talk) 00:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change “[dubious – discuss]” to “[dubious? – discuss]". 2603:7080:DA3C:7A33:F4FF:3B44:570:60A8 ( talk) 20:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template.
DonIago (
talk) 21:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template. Please do not reopen a request until consensus exists for the edit.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 12:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
{{
Dubious}}
is meant to be suggestive rather than objective. Also to be consistent with
original research? and {{
Dubious}}
on Wikiquote has a question mark.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2603:7080:DA3C:7A33:F4FF:3B44:570:60A8 (
talk) 02:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Why does the "discuss" function of this template even exist? Literally every single time I've encountered it, it's just slapped on in a drive-by tagging and the talk page is completely bereft of any discussion. Can anyone show any proof to the contrary? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 18:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
|discuss=
in, e.g.,
Paging. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Chatul (
talk •
contribs) 02:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)|discuss=
parameter on the rare occasions it comes up but I totally agree that it's not common by most users. As far as I'm concerned, this template is a bit of a disaster, both in its implementation and its defined usage, which probably arose as a convoluted mess of history and/or group think. The problem starts with the very idea that the template is only supposed to be used to tagged a source as dubious. Why? The name of the template itself will cause people to use it otherwise because it's not specific enough. A tag template named "dubious" should probably tag content as dubious as that's the most obvious interpretation to most people. If we wish to tag a source as dubious, that's a different concept and should have a separate tag, and there happens to be one called {{
dubious source}}, which is a redirect to {{
Better source needed}} which is a very close concept. As currently documented, a case could be made that "dubious" and "Better source needed" should be merged!|discuss=
being a required argument of "dubious". As your observation (and mine) suggests, people tend not to use it this way, probably because it takes too much work. The |discuss=
parameter should clearly be optional, not required. So rather than a red link for "discuss" appearing if the parameter is not used, the "discuss" link should only appear if it is used. I feel very strongly about this.I just added a dubious tag at
Paca#Behavior and added a discussion section at
Talk:Paca#Biomass as intended. I tried to use {{
Dubious|Biomass|date=January 2023}}
, {Dubious|1=Biomass}, and {Dubious|discuss=Biomass} but all three syntax formats resulted only in a link to
Talk:Paca with no section qualifier.
47.176.71.114 (
talk) 19:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
This template was considered for deletion on 2017 March 9. The result of the discussion was "Keep". |
Inline Templates | ||||
|
Should the link to the Talk page really be talk:{{PAGENAME}}#Disputed? The relevant Talk section would have to be named Disputed. Shouldn’t there be a {{{1}}} thing to the actual section name (however that works)? — Frungi 04:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I do not agree with this. I used the template on the Ghost and to my great surprise one little sentence that I had listed as dubious was now a full-blown statement that all the article was disputed. The guidelines here Wikipedia:Disputed_statement haven't changed. So I do not see why someone would change this to a redirect unilaterally. QBorg 02:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Excerpts from the Guidelines: "If you come across a statement which seems or is inaccurate[...] First, insert a "Disputed" section in the talk page to describe the problem. [...] Insert {dubious} after the relevant sentence or paragraph." QBorg 02:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't think article pages should be linking to Talk pages. Sites that reproduce our articles rarely reproduce the Talk pages, and certainly any printed version would not. It seems to break the normal rules of namespace boundaries. A simple note that the fact is disputed seems adequate, and readers can consult the Talk page if they so desire. Soo 17:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
This tag is "dubious" but the text it inserts is "disputed". I think they should both be "dubious". After all, there is a template for disputed content. When I add this it isn't because I don't believe something is true it's because I am skeptical and think someone else should have a look. If I don't get comments here I may just be bold and change the text of this tempmlate. —Ben FrantzDale 06:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Ben FrantzDale's suggestion, at least as long as no other tag is available--as I don't think there is--to indicate an assertion of which one is suspicious, but which one doesn't necessarily dispute per se, because of a lack of counter-evidence. If the George Bush article were to say he likes eating houseflies, I would like to flag that as dubious, though I do not dispute it since I have no evidence to the contrary. Is there any reason why the text for this isn't "dubious" instead of "disputed"? -- CHE 16:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I am engaged in a dispute over a sourced, scholarly claim in an article. The editor who added the dispute tag, when challenged to directly quote from the cited source and show how it did not prove its point, declared that he felt he did not need to quote from the source as he felt it was entirely incorrect in every particular. He then claimed I should prove why I feel the source is correct. Note that I did not add this source to the article; it has been there for a long time.
The question is, is the burden of proof on the editor who adds the dubious tag, or on the editor(s) who defend the cited source? Ie., must he prove the source is wrong, or must I prove it right? Kasreyn 18:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Template:Dubious versus Template:DisputedAssertion. See WP:TFD#Template:DisputedAssertion.
Personally, I think that the name of the latter is more consistent with other templates, though the former (this page) has more history. Also, I like the idea of a picture separating a line item as a functional element of the page, and not a parenthetical. For the newbie's sake. If Template:DisputedAssertion makes it, this page may need to be differentiated from Template:DisputedAssertion, or merged with it. Again, my opinion, is to merge.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Inline templates. I've been meaning to do this for a while. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ contrib ツ 16:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Should the "Dubious" template be used in situations where the relevance, but not the accuracy of a statement is disputed? If not, what template should be used in its place? CJCurrie 04:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Disputed statement]] more narrowly, then {{ dubious}} could be relevant. (Also, some consider {{ Cleanup}} to be deprecated, per Wikipedia:Clarify the cleanup, so my recommendation to use it is now obsolete.) — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
re: edit by The Cunctator, who writes on the template, `try not to use,' : why? see discussion above. There are lots of situations where one is surprised by an assertion but doesn't +know+ that it's false, and so wants to call the attention of the other editors to it, or to the editor who added it that it needs support. This seems essential to a wiki. CHE 21:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Result: {{ disputable}} was redirected to {{ dubious}} in September 2007.
It is proposed that {{ disputable}} be merged into {{ dubious}}:
It is proposed that this template be renamed {{
disputed-inline}} (and its wording edited from "dubious" to "disputed" to conform), in keeping with other inline variants of page/section-level box templates like {{
disputed}}.
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. -- Stemonitis 07:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, I don't see why this template says "dubious" instead of "disputed", and I can't tell if there was a consensus for change in the little vote right above here.
I think "dubious" makes it seem as if editors, or Wikipedia, are personally making a judgment about some facts within an article, whereas saying "disputed" would express something more along the lines of "I personally don't have an opinion on this, but just so you readers know, it is under dispute right now". I used it in that sense, for example, on Suman Ranganathan just now, not intending to call something into question but just to mark a passage that is the subject of a dispute.
Would it be beneficial to change the way this template appears? Or would it be better just to turn {{ disputed-inline}} into a new template that actually says "disputed"? I see that that template did say "disputed" for a while but was redirected here in September 2008...does anyone remember why? rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 14:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
This is yet another template designed to add inline criticisms of an article while allowing the critic to avoid actually doing anything about it. It serves no purpose other than to add to Wikipedia's chronic issue with unprofessional inline complaints.
Either users should FIX THE SODDING ARTICLES or they should actually post their issues on the relevant article's talk: pages. It serves no purpose to keep adding these kinds of template. Please, let's delete this one, and start to consider deleting most of the others too. -- 66.149.58.8 ( talk) 02:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Following discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Dubious_v_disputed, how about redirecting this tag to {{ Disputed-inline}}? Currently clicking on "dubious" in the template takes you to Wikipedia:Disputed statement, and the meaning of "dubious" is not really clear. Rd232 talk 17:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
In Bicycle braking systems I used the following tag: {{Dubious|Larger rotors == greater stopping power ?|date=February 2010}}
Here's the section title declaration: == Larger rotors == Greater stopping power ? ==
It produces a discuss super that takes me to the Discussion page, but not to the named section, which is way down the page, and the name of which is not visible to the clicker anyway. Is this how it's supposed to work? Seems kinda pointless to use the section title if so.
Hmmm. Maybe the double equals is confusing it. Let me try changing the title. Dmforcier ( talk) 19:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
"= greater stopping power ?"
through a parameter named "Larger rotors"
. Of course, having done that, the value is lost because {{
dubious}}
does not have a parameter named |Larger rotors=
.{{
dubious}}
has no suitable named parameter, so the following fudge could have worked:
{{dubious|1=Larger rotors == greater stopping power ?|date=February 2010}}
This message is to inform people monitoring this talk page that there is an "editprotected" request involving this and several other templates at Template talk:! cymru.lass (hit me up)⁄ (background check) 20:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
Will someone please put {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>NAMESPACE}}|<includeonly>[[Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates]]</includeonly>|}}
in the template, right after <!-- {{Failed verification}} begin -->
? This will categorize the page in
Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates if it is substed. Thanks! ---
c y m r u . l a s s
(talk me, stalk me) 02:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
What is the real purpose of this template? The documentation starts "Add {{Dubious}} after a specific statement or alleged fact that is subject to dispute (your own or someone else's)". It then goes "It is best to simultaneously try to resolve the dispute on the talk page."
So is this for alleged facts which are already disputed, or not yet? See also #Redirect to disputed-inline. -- Chealer ( talk) 19:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't this template be better named contested? I often hesitate adding dubious, because it really not clear that the right word. It's not citation needed either because there is sometimes a citation already. The more exact situation is that it is contested. So could the template and it's content be changed to Contested. Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 18:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I get dubious for {{dubious|K[X] is NOT integral}}. ᛭ LokiClock ( talk) 22:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
{{
dubious}}
template should not be
substituted - that is, don't use {{
subst:dubious|K[X] is NOT integral}}
- I have de-substituted the above example. Second, the template's argument is used to create a link, and links may not contain square brackets. This is partly because square brackets have special meaning in wiki markup; and partly because square brackets are forbidden in page titles which means that they are also forbidden in section headings - see
Help:Link#Disallowed characters. Since they have apparently been used in a section heading, you need to workaround this by using a technique such as
percent encoding, so use the form {{
dubious|K%5BX%5D is NOT integral}}
which produces
dubious . --
Redrose64 (
talk) 12:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)The specified format is: {{Dubious |Talk section name |reason=Summary of problem |date=June 2013}} It seems that whatever I put into the Talk section name, the dubious-discuss only links to the top of the talk page. Also, anything added to reason= does not display. Are these this intentional? Should the doc be changed? Thank you Jim1138 ( talk) 16:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
dubious}}
to, that are not linking? --
Redrose64 (
talk) 18:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)On the page for this template under the " Incorrect uses" section, it states: "This template is not to be used: to flag unsourced statements, and those which one simply thinks might be incorrect – use citation needed"
On the page for the "Citation needed" template under the " When not to use this template" section, it states: "The citation needed template is intended for use when there is a general question of the verifiability of a statement, or when an editor believes that a reference verifying the statement should be provided. ... claims that you think are incorrect should be tagged with dubious "
Have I misunderstood something?
It appears that the "Citation needed" page says that statements the editor thinks are incorrect should be tagged with Dubious, as the Citation needed tag is not for this purpose. Then the "Dubious" page says that statements the editor thinks are incorrect should be tagged with Citation needed, as the Dubious tag is not for this purpose. Which is correct? Which should I use under such circumstances?
Paranoid Android 2600! (
talk) 16:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
After all that is said and done, I still think there is an issue here. The above explains the issue according to the documentation page here on {{ Dubious}}. The instructions here state specifically that this template should be used only for sourced statements that are nevertheless dubious. On the other hand, the documentation page of {{ Citation needed}} implies clearly that this template is for all dubious statements, including non-sourced. My experience seems to support this second usage, and logic also dictates that the word "dubious" can pertain to any statement, without any relation to its sourcing.
In short, I propose to change the documentation here to reflect that this template can be used for unsourced statements as well.
In such a case it seems reasonable that a {{ Citation needed}} tag could also be added, but that would be up to the editor. After all, we are under no obligation to exhaustively tag articles, and pointing to an issue will usually open the discussion to such an extend that sourcing will also be dealt with. Debresser ( talk) 01:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
When I try to use the reason parameter it doesn't show up. Example dubious . The reason "She would have been his fifth grandmother" doesn't show up. How come? Contact Basemetal here 01:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
|reason=
parameter is a dummy, which intentionally does not display. It's mentioned in
the documentation, as "a dummy parameter, used to add a short explanation of the issue"; a fuller description should be left on the article's talk page. Also please note that parameter names are always case-sensitive unless the template has additional code to permit variants, therefore |Date=February 2014
should be |date=February 2014
--
Redrose64 (
talk) 10:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)There is an un-sourced claim that I believe to be incorrect. I looked at the description of several templates, and each says to use a different template. Specifically, {{ Citation needed#When not to use this template}} states For example, claims that you think are incorrect should be tagged with {{ Dubious}}, while {{ Dubious#Incorrect usage}} states to flag unsourced statements, including those which you think might be incorrect – use {{ Citation needed}}. Which should I use? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 21:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
{{
dubious|TSS/360 never officially released?|date=November 2014}}
because {{
cn}}
can't be linked to a talk page discussion. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 19:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
You see this? There is too much space between the s and the closing bracket. —User 0 0 0 name 05:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
<span class="metadata">
. This class is hidden on mobile. I have serious reservations about this practice in general, which seems to be aimed at keeping mobile readers as readers and not encouraging them to become editors (it also used to be the case for {{
main}} until several people complained about it being essential navigation material). I do most of my editing on mobile these days and having to switch to desktop view to even see a link to talk is very annoying.
Hairy Dude (
talk) 18:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Where's the sandbox for this template? AKA Casey Rollins User talk:AKA Casey Rollins 7:40 AM EST April 22, 2015
At Yehuda Glick I placed a dubious tag on a source, which is mainstream but said something that looks odd, after having searched the net for confirmation of that statement. I found no mainstream source independently containing this information. Thus the RS is a singleton. By placing a tag there, I asked other editors to find further evidence that I can’t find for this, to me, extraordinary claim. It was reverted by another user who habitually reverts me). I have difficulty in explaining the problem to the editor, who says that(after 9 years,) I still need to brush up on policy. Help, re the propriety of asking for further WP:RS with a dubious tag, anyone? Nishidani ( talk) 20:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Frankly, in the list of incorrect uses, I expected to find something like:
...per WP:BLPREMOVE, of course. Is there a reason why the above would not be an incorrect use? GregorB ( talk) 18:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the <span class="metadata">...</span>
tags. This prevents the link to talk from showing up on mobile, with consequences
discussed above.
Hairy Dude (
talk) 09:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template.
fredgandt 17:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
display:none;
in mobile.css - there are two fixes, one id to remove the declaration from the style sheet, the other is to remove the class from the template.@
Redrose64: Regarding
this revert, I'm well aware that |reason=
is undisplayed in many cases, since I'm the one who introduced that convention to begin with. Heh. In many cases we've moved toward actually displaying it (though some want to use to to entirely replace the tooltip content in inline templates, an unbelievably bad idea I'll get into later and elsewhere). When the template's own documentation doesn't state that the display is suppressed, and goes to the trouble of demanding a short value, this is a strong indication that the intent is to actually display the content in the tooltip. The labeling of it as a "dummy parameter" was intentionally removed in September 2015. Is there a particular reason you feel it must be suppressed in {{
Dubious}} in particular? It actually seems like a very good candidate for display, because the template itself is vague, and too often an actual talk page discussion is not opened about whatever it is that is being flagged as dubious. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
|title = {{{reason|The material near this tag is possibly inaccurate or nonfactual.}}}
, as usual.I used this template for {{ Inflation-fn}} when I moved three citations from deeply buried template documentation pages into this central repository. Two of these were already marked as dubious in the template documentation pages, and a third was merely a bare link in a hidden comment in the respective dataset. If possible, I would change the usage to direct to Template talk:Inflation-fn rather than the talk page of whichever article the citation appears on.
However, I suppose there is potential for mild misuse, if for example someone does something like {{ Dubious|talk=WP:WL}}. If another template or code would be more suitable for this situation please let me know or edit the other template to correct. Or would discussing each instance of inflation citation be preferred to happen on every article it is to be used on? djr13 ( talk) 06:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
dubious|Inconsistent values|date=April 2016}}
however that section still needs to be on the talk page for the page that the template is placed on. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 07:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
|discuss=
parameter on a few templates like the merge/split ones, because two pages are involved and we need to centralize discussion at one of them. That doesn't really arise with a template like {{
dubious}} or {{
citation needed}}. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Per this entirely too lengthy discussion on ANI, I wonder if some brief clarification might be helpful on the Incorrect Usage section.
Basically, the editor seems to be on the losing end of consensus over a relatively minor (but apparently deeply personal) issue, and has decided to use this template as a statement, pushing to include it as a way of saying that they're not changing the article per se, but they're bucking consensus anyway by tagging the line as dubious.
Seems like there could be some gently worded clause, reminding editors that this template is not a weapon. TimothyJosephWood 22:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
The docs say that it's for this purpose, and I use it, but the word "dubious" doesn't really convey that. Is there a variant (or could one be created) which says "sources conflict"? Or similar wording that says that I'm not expressing subjective doubt, but actually have a "deciding which source to believe" problem.
In some cases it's worth describing conflicting reports, as the uncertainty will never be resolved ("what were X's dying words?"), but in others ("what is the height of Mt. Y?") there's clearly one correct answer. 71.41.210.146 ( talk) 03:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add {{
subst:tfd|type=tiny}}
at the top of the
Module:Unsubst invocation, then change |link=
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 March 10
to |link=
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 March 9
, per a nomination by
TenPoundHammer.
Ppp
ery 12:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please wrap the tfd notice in noinclude tags, so that it doesn't continue to disrupt the numerous articles that use this template. The relevant change I'm requesting is to substitute the first two lines of the template code with the following:
<noinclude>{{Template for discussion/dated|page=Dubious|link=Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 March 9#Template:Dubious|type=tiny|bigbox={{#invoke:Noinclude|noinclude|text=yes}}}}</noinclude>{{ {{{|safesubst:}}}#invoke:Unsubst||$N=Dubious |date=__DATE__ |$B=
Thanks. – Uanfala (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The original copy of the Sean J. Conlon page was edited to remove the claim that he was "a leading real estate entrepreneur" Burfordbw ( talk) 14:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
{{
Dubious}}
. If possible, please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. If you cannot edit the article's talk page, you can instead make your request at
Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for edits to a protected page. —
Train2104 (
t •
c) 14:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)This should have the same pre-filled {{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}
as template:citation needed.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.167.60.171 (
talk) 01:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
{{
citation needed}}
, you can omit the date and a bot will later fill it in. But, provided that you subst it, as in {{
subst:citation needed}}
, the bot will not need to visit since it will be saved as if you had used {{
citation needed|date={{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}
which is to say {{
citation needed|date=April 2024}}
. I suspect that 71.167.60.171 is asking for a similar feature here, i.e. when you use {{
subst:dubious}}
, without a date, it will be the same as when you use {{
dubious|date={{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}
. This feature is already present. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 09:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Greetings!
As we know, the
Disputed inline template "is a more strongly worded version of {{
Dubious}}
, which indicates a potential dispute, most often a question about reliable sourcing for the statement/fact at issue".
Therefore, at the moment we do have all the templates for {{
Disputed}}
and it's variants. But could we have a template for a milder formation, {{
dubious inline}}
, as well? Cheers!
Jayaguru-Shishya (
talk) 21:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
<nowiki>...</nowiki>
-enclosed template name into an actual link, you will see that we already have it; it is a redirect to {{
dubious}}
and has been for a few years. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 09:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC){{
dubious}}
already is an inline tag. Sorry for the inconvenience, must have a short circuit in my head :-) Cheers!
Jayaguru-Shishya (
talk) 16:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Why doesn’t Template:Dubious display the reason parameter in a tooltip as Template:Vague does? I’ll have to use <ref group="Dubious"> instead to put my reason into a tooltip, but this has the baggage of needing a reflist somewhere.
Jim Craigie ( talk) 20:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
|reason=
is not a parameter of this template, but you may use it to add an invisible, short explanation of the issue. It will only be visible in the coding (e.g. when editing the page). This is the case with most cleanup templates: the few that do display something are exceptions. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 10:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
|reason=
is that it provides a short explanation for those editing the source or viewing a diff. If you need to be verbose, the relevant talk page should be used. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 14:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
@
TompaDompa:The added text is unclear. Do you use |reason=
{{
Hover title|reason}}
or do you wrap the entire {{
Dubious}} in the {{
Hover title}}?
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk) 13:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
The current form of the template does not allow linking to archived sections of the talk page, as it assumes a non-archived talk section is linked to.-- Ser be etre shi ( talk) 15:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I've only recently become more active on Wikipedia, but I can't be the only person who has trouble remembering which templates use |talk=
for linking to the talk page and which use an unnamed parameter. I frequently use the wrong one then have to correct it, especially with this template. Is there any reason not to let it accept both? Something like
{{#if:{{{talk|}}}|{{{talk}}}|{{{1}}}}}
at the appropriate point would do it, I think. (Assuming I've understood the syntax correctly.) NB I've not tested that. Musiconeologist ( talk) 00:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change “[dubious – discuss]” to “[dubious? – discuss]". 2603:7080:DA3C:7A33:F4FF:3B44:570:60A8 ( talk) 20:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template.
DonIago (
talk) 21:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template. Please do not reopen a request until consensus exists for the edit.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 12:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
{{
Dubious}}
is meant to be suggestive rather than objective. Also to be consistent with
original research? and {{
Dubious}}
on Wikiquote has a question mark.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2603:7080:DA3C:7A33:F4FF:3B44:570:60A8 (
talk) 02:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Why does the "discuss" function of this template even exist? Literally every single time I've encountered it, it's just slapped on in a drive-by tagging and the talk page is completely bereft of any discussion. Can anyone show any proof to the contrary? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 18:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
|discuss=
in, e.g.,
Paging. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Chatul (
talk •
contribs) 02:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)|discuss=
parameter on the rare occasions it comes up but I totally agree that it's not common by most users. As far as I'm concerned, this template is a bit of a disaster, both in its implementation and its defined usage, which probably arose as a convoluted mess of history and/or group think. The problem starts with the very idea that the template is only supposed to be used to tagged a source as dubious. Why? The name of the template itself will cause people to use it otherwise because it's not specific enough. A tag template named "dubious" should probably tag content as dubious as that's the most obvious interpretation to most people. If we wish to tag a source as dubious, that's a different concept and should have a separate tag, and there happens to be one called {{
dubious source}}, which is a redirect to {{
Better source needed}} which is a very close concept. As currently documented, a case could be made that "dubious" and "Better source needed" should be merged!|discuss=
being a required argument of "dubious". As your observation (and mine) suggests, people tend not to use it this way, probably because it takes too much work. The |discuss=
parameter should clearly be optional, not required. So rather than a red link for "discuss" appearing if the parameter is not used, the "discuss" link should only appear if it is used. I feel very strongly about this.I just added a dubious tag at
Paca#Behavior and added a discussion section at
Talk:Paca#Biomass as intended. I tried to use {{
Dubious|Biomass|date=January 2023}}
, {Dubious|1=Biomass}, and {Dubious|discuss=Biomass} but all three syntax formats resulted only in a link to
Talk:Paca with no section qualifier.
47.176.71.114 (
talk) 19:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)