Template talk:Disputed section

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:Disputed-section)
Jump to: navigation, search


At top of section add: {{Disputed-section}} gives

   * Template:FixPOV
   * Template:Lopsided
   * Template:POV-statement

[edit] Disputed

   * Template:Disputed Page
   * Template:Disputed-section Section
   * Template:Dubious Line

See also Category:Dispute templates

[edit] POV

   * Template:POV Page
   * Template:POV-check Page
   * Template:POV-section Section
   * Line items
         o Template:FixPOV Line - Textual
         o Template:POV-statement Line - Textual
         o Template:Lopsided Line - Textual
         o Template:POVassertion Line - Pictoral

See also Category:Neutrality templates

[edit] Both Disputed and POV

   * Template:Controversial Page
   * Template:TotallyDisputed Page
   * Template:TotallyDisputed-section Section

[edit] Neither (factually) Disputed nor POV

   * Template:ReversionWar Page
   * Template:ReversionWar-section Section

Why was this merged?[edit]

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)

Style updates[edit]


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)

 Done --CapitalR (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)



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)

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.--Aervanath (talk) 08:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, let's discuss it over there? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk page link feature seems to be broken[edit]

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)

Yes, it's broken. :( -- (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Please give an example of a page which uses {{Disputed-section}}, where it isn't working as intended. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
As this Talk page section's title indicates, the problem is not {{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. -- (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Right, got you. The problem is not in this template but in {{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.
But aside from that, don't try to put italics into a talk page link, it won't work. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Ping! This has been broken for a year. Is there a workaround? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 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)

 Done It should be fixed now. Worth noting that as a result, the message box is no longer displayed small by default. Uanfala (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


Is there a reason this isn't centered? If not, can it be centered? Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{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)
What does its size have to do with it? I guess I don't see how having them aligned right or left works when we have leveled section breaks. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
It's built around {{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)

Fix typo[edit]

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 ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  15:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Someone already processed the WP:RM. — xaosflux Talk 04:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)