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

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. 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 <div class="boilerplate" id="disputed"> markup. --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 ? Pcarbonn 20:50, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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|LGagnon]] 02:01, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be any more visible. But see also Template talk:NPOV. --Joy [shallot] 21:59, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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. Neonumbers 10:41, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I changed the box to the new layout. Thanks for the work -- Chris 73 Talk 23:39, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

 ___ 
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-
O RLY?

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

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. {{Disputeabout|the number of deaths|date=March 2008}} would look like

The factual accuracy of part of this article is disputed. The dispute is about the number of deaths. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.

Comments are welcome -- Chris 73 Talk 23:49, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

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)? zen master 15:38, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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. -- Netoholic @ 08:04, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

This article's accuracy has long been in dispute

Template:npov/perpetual

This article's neutrality has long been in dispute

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. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

is there a template for an accuracy issue thats restricted to a specific section and if not should i create one? Plugwash 00:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Disputed-section. Jon513 17:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't Image:Circle-question.png be a more appropriate icon to summarize the message in this template, as well as the messages in {{Disputeabout}} and {{Sectfact}}? --  Denelson83  07:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is far more appropriate. The stop hand, as mentioned in regards to {{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. joturner 22:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Domthedude001 22:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 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.

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." [1] 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. Operation Spooner 03:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 (talk to me) 01:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  15:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. Debresser (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly— 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. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  12:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the current version is all good then? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ditto, and thank you both! – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  11:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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? --Elonka 10:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what's going on. Category:Accuracy disputes is tagged with __HIDDENCAT__, which means that it's not shown on member pages. Wow, learn something new every day.... --Elonka 20:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In cases where an article dispute may be discussed on another page (e.g. a Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal discussion page such as this one. At the moment this template will only forward to the talk page of the article. --Deadly∀ssassin 23:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. --207.176.159.90 (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

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

Copied from Template talk:Disputed-section to centralise discussion[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Two points:

1. I think these messages should be as succinct as possible.
2. 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. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   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. Xasodfuih (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{#if:{{{1|}}}| |<div style="display:none">}}

and

{{#if:{{{1|}}}| |</div>}}

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like overkill to me. Debresser (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess deciding when to remove a bad tag is something that humans are better at. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's more or less my thoughts also. Debresser (talk) 06:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other warning templates like {{Unreferenced}} has some extra code so that substitution of the template will automatically fill the date parameter. It is achieved by wrapping the template in

{{ {{{|safesubst:}}}ifsubst |<includeonly>{{subst:Unsubst|Unreferenced|1|{{{1|¬}}}|date|{{{date|{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}}} }}</includeonly>|

and

}}

--Quest for Truth (talk) 10:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: {{edit protected}} is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. Just be sure to test it in a sandbox first. Thanks. :-) KrakatoaKatie 12:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:

== When to use ==
Place this template on an article when a serious dispute has arisen over 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 verifiably wrong.  A factually accurate article presents information that is verifiable using reliable sources, unbiased, and is not original research. Personal convictions of Wikipedia editors that are not 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.—Biosketch (talk) 07:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

|small= {{#ifeq:{{{what|}}}|section|left}}

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

70.24.248.211 (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done No noticeable errors in the sandbox, so I'm fulfilling this request. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 00:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem with this: see next section. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted this edit. See #Should the box be small when applied to sections? Uanfala (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

We probably need to add 1={{{1}}}| to the code of Template:Disputed-section. Debresser (talk) 07:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the problem; the problem is that the |fix= text is not displayed when |small=left is set, as described at Template talk:Disputed-section#Talk page link feature seems to be broken. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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… --Elvey (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected. I'm not really sure of the best way to fix this, but {{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.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Elvey (talk) 01:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone the original edit that caused this situation. Links should work now. A consequence of this is that {{Disputed section}} is no longer small by default. Uanfala (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)

75.34.67.15 (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done You need to put the template on the talk page of the article in question.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. --ilaiho (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Anonimski (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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?) Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

What? It is only a minor thing for us to use more formal English (because the template is suggesting a conditional clause). Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. Flyer22 (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was at first ambiguous. Anyways, yes. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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."? Flyer22 (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the subjunctive in conditional clauses is more formal, and we have a formal wiki. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 03:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. Flyer22 (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct as it may be, "are" seems to enjoy WP:CONSENSUS, so I'd propose to close this discussion as "no consensus for change". Debresser (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. There seems to be a feeling that "be" in this construction would be awkward/stilted.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 |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 {{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.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: I think there's an error in the template's documentation. I tried to use this template with the |talkpage= parameter, but it didn't create a link to a section of the talkpage: {{Disputed|talkpage=Talk:Page name|section name|date=April 2024}} Jarble (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarble: It's working fine for me here: User:SMcCandlish/sandbox20. PS: |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 |talkpage=Talk:Talk page name#Section name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After 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 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 this four-year-old problem. Uanfala (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Debresser (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited it now to allow users to individually set the parameter "small", both directly on this template and when invoked from {{Disputed section}}. Uanfala (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

@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. Eperoton (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.--John Cline (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The parameter "talkpage" could be renamed to "discuss", as used in other templates, such as Template:Merger. To make it backwards compatible, as alias or synonym could be left behind. Thank your. fgnievinski (talk) 05:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To editor ­fgnievinski:  not done for now: looks like this needs a consensus. Please garner the needed consensus before using the {{edit template-protected}} template again. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 02:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. fgnievinski (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fgnievinski: I added a |discuss= parameter alias.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! fgnievinski (talk) 03:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When used with the {{multiple}} template, the 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 Discussion: talk page? There are templates that leave longer lines: Example page. Thank you Adakiko (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Disputed has been listed at Templates for discussion (nomination), but it was protected, so it could not be tagged. Please add:

{{subst:tfm|help=off|1=Misleading}}

to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. Kinopiko ^talk 06:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: I attempted to do this, but was blocked by existing template on the /doc, I think. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]