Template talk:Disputed section

Why was this merged?
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
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)
 * ✅ --CapitalR (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Language
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? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk page link feature seems to be broken
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. :( --82.170.113.123 (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please give an example of a page which uses, where it isn't working as intended. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As this Talk page section's title indicates, the problem is not but the Talk page link feature. What follows is an example how to replicate the problem. Edit Katherine Jackson and preview:  (which is what I want to add) or  (not what I want but a simpler example without italics). The only link in the resulting text will be to Accuracy dispute. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, got you. The problem is not in this template but in which is used here as a subtemplate. The problam is caused by  in conjunction with . 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 and Template talk:Disputed.
 * But aside from that, don't try to put italics into a talk page link, it won't work. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ping! This has been broken for a year. Is there a workaround? Q VVERTYVS (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)
 * ✅ 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)

center?
Is there a reason this isn't centered? If not, can it be centered? Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Yes, because it's small. Small-size maintenance banners are normally used in sections, such as    - there are others. -- Red rose64 (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, 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). -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Fix typo
Please move to. I was doing a long spree of template cleanup, and some stray characters got into this one by mistake; the target is an edited redirect I can't move over, and WP:RM's "speedy" process isn't.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Someone already processed the WP:RM. — xaosflux  Talk 04:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Factual accuracy is not what Wikipedia is about
It's not the job of Wikipedia editors to directly check the accuracy of facts. It should be an indirect result of verifiability. I suspect that the idea of the statement This section's factual accuracy is disputed is simply that this is the first impression that pops up in our mind when we see the section and the associated discussion. Thus, it appears a simple description that goes directly to the essence of the issue, as we first experience it. However, a template should not encourage such an attitude, even though it is natural. Wikipedia has a word that expresses the only thing that editors should focus on when factual accuracy is disputed: verifiability (in secondary sources). A template should reinforce this most important policy instead of weakening it by suggesting that we directly concern ourselves with factual accuracy. It should be something like This section's factual verifiability is disputed. I know that in common knowledge, "factual verifiability" means almost the samething as "factual accuracy", but in the context of Wikipedia, it means something clearly different. Note that I kept "factual" in the text, because I assume the concern is specifically about facts, not theories, etc. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)