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)Reply[reply]

It seems that the bot or whatever produces "Category:Articles with disputed statements from..." is not creating them, but articles are piling under them. --Error (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove the extra space betweeen "e" and "]". (e ] to e]) Nigos (talk · contribs) 01:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC) Nigos (talk · contribs) 01:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nigos:  Not done: This template produces ^{[disputed – discuss]}, which does not have an "e" next to a "]". --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ahecht: Sorry for the typo. I meant the d. Nigos (talk · contribs) 06:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nigos: I'm still not seeing a "d" next to a "]". Can you give me an example of a page where you're seeing this extra space?

Also, on a side note, your posts aren't triggering the notification system. If you are signing your posts manually, just type ~~~~ instead and the software will insert the signature for you. If you are using ~~~~, please update your preferences so that you signature uses [[User:Nigos|]] ([[User talk:Nigos|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/Nigos|contribs]]) instead of ((user|Nigos)). Thanks. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I was using the mobile site, and it was displayed as ^{[disputed ]} instead of how it looks like at the desktop site. I think the template should remain as it is.Nigos (talk • (Special:Contributions/Nigos) 06:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a particular reason the parameters in this template are different than the non-inline version? The non-inline is Talk=page|section, this uses the link format. I have no strong preference for one or the other, but certainly all variations should use the same format! Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The format in the banner template appears to be ((Disputed|talkpage=Talk:Page name|1=section name|date=June 2018)), and dong ((Disputed|1=section name|date=June 2018)) will default to the current page's talk page. In both cases I'm explicitly numbering the unnamed parameter for clarity.

What we really need is for all of these dispute/cleanup templates to do the same thing, and to support consistent parameter names via parameter "aliases", e.g. |talk= and |discuss=. They'll need to accept input like ((Disputed|discuss=Talk:Page name#section name)), and also detect if the talk page specified doesn't resolve to a real one.

At any rate, I don't see what problem you're attempting to report. The inline version of this template also accepts the same parameters as the banner version: ((Disputed inline|talkpage=Talk:Page name|1=section name|date=June 2018)) (though ((Disputed inline|talkpage=Talk:Page name#section name|date=June 2018)) also works).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...please, when an article is protected, all should nevertheless be able to examine the full, true content of the page as markup. In the case of this template, most of the content appearing seems to be presented via a ((documentation)) call, making almost all the markup for the page's content invisible to all but the best informed editors. I would ask that you put an in-text note (<!--note-->) onto the page, explaining how other editors, logged and unlogged, might see the actual markup of the full content of the page—that is, explaining where the markup for the documentation of the page actually is viewable. Cheers, thanks. 2601:246:C700:9B0:85BB:6F50:E2F5:B45F (talk) 09:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The writing in the model can be longer than the page width, and thus stretches it, example here. Veverve (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The code for this template is given as (e.g):

Disputed inline|Talk page section|date=June 2022}

This then shows in the browser as:

dispute - discuss

with the "on hover" behaviour for the two partts of this showing:

"This claim has reliable sources with contradicting facts June 2022"

and

"Talk: *and the name of the article here*"

Changing this behaviour is described here as if it were possible but I find in practice it is not, and/or not in a way that is useful/meaningful.

Specifically, I have been able to find no way to activate the 'attribute': "Talk page section". I have tried: 1. replacing the phrase "Talk page section" with the title of the Talk Page section; 2. leaving the phrase and adding the title of the Talk Page section after it; and 3. leaving either "Talk page" or "Talk" and adding the title of the Talk Page section after both of those. But none of these changes the template's behaviour.

Directing someone to the relevant discussion section of the associated Talk Page seems to me essential to the desired functioning of the template. So would someone please please PLEASE clarify the instructions given here on how to actually achieve this - spelling it out, providing a clearly marked up example, in addition to the pseudo-code (I'm sure what is given on the page is correct and clear but only IF you already know what it means, if not..)

Lastly, and a relatively trivial issue by comparison, a semantic problem arises with the use of the "for:" option, as in:

Disputed inline|Talk page section|for=*insert some reason here*|date=June 2022}

i find this produces a semantically confusing result. For instance, if the reason for the tag is that the reference given contains contradictory information (rather than substantiating the statement being given in the article, oe etc etc) the tag would display:

dispute for: the reference given contains etc - discuss

firstly, the word "for" is redundant, only the colon is needed, and secondly, as the on-hover behaviour remains unchanged, it potentially conflicts with the this. The implication of the unchanging behabiour is that this is ONLY one possible reason for using the tag whereas the tag itself provides the option to provide a different reason. LookingGlass (talk) 10:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to this page, the Dispute Section template's purpose is as follows: This inline template helps highlight a particular disputed statement or alleged fact... Yet if you hover the mouse pointer over the word disputed on a page where the template has been applied, the help message that displays is This claim has reliable sources with contradicting facts. To be clear, this is occurring when no reason (a For= statement) has been provided, so that's not the source of the message. My guess is that the message is a hold-over from the distant past and nobody bothered to change it as the template's function evolved. In any case, neither "contradicting facts" nor anything like it appears on the template's page. Allreet (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just noticed that this issue was mentioned above...six months ago. There's no response so I'm wondering if anything is likely to change. Allreet (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]