Template talk:Disputed section

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why was this merged? 

message: This can easily be subclassed to  (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)
replies: text: --CapitalR (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style updates 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes, let's discuss it over there? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language 

message: Is there a reason this isn't centered?  If not, can it be centered? Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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). --Redrose64 (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  center? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Someone already processed the WP:RM. — xaosflux Talk 04:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix typo 

message: 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  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 . 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)
thread_title:  Factual accuracy is not what Wikipedia is about