Template talk:Dubious

message: Should the link to the Talk page really be talk:#Disputed? The relevant Talk section would have to be named Disputed. Shouldn’t there be a  thing to the actual section name (however that works)? —Frungi 04:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed this. 67.165.96.26 07:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you can specify now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 22:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: #Disputed?

message: I do not agree with this. I used the template on the Ghost and to my great surprise one little sentence that I had listed as dubious was now a full-blown statement that all the article was disputed. The guidelines here Wikipedia:Disputed_statement haven't changed. So I do not see why someone would change this to a redirect unilaterally.
QBorg 02:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have used this template to flag off a section on Meluhha which I am unqualified to verify, but which raises my suspicions. It seems like a decent enough warning to the casual reader, especially since I don't feel able to judge whether or not it should be removed entirely. However, is there another way of bringing this to the attention of a linguist who could speak to the cited author's credentials? --April Arcus 23:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Disputed redirect 

message: I don't think article pages should be linking to Talk pages. Sites that reproduce our articles rarely reproduce the Talk pages, and certainly any printed version would not. It seems to break the normal rules of namespace boundaries. A simple note that the fact is disputed seems adequate, and readers can consult the Talk page if they so desire. Soo 17:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point! There is code that will prevent the talk-page-related content from showing up on mirrors, but I misremember what that code is at present. Someone does need to fix this. There is at least one other template with a talk link like this that will also need this treatment. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 22:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to talk page

message: This tag is "dubious" but the text it inserts is "disputed". I think they should both be "dubious". After all, there is a template for disputed content. When I add this it isn't because I don't believe something is true it's because I am skeptical and think someone else should have a look. If I don't get comments here I may just be bold and change the text of this tempmlate. —Ben FrantzDale 06:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you just made the change yesterday. Very good. —Ben FrantzDale 00:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Dubious" not "disputed"

message: I am engaged in a dispute over a sourced, scholarly claim in an article.  The editor who added the dispute tag, when challenged to directly quote from the cited source and show how it did not prove its point, declared that he felt he did not need to quote from the source as he felt it was entirely incorrect in every particular.  He then claimed I should prove why I feel the source is correct.  Note that I did not add this source to the article; it has been there for a long time.  
The question is, is the burden of proof on the editor who adds the dubious tag, or on the editor(s) who defend the cited source?  Ie., must he prove the source is wrong, or must I prove it right?  Kasreyn 18:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This question does not belong on a template's talk page; try Wikipedia:Content dispute; see also Wikipedia:Disputed statement. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 21:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burden of proof? 

message: Template:Dubious versus Template:DisputedAssertion.  See WP:TFD#Template:DisputedAssertion.
Personally, I think that the name of the latter is more consistent with other templates, though the former (this page) has more history.  Also, I like the idea of a picture separating a line item as a functional element of the page, and not a parenthetical.  For the newbie's sake.  If Template:DisputedAssertion makes it, this page may need to be differentiated from Template:DisputedAssertion, or merged with it.  Again, my opinion, is to merge.
— <TALKJNDRLINETALK>    
:My opinion is that the Dubious template ought to stay, and moreover ought to read on the page as "dubious" rather than disputed. The point here is that they're two different things. I dispute something when I feel I have counterevidence. I am doubtful of something when I don't necessarily have counterevidence, but I'm suspicious of the assertion for various reasons; e.g. it just sounds totally nuts, it's been added by an editor who has added known falsehoods in the past (I have recently run into that), it creates inconsistencies. In any case, it is a flag that should warn the reader of a something misleading, or should capture the attention of an editor who might know better, but who might have missed the addition without the flag. CHE 18:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted elsewhere, this isn't what this template is for. If you are doubtful of something unsourced, and it is not already subject to an editing dispute, use . If it is sourced and you doubt the source's authoritativeness, use .  If it is allegedly sourced, but you doubt that the source says what the article claims it does, use .  Etc.  See WP:WPILT for a list of all known inline templates of this sort. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 21:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DisputedAssertion and Dubious templates 

message: 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)
thread_title: ''Wikiproject Inline templates'' proposed

message: Should the "Dubious" template be used in situations where the relevance, but not the accuracy of a statement is disputed?  If not, what template should be used in its place?  CJCurrie 04:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's for sourcing/reliability/factuality/interpretation disputes (i.e. stuff covered by WP:V). There is no template I know of for relevance, at least not an inline one.  More a matter for WP:BOLD cleanup, or talk page discussion at this point. A more general cleanup tag (even  could be used and the issues raised on the talk page. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 22:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I take that back. If there is an active dispute about the relevance of a statement, then this template would in fact apply; basically, if it is something that could be addressed by [[Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute
Wikipedia:Disputed statement]] more narrowly, then  could be relevant. (Also, some consider  to be deprecated, per Wikipedia:Clarify the cleanup, so my recommendation to use it is now obsolete.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 21:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Relevance" question

message: re: edit by The Cunctator, who writes on the template, `try not to use,' : why? see discussion above. There are lots of situations where one is surprised by an assertion but doesn't +know+ that it's false, and so wants to call the attention of the other editors to it, or to the editor who added it that it needs support. This seems essential to a wiki. CHE 21:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what talk pages, search engines, and libraries are for. Please try to keep inline disruptions to a minimum. The  template serves an identical purpose. --The Cunctator 20:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed; the very issues raised by CHE are not at all what this template is for, though its previous incarnation of documentation made it sound like it was actually a clone of . — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 21:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Try not to use"

message: Result:   was redirected to  in September 2007.
It is proposed that  be merged into :
#Language to remain the same at  (i.e., in agreement with itself, unlike )
#Tooltip to link to Wikipedia:Disputed statement (not Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute, which is for article-wide disputes)
#Anything salient about the  documentation will be added into the  documentation.
#Final documentation will be clarified, that  is not for flagging items that an editor thinks might be incorrect or unsourced (this is what  is for), but for tagging statements that are subject to ongoing dispute among edidors, e.g. due to conflicting sources.  The purpose of this template is a) to warn readers that a statement in the article may not be accurate, and b) to alert editors that additional sources need to be found, to ascertain which of the conflicting views in the dispute is more authoritative.  If this usage correction is not made, it is very likely that this template will simply be merged with  (probably forcibly, via WP:TFD, the next time someone who likes XfD processes notices that this template is being misused as a -alike.
*Support as nominator. I'm going to start working on the dox cleanup now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 20:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Answer: The merge isn't about the template name, but rather about the code and its functionality.  has useful, standardized code, while there really isn't anything salvageable at all about  except perhaps for some wording to add to the documentation (and even that is iffy). This is really more of an informal TfD against  than it is merge proposal, per se. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 20:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
It is proposed that this template be renamed  (and its wording edited from "dubious" to "disputed" to conform), in keeping with other inline variants of page/section-level box templates like .
*Support (as nominator). The "dubious" name and wording has been subject to dispute here before, is unclear, and has often confused people into thinking that this template is simply an alternative version of  (and misusing it as one), which it is not.  Go with the nascent convention of using "[BigTemplateName]-inline"; this is much easier to remeber than quirky names like "dubious". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 22:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Reply: Oh definitely; we certainly don't want to break present deployment!  That would double-plus suck. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 06:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Reply.  That's pretty much my entire point (for both the rename, and the related merge, above).  This is a Wikipedia:Disputed statement ("subdivision" of Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute) template, not a Wikipedia:Verifiability template.  Template:Fact exists to flag unsourced or inadequately sourced suspicious information, and due to this template's vague name, people have been improperly using it as a  substitute. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 13:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *If we have two meanings, then we need two templates. Just write . Sometimes one wants to say "dubious". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *We would have two templates:  and  (a.k.a. ); there isn't any clear-cut policy/guideline with regard to "dubious" items, whatever that means (i.e., the label is ambiguous), by contrast with things which are subject to Wikipedia:Disputed statement/Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute or to Wikipedia:Verifiability/Wikipedia:Attribution concerns, respectively. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 14:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *This particular template can be categorized differently, but to change how it displays is to alter the intentions of the editors who added it to the articles. That's my point, so I think we're talking past each other. Dekimasuよ! 02:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *My counter would be that this template had an intended purpose, and a mistaken one, and that the fact that it has been misused as as  clone in some instances is kind of inescapable, no matter what is done with it.  That cleanup will take time does not militate against cleanup. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 14:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 07:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Seriously, I don't see why this template says "dubious" instead of "disputed", and I can't tell if there was a consensus for change in the little vote right above here.
I think "dubious" makes it seem as if editors, or Wikipedia, are personally making a judgment about some facts within an article, whereas saying "disputed" would express something more along the lines of "I personally don't have an opinion on this, but just so you readers know, it is under dispute right now". I used it in that sense, for example, on Suman Ranganathan just now, not intending to call something into question but just to mark a passage that is the subject of a dispute.
Would it be beneficial to change the way this template appears? Or would it be better just to turn  into a new template that actually says "disputed"? I see that that template did say "disputed" for a while but was redirected here in September 2008...does anyone remember why? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, on second thought, I have BOLDly undone the redirecting because I think  is valuable and don't see any discussion that generated consensus to redirect it. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert me and start such a discussion. Thanks, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "disputed" 

message: This is yet another template designed to add inline criticisms of an article while allowing the critic to avoid actually doing anything about it. It serves no purpose other than to add to Wikipedia's chronic issue with unprofessional inline complaints.
Either users should FIX THE SODDING ARTICLES or they should actually post their issues on the relevant article's talk: pages. It serves no purpose to keep adding these kinds of template. Please, let's delete this one, and start to consider deleting most of the others too. --66.149.58.8 (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This argument refers to the inline dubious tag, but I'm sure it's transferable to situations involving the section one. That's not always possible. For example, I strongly suspect an error in an article I am looking at right now, but it's likely the person who put the knowledge in has greater knowledge in the field than I do, in fact I knew what they put in was wrong but I don't know the right information. I disputed it a first time and it was changed by someone else to something closer to the truth, in fact the error is minor now and they have again quoted a source suggesting they have greater familiarity with the field than I, yet my computation shows it is wrong - again - just less so than before. Rather than go and delete the work of someone who is likely more expert than I, I'd like to flag it dubious and show my proofs so people can see it, decide if I am right or not and then (hopefully) fix it, or remove the dubious flag and show why my proof is wrong. You could say "that should just go in the discussion" but the unfortunate truth is on many articles, putting things in discussion means they will simply be ignored, and in the alternative, a user could rely on dubious information that was only disputed in the discussion pages in the interim. This (inline dubious) flag brings an issue to attention. So long as the person adding it shows their reasoning it serves it's purpose well.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.32 (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we delete this template? 

message: Following discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Dubious_v_disputed, how about redirecting this tag to ? Currently clicking on "dubious" in the template takes you to Wikipedia:Disputed statement, and the meaning of "dubious" is not really clear. Rd232 talk 17:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect to disputed-inline 

message: This message is to inform people monitoring this talk page that there is an "editprotected" request involving this and several other templates at Template talk:! cymru.lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 20:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editprotected request involving this template 

message: Will someone please put {{#ifeq:|{{subst:NAMESPACE}}|Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates|}} in the template, right after ? This will categorize the page in :Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates if it is substed. Thanks! --- c y m r u . l a s s (talk me, stalk me) 02:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this request. Such is the standard for all maintenance templates, and for obvious reason. Debresser (talk) 10:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  in a slightly different way to that suggested. See Template talk:Fix/Archive 1#Detection for substituted templates for details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Cymru.lass, 4 February 2011 

message: What is the real purpose of this template? The documentation starts "Add  after a specific statement or alleged fact that is subject to dispute (your own or someone else's)". It then goes "It is best to simultaneously try to resolve the dispute on the talk page."
So is this for alleged facts which are already disputed, or not yet? See also #Redirect to disputed-inline.  --Chealer (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this template is for statements that are being disputed. Debresser (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Also, I object to your removal of a much needed warning from the documentation, and will restore it. Debresser (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Thanks. So, if we're going that way, would anyone oppose changing the text from "dubious - discuss" to "disputed"? --Chealer (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The strength of the present title "Dubious" is that it allows for tagging statements that sound unlikely, even if there is no clear source claiming its inaccuracy or logical proof to that extent. If we had one of two, we would have to add the opposing statement to the article, or remove the statement altogether. Which is why this tag calls for discussion. In short, I think the present title is fit. Debresser (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: One of two what? --Chealer (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  A source or a proof. Debresser (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, so one of the two. OK --Chealer (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

text:  I believe this is what Debresser intended to write: "The strength of the present title "Dubious" is that it allows for tagging a statement that sounds unlikely, even if there is no clear source claiming its inaccuracy or logical proof to that extent. If we had one of the two, we would have to add the opposing statement to the article, or remove the statement altogether. Which is why this tag calls for discussion. In short, I think the present title is fit." --Chealer (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

text: I guess you're saying this template is for statements that are not being disputed then. Since you already stated that this template is for statements that are being disputed, I suppose you think this template can be used on dubious statements, whether they are disputed or not. --Chealer (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Statements then. Sigh... Debresser (talk) 05:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right. --Chealer (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

text:  Considering the clarification made above, would anyone oppose solving this by changing the documentation where it says "It is best to simultaneously try to resolve the dispute on the talk page.", to "If the alleged fact is already disputed, it is best to simultaneously try to resolve the dispute on the talk page."? --Chealer (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps keep it closer to the wording of the template and say "It is best to simultaneously try to discuss the dubious statement on the talk page."? Debresser (talk) 05:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's even better. Does anyone oppose adapting the documentation in such a way? --Chealer (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:   --Chealer (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. Debresser (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose? Dispute? 

message: Wouldn't this template be better named contested? I often hesitate adding dubious, because it really not clear that the  right word. It's not citation needed either because there is sometimes a citation already. The more exact situation is that it is contested. So could the template and it's content be changed to Contested. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. If a dubious tag is added, it means precisely that: dubious. That is less than actually contest it. Debresser (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested rather then dubious? 

message: I get  for . ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: First, the  template should not be substituted - that is, don't use  - I have de-substituted the above example. Second, the template's argument is used to create a link, and links may not contain square brackets. This is partly because square brackets have special meaning in wiki markup; and partly because square brackets are forbidden in page titles which means that they are also forbidden in section headings - see Help:Link#Disallowed characters. Since they have apparently been used in a section heading, you need to workaround this by using a technique such as percent encoding, so use the form  which produces . --Redrose64 (talk) 12:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breaks on brackets 

message: The specified format is:  It seems that whatever I put into the Talk section name, the dubious-discuss only links to the top of the talk page. Also, anything added to reason= does not display. Are these this intentional? Should the doc be changed? Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Which pages have you added a  to, that are not linking? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk link redirect does not work 

message: After all that is said and done, I still think there is an issue here. The above explains the issue according to the documentation page here on . The instructions here state specifically that this template should be used only for sourced statements that are nevertheless dubious. On the other hand, the documentation page of  implies clearly that this template is for all dubious statements, including non-sourced. My experience seems to support this second usage, and logic also dictates that the word "dubious" can pertain to any statement, without any relation to its sourcing.
In short, I propose to change the documentation here to reflect that this template can be used for unsourced statements as well.
In such a case it seems reasonable that a  tag could also be added, but that would be up to the editor. After all, we are under no obligation to exhaustively tag articles, and pointing to an issue will usually open the discussion to such an extend that sourcing will also be dealt with. Debresser (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: To avoid even the question of double-tagging the same statement and reduce the possibility of confusion, my personal preference at this time would be to use CN for unsourced statements and Dubious for statements that are sourced but nevertheless...dubious. DonIago (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  If a statement is dubious and unsourced, I see no problem with double tagging, but in actual practice this is not often done. Debresser (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems a bit redundant to me in this case, but I'm enough of a cynic that I consider unsourced statements inherently dubious. If we can eliminate the "need" for double-tagging I'd like to do so, but I'm certainly open to other possibilities. DonIago (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: When I try to use the reason parameter it doesn't show up. Example. The reason "She would have been his fifth grandmother" doesn't show up. How come? Contact Basemetal here 01:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The  parameter is a dummy, which intentionally does not display. It's mentioned in the documentation, as "a dummy parameter, used to add a short explanation of the issue"; a fuller description should be left on the article's talk page. Also please note that parameter names are always case-sensitive unless the template has additional code to permit variants, therefore  should be  --Redrose64 (talk) 10:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The reason parameter doesn't do anything for me 

message: Where's the sandbox for this template? AKA Casey Rollins User talk:AKA Casey Rollins 7:40 AM EST April 22, 2015
:It's not been created yet. But there are links to do that; at the bottom of the template's documentation, you will see a green box with three lines of text, the middle one reads "Editors can experiment in this template's sandbox (create ..." --Redrose64 (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Sandbox?

message: Frankly, in the list of incorrect uses, I expected to find something like:
*"to challenge a contentious unsourced or poorly sourced statement about a living person - remove such statements from the article immediately"
...per WP:BLPREMOVE, of course. Is there a reason why the above would not be an incorrect use? GregorB (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It already says "to flag unsourced statements". No need to specify all sorts of unsourced statements. Debresser (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but it says "use ", and in this particular case this is not a good advice. Of course, cn doc itself advises against using the template for contentious BLP stuff, but many people who wanted to use "dubious" won't know (or check) that. GregorB (talk) 07:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not bad advice either. Also note that not all statements on BLP are contentious. So I think the advice to use  is the best general advice. Debresser (talk) 11:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Incorrect uses" 

message: I used this template for  when I moved three citations from deeply buried template documentation pages into this central repository. Two of these were already marked as dubious in the template documentation pages, and a third was merely a bare link in a hidden comment in the respective dataset. If possible, I would change the usage to direct to Template talk:Inflation-fn rather than the talk page of whichever article the citation appears on.
However, I suppose there is potential for mild misuse, if for example someone does something like . If another template or code would be more suitable for this situation please let me know or edit the other template to correct. Or would discussing each instance of inflation citation be preferred to happen on every article it is to be used on? djr13 (talk) 06:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: By default the link is to a section named "Dubious" on the talk page for the page that the template is placed on. You can use the first unnamed parameter to pass the name of a different talk page section, e.g.  however that section still needs to be on the talk page for the page that the template is placed on. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am aware of this, that's why I was suggesting allowing changing which talk page the template refers to. djr13 (talk) 05:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

text: I don't see a legit use case for this. If the template is using bad data, that's an issue to raise on the template talk page. If there's something not from a template that's dubious, the discussion should take place at that page's talk page.  The "danger" here is fairly broad, the most obvious negative use case being WP:OWNish wikiproject people directly all dispute/cleanup template talk regarding "their" articles to the wikiproject talk page. We have a  parameter on a few templates like the merge/split ones, because two pages are involved and we need to centralize discussion at one of them. That doesn't really arise with a template like  or .  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

text: I agree that this could be useful in some cases. If there's some content issue that's spread over a few related pages, and there's already some discussion of it taking place at the talk page of one of those articles, it could be useful to link to that discussion when applying this template to one of the related pages. I faced this situation when I went to apply the template to Projet de communauté philosophe. I would have liked the "discuss" link to go to an existing section of the talk page for the author of that work. (What I ended up doing instead was just mentioning the talk page in the "reason" parameter.) Colin M (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion to allow specifying talk page where discussion should take place 

message: Per this entirely too lengthy discussion on ANI, I wonder if some brief clarification might be helpful on the Incorrect Usage section.
Basically, the editor seems to be on the losing end of consensus over a relatively minor (but apparently deeply personal) issue, and has decided to use this template as a statement, pushing to include it as a way of saying that they're not changing the article per se, but they're bucking consensus anyway by tagging the line as dubious. 
Seems like there could be some gently worded clause, reminding editors that this template is not a weapon. TimothyJosephWood 22:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any case in which a template is a weapon? DonIago (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course not, but compare guidance at Template:Citation needed, which preempts predicable misuse of the template. TimothyJosephWood 14:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Temperamental and annoying people will be temperamental and annoying.  We shouldn't add disclaimers and "don't be a bad child" warnings to every template that can be used sarcastically or otherwise pointedly, or we'd spend all of the next month adding such disclaimers to templates.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe some clarification 

message: The docs say that it's for this purpose, and I use it, but the word "dubious" doesn't really convey that.  Is there a variant (or could one be created) which says "sources conflict"?  Or similar wording that says that I'm not expressing subjective doubt, but actually have a "deciding which source to believe" problem.
In some cases it's worth describing conflicting reports, as the uncertainty will never be resolved ("what were X's dying words?"), but in others ("what is the height of Mt. Y?") there's clearly one correct answer. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a variant that more explicitly says "sources conflict"? 

message: Please add  at the top of the Module:Unsubst invocation, then change  to , per a nomination by . Pppery 12:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: -- John of Reading (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 10 March 2017 

message: Please wrap the tfd notice in noinclude tags, so that it doesn't continue to disrupt the numerous articles that use this template. The relevant change I'm requesting is to substitute the first two lines of the template code with the following:
{{ safesubst:#invoke:Unsubst||$N=Dubious |date=__DATE__ |$B=
Thanks. –  Uanfala (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Cabayi (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 13 March 2017 

message: The original copy of the Sean J. Conlon page was edited to remove the claim that he was "a leading real estate entrepreneur" Burfordbw (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template . If possible, please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. If you cannot edit the article's talk page, you can instead make your request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for edits to a protected page. — Train2104 (t • c) 14:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 21 March 2017 

message: This should have the same pre-filled   as template:citation needed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.60.171 (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Which doesn't have that. So I am not sure what you are referring to. Debresser (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: With , you can omit the date and a bot will later fill it in. But, provided that you subst it, as in , the bot will not need to visit since it will be saved as if you had used  which is to say . I suspect that 71.167.60.171 is asking for a similar feature here, i.e. when you use , without a date, it will be the same as when you use . This feature is already present. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  pre-filled date 

message: Greetings!
As we know, the Disputed inline template "is a more strongly worded version of , which indicates a potential dispute, most often a question about reliable sourcing for the statement/fact at issue".
Therefore, at the moment we do have all the templates for  and it's variants. But could we have a template for a milder formation, , as well? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I have turned your -enclosed template name into an actual link, you will see that we already have it; it is a redirect to  and has been for a few years. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, Redrose64. Indeed, the  already is an inline tag. Sorry for the inconvenience, must have a short circuit in my head :-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  dubious inline 

message: The current form of the template does not allow linking to archived sections of the talk page, as it assumes a non-archived talk section is linked to.--Ser be etre shi (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, because archives are not for ongoing discussions. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to Archived talk sections 

message: I've only recently become more active on Wikipedia, but I can't be the only person who has trouble remembering which templates use  for linking to the talk page and which use an unnamed parameter. I frequently use the wrong one then have to correct it, especially with this template. Is there any reason not to let it accept both? Something like {{#if:{{{talk|}}}|{{{talk}}}|{{{1}}}}} at the appropriate point would do it, I think. (Assuming I've understood the syntax correctly.) NB I've not tested that. Musiconeologist (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parameter for talk page link 

message: Change “[dubious – discuss]” to “[dubious? – discuss]". 2603:7080:DA3C:7A33:F4FF:3B44:570:60A8 (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. DonIago (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Added discussion. 2603:7080:DA3C:7A33:F4FF:3B44:570:60A8 (talk) 03:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

text: Your thoughts? 2603:7080:DA3C:7A33:F4FF:3B44:570:60A8 (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. Please do not reopen a request until consensus exists for the edit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Your thoughts? 2603:7080:DA3C:7A33:F4FF:3B44:570:60A8 (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 8 April 2022 

message: is meant to be suggestive rather than objective. Also to be consistent with  and  on Wikiquote has a question mark.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:DA3C:7A33:F4FF:3B44:570:60A8 (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we change <sup><nowiki>[dubious – discuss]</nowiki></sup> to <sup><nowiki>[dubious? – discuss]</nowiki></sup> 

message: I just added a dubious tag at Paca#Behavior and added a discussion section at Talk:Paca#Biomass as intended. I tried to use , {Dubious|1=Biomass}, and {Dubious|discuss=Biomass} but all three syntax formats resulted only in a link to Talk:Paca with no section qualifier. 47.176.71.114 (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. This is working for me - when I click on the "discuss" part of the "[dubious - discuss]" message, I am taken to Talk:Paca#Biomass. I've tried this in desktop Firefox, logged in and logged out, and on mobile Firefox, logged out. What device and browser are you using? -- John of Reading (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I confirm what is perhaps a related issue: in Kilowatt-hour as it was just now, there is "within the standard.". When I click on the displayed "discuss" in [] I am taken to the top of the Talk page, which could be considered correct, though not helpful. However, when I hover the mouse over "discuss", an unrelated section of the Talk page is displayed (it happens to be the first section, but there is nothing to indicate this), which is very confusing. Jumping to the top of the Talk page could be considered correct (I disagree), but displaying to a section (which happens to be the first section) is not. Windows 10/64, up-to-date as of now, Firefox/32 111.0 (current), Wikipedia set up to pop up info on hovering mouse over template. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  BUG in template? -- first parameter (talk page section name) not working.