Template talk:Disputed tag

message: Please add issues below as you see fit.
===Accuracy dispute issue===
This template should not refer to the page on accuracy disputes, since that page is about articles which are thought to be inaccurate.  This should refer to a page on policy disputes, which is what I'm changing it to.  I hope that is okay with everyone concerned.  --Cromwellt|Talk 17:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: This template should not refer to the page on accuracy disputes, since that page is about articles which are thought to be inaccurate.  This should refer to a page on policy disputes, which is what I'm changing it to.  I hope that is okay with everyone concerned.  --Cromwellt|Talk 17:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy dispute issue

message: This page is a unused black hole in wikipedia if you looked in a book encyclopedia you would not see something like this.  We must fix or delete!Denden136 02:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Invalid reasoning. If you look in a paper encyclopedia you won't see wikilinks either.  Should we delete those too?  Did you have a specific issue to raise? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 18:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision of this page 

message: We should add a note that this tag is only for ongoing disputes. It is still used by people who simply do not like a particular policy or guideline, who wish to have it permanently disputed; clearly that is not the point of this template. >Radiant< 13:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ongoing dispute 

message: There is this continued edit war on a page, where one editor removes a tag, stating "one editor does not make a disputed guideline" is it okay for one editor to add this tag? Ikip (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: One person makes a dispute

message: When should this be used? Over on Wikipedia:OTRS, there is not a wording dispute, nor some perpetual disagreement, but a current RfC on whether the page is and was accurately marked policy. I've had the tag reverted three times now by various OTRS users (supporters) who are arguing for keeping the page as policy. If it's not meant to be used to inform people of an RfC on the talk page, under what conditions should it be used?    M   23:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that for santiy's sake, it should only be used to contest recent promotions to policy. If some page has sat around as policy for a long time, by whatever process it originally became so marked, we can assume the community has accepted it by now, until consensus is shown to be otherwise.--Kotniski (talk) 09:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  So how do we mark (rather important) discussions of status as policy, then? If CSD was undergoing an RFC for demotion, I'd like to see it similarly marked.    M   19:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess  is the one to use (I think it used to say more about these tags at WP:POL, before the recent changes.) This is only my opinion - some people like to use disputedtag like you did, but in my experience the underdiscussion format is less provocative and less likely to lead to unconstructive exchanges.--Kotniski (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It still mentions it in the footnotes I think. My idea was that questions of 'no longer recognizing a policy' would take that tag, while 'questions of the policy's legitimacy' (including establishment, and contradiction with other policies), which are more important, should use the other. But this really needs to be made more clear.    M   19:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 03:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:Disputed tag →  – Confusing name. I placed this tag on a guideline whose wording is disputed, but it was reverted by someone who mistook it for Template:Disputed, which is a completely different tag with a completely different purpose. Adam9007 (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Support: As per above to distinguish them better.  Suggest making  a redirect to  if this is moved. ~ Aselestecharge-paritytime 12:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Also fine with  below. ~ Aselestecharge-paritytime 11:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Looks like there is a new target.  For me, as long as it's not called "tag" and is reasonable, I will be fine with it. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 18:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 1 March 2021