Wikipedia talk:Historical archive/Template:Totally-disputed

Disputed, like TOTALLY, man

Dude! That's like, so totally disputed! Martin 22:36, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Like, yeah, and stuff! Chris Roy 08:36, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Box

[[Category:Accuracy disputes|{{PAGENAME}}]][[Category:NPOV disputes|{{PAGENAME}}]]

How about this:

[[Category:Accuracy disputes|{{PAGENAME}}]][[Category:NPOV disputes|{{PAGENAME}}]]

Wow.... It's great to see SOME humor on Wikipedia.

That gave me the best laugh that I've had in a long time.  :-)! Nimrand 18:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected this template because of an anon with apparently a lot of IP addresses at his disposal who keeps replacing the stop hand image. I'll remove the protection upon request. Kelly Martin 07:48, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Image

How about this image, . It is somewhat alarming without implying that the reader should "stop". —Centrx→talk • 07:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer Image:Unbalanced scales.svg since this template is about a lack of neutrality (which does not even have basis). --Cat out 03:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I reverted that change, since this template is also about a possible lack of factual accuracy (which is a very serious problem) as well as lack of neutrality. Polonium 01:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not a separate category for total disputes? Gazpacho 02:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Or what about this:

The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.

--Bob 01:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Color

The new color for this template seems particularly bright. I say we pick a new one. -- Clevelander 14:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

AFD

Sorry, but adding {{AFD}} or even {{subst:AFD}} caused problems with {{TotallyDisputed}} and even {{subst:TotallyDisputed}}. Try energy economics for an example - it spat an error at the top of the page saying AFD must be substed - when AFD isn't even a template on the page. I know removing AFD isn't a good idea, but throwing obscure errors in place of article text seemed worse. --Geoffrey 18:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a template anyway, AfD was not the right place and it was moved to TfD, the correct process. —Centrx→talk • 23:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we bring back the hand?

The current version of the template doesn't look nearly serious enough (compared to {{originalresearch}}, it's almost ignorable). I would like to see something like this:

--N Shar 00:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the reader necessarily needs to stop; sometimes disputes are over nothing significant. The stop hand is used for telling people to stop vandalism. I don't see how this is less serious looking than {{originalresearch}}. —Centrx→talk • 22:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's that the question mark in {{originalresearch}} is a lot larger relative to the template. The color is also more distinct from the background. And if the dispute is over something insignificant, this template probably shouldn't be used. Here's another suggestion:

I do prefer the hand, but I see that it might send the wrong message. I read it not as "Stop now and never come back," but as "Don't continue until you've read this message." --N Shar 23:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Or I suppose, using your suggestion from above:

The color's a bit off, but it looks decent. I wish we had a red exclamation mark in a circle. --N Shar 23:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive

This template serves no purpose other than to be more annoying than the {{disputed}} alert box. It should be deleted. --The Cunctator 15:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ambox type -- 'content' (orange) or 'serious' (red)?

The current ambox type is 'serious', giving a red bar. But the only other templates of this type are ones suggesting the page should be deleted -- AfDs, CSDs, and WP:N warnings. All the other dispute, cleanup, and maintenence templates are either type=style (yellow) or type=content (orange) -- including both the Neutrality template, and the Factual Accuracy template; of which ones this template is supposed to be a combination! Aside from being inconsistent, this dilutes the value of the 'serious' ambox type: this template is the only one that prevents 'red' being able to be instantly associated with "this article is in serious danger of being deleted". This was in fact converted before; but User:Dbachmann reverted it, with the edit summary ""content", but seriously" (?). Thoughts? -- simxp (talk) 11:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Current:

Proposed:

It's a serious content issue but it is essentially a content issue; I'd definitely go with the version proposed by Simxp. Purgatorio 17:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, when we designed the new article message boxes and colours then we meant red to be reserved for deletion related message boxes. So this one should clearly be a orange "content" issue. Sorry that we did choose such a bad name for the red type, it really should be called red "delete" type or so. So I will change this box to orange "content" type right now.

--David Göthberg 19:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Pictorial representation

Am I the only one who thinks that perhaps the exclamation cartoon should flank both sides of the template - In it's current form, there seems to be dead space. Wisdom89 (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)