Template talk:DisputedAssertion

This is for a line-item dispute (for rules and usage regarding disputes, see Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute) against a specific assertion, allegation, fact or statement. This is not to be confused with something that is entirely POV, in which case, you have full blessing to remove or alter the statement, as far as I am concerned. It gets tricky when it is POV to decide that something is POV. Anyway, use sparingly.

An article should not be littered with this template - if a page should happen to have more than a certain amount (maybe four is a good number), then it should get the full template: Template:Disputed.

— <TALK JNDRLINETALK>

Parameter

What about having an optional parameter to point to the section inside the talk page? In long pages, or with several sections about the same dispute, it may be a bit complex to guide newcomers to the right discussion zone. -- ReyBrujo 05:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did that a while back. I believe I did it also with all of the other templates in the See also section. Just use {{DisputedAssertion|talk page section name}} (Template:Dubious has the same thing, should this template get deleted). Andy _t 00:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template Talk

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 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. If this page makes it, differentiated from Template:Dubious, or merged with it. Again, my opinion, is that it merge here.

— <TALK JNDRLINETALK>

Bad picture?

The question mark icon looks strange on my computer. Maybe use anothe picture? WP 07:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to change it to resemble Template:POV-statement. The meaning of that template is obvious when you see it in an article. The meaning of this one is not. That format also seems to be more standard, as it is also used for Template:Fact. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 06:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted to old picture, to match Template:Disputed. Still, it doesn't shrink down so well, so if there is a higher-quality picture of the same, I'd go for it. The point of using a picture, versus something textual like Template:Dubious, or Template:POV-statement is so that it doesn't interrupt the reader. Some people read WP without editing, you know ;)