Template talk:Factual accuracy
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
@FDMS4: I do strongly suggest to merge this template with the existing one {{Fact disputed}} (and made the other one the generally), this is only more or lesser hairsplitting. w:WP:KISS, more templates are counterproductive. → User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 16:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- At first, I wanted {{Fact disputed}} to use this template (the other way round wouldn't really work without having to use several parameters to use the basic, "The factual accuracy of this file is disputed." text), but then I noticed that the other template was a multilingual template and, well, this template only works monolingually. We could still make the other template use this template but I would expect heavy opposition :) . FDMS 4 17:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hey @FDMS4: , I had forgotten this template for a long time and I've now implemented the same parameter (functionality) in {{Fact disputed}} (ohne diesem hier gewahr zu sein). So what do you say now? The other template is still a base for five others... ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 17:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
- Still, using {{Fact disputed}} for anything other than filenames or descriptions looks more like a hack than the intended purpose. I'd therefore prefer keeping both templates and, tbh, think about reverting you there … FDMS 4 20:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hm what do you mean exactly (… reverting)? In fact both templates means the same in other words (I wondering here a bit about you, because this is your generally intention here to merge templates). But I could agree to made "your" template as base for all..!? PS: No worry about opposition, be courageous and you will earn honor. :P ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 21:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- A non-specific text should be the default for the standard accuracy dispute template. This could be achieved by making {{Fact disputed}} use this template (with type=description or the file name). The reason I didn't decide to do this right away (and thought about reverting you) was to avoid outputs like "Die sachliche Richtigkeit dieser/dieses maps ist umstritten.", but doing some research I found this to be common practice. So yes, I'd (now) agree with making this template (belonging to all of our project's users and visitors :) ) the base template for {{Fact disputed}} and its derivatives. FDMS 4 16:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hm what do you mean exactly (… reverting)? In fact both templates means the same in other words (I wondering here a bit about you, because this is your generally intention here to merge templates). But I could agree to made "your" template as base for all..!? PS: No worry about opposition, be courageous and you will earn honor. :P ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 21:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- Still, using {{Fact disputed}} for anything other than filenames or descriptions looks more like a hack than the intended purpose. I'd therefore prefer keeping both templates and, tbh, think about reverting you there … FDMS 4 20:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hey @FDMS4: , I had forgotten this template for a long time and I've now implemented the same parameter (functionality) in {{Fact disputed}} (ohne diesem hier gewahr zu sein). So what do you say now? The other template is still a base for five others... ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 17:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)