Template talk:Controversial

Template:Controversial is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Purpose

I see this template often and I often wonder what it's meant to impart. That Wikipedia acknowledges that the topic is controversial? That should be readily apparent by a number of other warnings and links to prior discussions by that point. That we want users to follow our standard dispute resolution process? I doubt the current language would be successful at that, especially as that language is already shoved into the standard talk header template. That we want users to abide by NPOV? Doubtful that this template sandwiched on the talk page will cut it. Is there one singular thing we're looking for users to get from this? Because there might be a better way to express it with existing templates. czar 22:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 12 June 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Description of suggested change: Please remove the link to WP:CTOP as this template is used mostly on pages that are not WP:CTOP.

Diff:

−

'''The subject of this article is [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|controversial]] and content may be in [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|dispute]].'''

+

'''The subject of this article is potentially controversial.'''

Psychastes (talk) 04:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend letting the TFD reach a consensus before making this or any other substantive change. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100%, this request is mainly contingent on the concerns raised in the TFD discussion. Psychastes (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's mark the request as answered for now, then. —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]