Template talk:Contradicts other

Referencing other article[edit]

This template says that the article contradicts another article, but doesn't say what article that is. It seems like it would make more sense to allow specifing the other conflicting article as a parameter to the template to make it clear where the contradiction is. Ken 02:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Now it has a parameter. Sitenl 20:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
To use this parameter, type {{Contradict-other|XXX}} (where "XXX" is the name of the other article). Ufwuct 23:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Referencing other Wikipedias[edit]

Just a thought. Having played with the Interwiki-Link-Checker, I've encountered way too often articles that seem to contradict the same article in a Wikipedia of another language. Maybe a new cross-Wiki template (or this) could be translated and copied into other Wikipedias.--Jyril 19:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


It doesn't contradict another if it is self-contradictionary (like it categorized articles as) --Ysangkok 14:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. "Category:Self-contradictory articles" just doesn't fit. What should we change it to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barticus88 (talkcontribs) 16. okt 2006 kl. 22:51

Problem with the HTML[edit]

As noted in the current revision of Barbacoa ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barbacoa&oldid=86966114 ) something is wrong with this template when it can't take 100% of the page width. I don't know HTML well enough to fix it. 17:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that the template is normally put at the very top of the article (or if necessary, at the top of a section), above all images, so that formatting problems do not arise and also for correctness (the template says that the article (or section) contradicts, not a paragraph). It appears that another user (Tubezone) has already addressed your issues though, hopefully to your satisfaction. Ufwuct 20:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Please Fix[edit]

I've had problems where I've an article or even a section contradicted TWO (2) articles, i.e. Moria (StarCraft). It would be nice if you guys could make the template more userfriendly. It might also be wise to reconsider

"This article appears to contradict article"

instead of the current

"This article appears to contradict another article (article)"

. 12:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the above. In fact, I think it should be changed as follows:
  • Current optional parameter should be made mandatory
  • A second (optional) parameter should be added, indicating which talk page to link to -- like Template:Merge.
Thoughts? Objections? Iknowyourider (t c) 21:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
While we're at it, could we get this template to be have a date parameter (and to be auto-dated by bots)? I'm willing to make at least some of these changes. Iknowyourider (t c) 21:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I added the second optional parameter for specifying the link target of the talk page. (diff) It's kind of a kludge, but it is easy to use. Documentation also updated. I believe this change to be fully backwards-compatible with the older version of the template, but if I'm wrong, feel free to revert. Iknowyourider (t c) 07:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Almost 3 years later, here's a template that I think is what you are looking for: {{contradict-other-multiple}}. -Frazzydee| 03:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Changes just made to the template[edit]

I have just boldly modified the template two add two optional parameters, and changed the documentation accordingly. The new optional third un-named parameter is the talk page section name where the discussion is to take place. The other optional parameter added is a parameter named date. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Section contradicts other article (section)[edit]

I'd like to have the option to state that a section of this article contradicts another article (or a section of it, in which case one could link to that section). I.e., I'd like to add the |section parameter, just like it is possible in the contradict-template. It would also be useful to make the reference to a talk page optional; sometimes the contradition is so obvious it doesn't need to be explained. Preslav (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, particularly in regard to the section idea. I'm afraid I don't know the wiki syntax well enough to make the change... For instance, the treatment section of Bipolar II disorder and Lamotrigine contradict each other. Allens (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

What is the generic form of the template?[edit]

On the template page, I see the example, but I don't see the generic form of the template. And with all the various parameters, I'm confused as to what it should look like. Help! (For comparison, I'm looking for something that resembles what is on Template:Contradict.) Aristophanes68 (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Link to WP:Content forking[edit]

I suggest that we add a link in the template to WP:Content forking. What do you think? Sole Soul (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Multiple contradicting articles[edit]

Hi, I made a similar template: {{contradict-other-multiple}}. It deals with the case where one article contradicts multiple other articles.

Usage is almost the same as this template, except the talk page parameter (2nd parameter) is mandatory, and I allow you to specify any talk page. Also the section parameter is done using "section = ".

I am quite the newbie at template syntax, so testing, and of course comments, are both appreciated.

If I made any bad decisions regarding parameter choices, now is the time to bring it up (while the template isn't being used). -Frazzydee| 03:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

about= parameter considered desirable[edit]

If you're tagging an article as contradicting itself, you can use {} so that readers know immediately which "fact" to be suspicious of. If those few words are self-explanatory, there doesn't even really need to be a talk page section about the contradiction, unless people need to discuss how to resolve it.

But if the article contradicts another article, there's no about= parameter available; readers have to be told to go to the linked talk page, where a new section has to be placed and the contradiction restated. Since the {} tag should be placed on both articles, that's three edits to report one problem.

Giving {} an about= parameter seems like a no-brainer to me. (In fact I just fixed a contradiction where the tagger had just assumed that a parameter with that purpose existed, and hadn't put anything in the talk page.)

How about it?

-- (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You'd still have to tag both articles. So I think it is better the way t is, to tag both articles with a simple tag, and then explain the issue on the talkpage. Moreover, since contradictions might need some explaining, I'd rather propose the opposite, to remove the about parameter from Template:Contradiction. That is in any case superfluous, since there is also a link to the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm the original poster and I stand by my suggestion. Templates that require the creation of a talk page section should be avoided, because it makes them a pain to use. Sometimes a particular problem required discussion and then a talk page section can be created, but it shouldn't be required if all you're doing is pointing out a contradiction, when an about= parameter would explain what you mean. -- (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree. Sometimes, one can explain a contradiction with one sentence, like "This says X is yellow, but Y article says X is blue." (Something to (optionally?) suppress the talk page link if an "about" is present may also be indicated, both here and for {{Contradiction}}.) Allens (talk | contribs) 22:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Message boxes are hidden by default in the mobile version. This one shouldn't be.[edit]

Right now, amboxes are hidden by default in the mobile version, but the fact that an article contradicts another is important for readers to assess the credibility of what they are reading. Is there a way to make this template visible even when placed other than at the very top of an article? (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:Contradict which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Broken talk page links[edit]

@TheDragonFire: Your edit broke the talk page links that this template generates. Please undo it or fix it. --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 20:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Wikitiki89: Hey. Sorry about this. I've tried to fix the issue, but I'm having issues so I've reverted my edits. I may sit down and figure this out in a sandbox later, or I might just leave it be. TheDragonFire (talk) 02:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 18:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)