text:
Ignatius

Ignatius is a male given name and a surname. Notable people with the name include:

Religious

 * Ignatius of Antioch (35–108), saint and martyr, Apostolic Father, early Christian bishop
 * Ignatius of Constantinople (797–877), Catholic and Eastern Orthodox saint, Patriarch of Constantinople
 * Ignatios the Deacon (780/790 – after 845), Byzantine bishop and writer
 * Ignatius of Bulgaria, patriarch in 1272–1277
 * Ignatius Brianchaninov (1807–1867), Russian Orthodox saint, bishop and ascetical writer
 * Ignatius of Jesus (1596–1667), Italian Catholic missionary friar
 * Ignatius of Laconi (1701–1781), Italian Catholic saint
 * Ignatius of Loyola (1491–1556), Basque Catholic saint and founder of the Society of Jesus
 * Ignatius of Moscow (1540–1620), Russian Orthodox Patriarch
 * Ignatius Moses I Daoud (or Moussa Daoud) (1930–2012), Syrian Catholic Patriarch
 * Ignatius Zakka I Iwas (born 1933), Syriac Orthodox Patriarch
 * Ignatius III Atiyah, 17th-century Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch of Antioch
 * Ignatius III David, 13th-century Syriac Orthodox Church Patriarch
 * Ignatius IV Sarrouf (1742–1812), Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch of Antioch
 * Ignatius IV (Hazim) of Antioch (1921–2012), Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch
 * Ignatius V Qattan (1756–1833), Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch of Antioch
 * First name of all the Syrian Catholic Patriarchs of Antioch since the 15th century
 * Ignatius Suharyo Hardjoatmodjo (born 1950), Indonesian prelate and current archbishop of Jakarta
 * Ignatius Phakoe (1927–1989), Lesotho Roman Catholic bishop

Other

 * Ignatius Kutu Acheampong (1931–1979), Ghanaian military ruler
 * Ignatius Bernstein (1846–1900), Russian railroad engineer
 * Ignatius Bonomi (1787–1870), British architect
 * Ignatius Valentine Chirol (1852–1929), British writer and diplomat
 * Ignatius Chombo (born 1952), Zimbabwean politician
 * Ignatius L. Donnelly (1831–1901), American politician and writer
 * Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle (1859–1930), British writer and physician
 * Ignatius J. Galantin (1910–2004), American admiral
 * Ignatius Ganago (born 1999), Cameroonian professional footballer
 * Ignatius Joseph Kasimo Hendrowahyono (1900–1986), Indonesian politician
 * Ignatius Jones (1957–2024), Australian singer and producer
 * Ignatius K. Musaazi (1905–1990), Ugandan politician
 * Ignatius Leong (born 1956), Singaporean Chess Organizer
 * Ignatius O'Brien, 1st Baron Shandon (1857–1930), Irish lawyer
 * Igantius Xavier Pereira (1888–1951), Indian Tamil-Sri Lankan businessman and politician
 * Ignatius Sancho (1729–1780), British writer
 * Ignatius Scoles (1834–1896), British architect, priest and writer
 * Ignatius Shixwameni (born 1966), Namibian politician
 * Ignatius Zhuwakiyi (born 1969), Zimbabwean sculptor

Surname

 * Adi Ignatius (born 1959), American journalist
 * David Ignatius (born 1950), American journalist and writer
 * Hannes Ignatius (1871–1941), Finnish general
 * Karl Ferdinand Ignatius (1837–1909), Finnish politician
 * Paul Ignatius (born 1920), American administrator

Fictional characters

 * Ignatius, in the video game Fire Emblem Fates
 * Dr. Ignatius "Iggy" Frome, psychiatrist in TV series New Amsterdam
 * Ignatius Gallaher, in the short story "A Little Cloud" by James Joyce
 * Ignatius Mortimer Meen, the villain in the 1995 video game I.M. Meen
 * Ignatius Martin Perrish, in Horns by Joe Hill and the film adaptation
 * Ignatius J. Reilly, in A Confederacy of Dunces by John Kennedy Toole
 * Horatio Thelonious Ignacious Crustaceous Sebastian, in Disney’s 1989 film The Little Mermaid
 * Percy Ignatius Weasley, in Harry Potter by J.K. Rowling

title: Ignatius


text:
Talk:Heegner number

What does the function denoted Q in this article refer to?

 * Quadratic Field

No, rational numbers. Charles Matthews 20:57, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I had said that I would either create this page or work on it if someone else created it. Now, someone else has created it and I realize that this topic is way over my head. Nevertheless, I will continue my study of imaginary quadratic fields. PrimeFan 19:38, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

--- "Equivalently, its ring of integers has unique factorization"

Should "ring of integers" be "ring of ideals" or something similar? It's been a while since I've taken any number theory classes and I'm not entirely sure on this.

 * No, "ring of integers" is correct. See this article. An ""ideal" is a subset of a ring that is closed under addition, with the additional property that if any element in the ideal is multiplied by a ring element, the result still lies in the ideal. If we consider the ring of ordinary integers, then if n is any integer the set {..., −3n, −2n, −n, 0, n, 2n, 3n, ...} is an ideal because (a) it's closed under addition, and (b) if we multiply any multiple of n by an integer we obtain another multiple of n. (The concept of an ideal grew out of a desire to understand different sorts of algebraic numbers, where addition and multiplication aren't necessarily tied together the way they are in the natural numbers.) DavidCBryant 19:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

structure of the J(...)=x^3 term
I read today a recent post on sci.math.research by Titus P. on the additional structure of the integers obtained as exp(pi sqrt n), namely e^(pi sqrt n) - 744 = (12(a(n)^2-1))^3, where the a(n) are consequently extremely close to an integer for Heegner numbers (=3 mod 4). Could somebody sufficiently competent add one or 2 phrases (and/or xrefs) about that? — MFH:Talk 03:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Mathworld neologism?
This term appears to be a neologism from mathworld. Google books returns two results, one the print version of mathworld, and the other some pop math book. Google scholar does no better, returning 3 results: all post-date the mathworld article. One result is published in a journal. The other two results are web-published. One references the other, which in turn references mathworld. Does anyone think this isn't a mathworld neologism? RobHar (talk) 03:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, and if no one replies I'm going to nominate for deletion (and suggest merging content into Stark–Heegner theorem, Ramanujan's constant, and Formula for primes). RobHar (talk) 00:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a little more Google Scholar and Books hits on "Heegner numbers" than "Heegner number". PrimeHunter (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Definitely not a MathWorld neologism. The term "Heegner numbers" is used by Conway and Guy in The Book of Numbers here (maybe that was what you meant by "some pop math book" ?). This 1996 usage is cited in the MathWorld article, and I have added a ref to our article. Since we have Conway and Guy as a primary source and Weisstein and Sloane/OEIS as secondary sources (plus a few other Google Books hits), I think we can now count this as established terminology. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Alright, thanks. I find it weird that "Heegner numbers" returned more results than "Heegner number". The pop math book I was referring to was "The Kingdom of Infinite Number: A Field Guide"; had the Conway book turned up with the "Heegner number" query, I would've been more accepting. The term is still clearly extremely rare and not used at all in the field, but oh well I guess. Thanks again. RobHar (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it a useful article; if it exists, it needs a name. Is discriminants of complex quadratic fields of class number 1 really an improvement? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I think that the entirety of the contents can quite nicely be merged into the three articles I mentioned above, thus rendering this article a mere definition of a rarely used term. RobHar (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Ramanujan's constant should be merged here (there is no corresponding name for the other near-integers); any of this would be disproportionate in Formula for primes; and Stark-Heegner theorem is nicely complementary to this article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

 * This may be a relatively recent neologism. But I don't find it to be of the vexing kind - it's not promoting anything, just giving a label to a short but significant list of discriminants. There is something to be said on both sides, but I think the status quo is OK. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

 * After actually bothering to read the notability guidelines for numbers, I see that this article as it stands violates criterion 4 of Notability (numbers), i.e.
 * Is there at least one commonly accepted name for this sequence?
 * There is clearly no commonly accepted name for this set of numbers. Do what you will with this. RobHar (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

?
Does anyone know why $$e^{\pi \sqrt{58}}$$ is so close to an integer? 4 T C 07:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Good question. I've just checked it (using SpeedCrunch, if anyone's interested) and you're right, it is very close to one. It comes to approximately;

24591257751.999999822213241.

I don't know the reason for this either, and I'd be interested to know what it is (I'm guessing that with a result that close to being an integer, there's a reason for it).

Meltingpot (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

was this really conjectured by Gauss?
Can someone give an exact reference to the fact that this was conjectured by Gauss?

Gauss' class number one list, row I.1 in article 303 of Disquisitiones Arithmeticae, is: 1,2,3,4,7 and the completeness of this list was proved by Landau 1902 (see Goldfeld, Bull. AMS, 1985, p.26). Gauss is looking at a slightly different question, with nontrivial overlap, but different. Did he conjecture _elsewhere_ this Heegner list?

129.199.2.17 (talk) 09:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

 * I don't know off-hand the answer to your question, but the point is that Gauss conjectured something which in modern terms is that those nine numbers give all imaginary quadratic fields of class number 1. It is very common in math to restate conjectures/theorems like this and still attribute them to the old folks. RobHar (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

don't put thousands separators under !
So reads a hidden comment throughout the article. I wonder whether there is any reason not to. I can only suppose that it's because something like  won't work but   does and is used on the article. Better still, though, we could have  as in this version. The article is much more readable when numbers are formatted. Can anyone enlighten me as to whether there is some convention not to format numbers within  and why this would be so given that all   is is a tool for displaying formulae etc.? Jimp 13:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've found the reason and it was just as I'd suspected: "do not fall to such heresy as $$262,537,412,640,768,743$$! it is rendered with unreadable spaces after commas". (as used on the article) isn't nor is. The latter is the most readable of the two (and better by far than ). Jimp 13:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Bad formatting of the compound exponentials appears to be a problem throughout this entire wiki article. I fixed one section. Expert Review Needed!
I fixed the formatting in →Almost integers and Ramanujan's constant:

with the explanation  had bad formatting of the compound exponential, as easily shown by actually computing the number. As previously shown, including on MathWorld (still in error), the final exponentiation was improperly shown as mere multiplication. I have corrected the formatting for both the wiki article itself and the equation from the references. The latter correction may be improper, but it seems best to stop propagating the error. Someone tell me! YodaWhat (talk) 09:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC) undo

But I am uncertain if it actually IS an error everywhere it seems to be, and I only had the confidence to fix the one area in which I could actually compute the correct numeric answer myself to verify. Certainly the number 262,537,412,640,768,743.999,999,999,999,25... cannot be reached unless the (non-RPN) calculator sequence is e to the pi to the root163

Someone expert in this field (and in Wikipedia protocols) needs to review the entire article now, including my changes!

YodaWhat (talk) 09:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Your changes were wrong and have been reverted. Exponentiation is right-associative (see Exponentiation), so ab c means a(b c) which is not the same as (ab)c. You may also be unaware of the rule (ab)c = ab×c. The expressions could have been written as (ab)c with the parentheses but it's far more common to write ab×c. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

My dear Mr., you are wrong, in every way. I stated my case humbly and simply, in a way that could be verified easily, while the right-associative exponentiation method you first suggest does not pass any 'sanity test' and is disproven easily. Any old scientific calculator would disprove your method in seconds, but you failed to check. Why? We are looking for a numeric result of the order 2.6x10^17, and Pi^root163 is of the order 2,224,255, and e^222 is of the order 2.6x10^96 already. Clearly a drastic mistake! [Though a^(b×c) works.]

Your education has betrayed you, and you should really have checked results numerically, as I did, before insulting me by saying I was wrong. I would not have made bold to make ANY change had I not triple-checked things for myself in a very clear and simple way. You, on the other hand, are merely following DOGMA, a type of mistake that is unfortunately very common. Dogma can be true, in the right time and place, but your element of dogma is incorrectly applied here, resulting in Fogma. Then you try to justify your mistake with an appeal to authority that would get you sharply reprimanded in Debate class. Yours are the kinds of errors which can get one a reputation for being a lazy, lying, pompous ass. Do you want to be known as a pompous ass? No? Do you want to spread lies and claim they are gospel truth? No? Then you will kindly revert your reversion, AND please fix the rest of the article, yes? I actually took the time to do the computation every which way, and it works properly the way shown in my changes. Please do the computation yourself, and see for yourself. It is easily done to high precision in Windows Calculator in Scientific mode, as shown in these results copied and pasted from that calculator [calc.exe version 6.9.9200.16384] Here are the calculations: The square root of 163 = 12.767145334803704661710952009781 e^pi = 2.7182818284590452353602874713527^3.1415926535897932384626433832795 = 23.14069263277926900572908636795 23.14069263277926900572908636795^12.767145334803704661710952009781 = 262,537,412,640,768,743.9999999999994 You cannot trust the typesetter at some website or even of a book, nor even your professors at college to get every detail exactly correct. Nor can you trust that the order of exponentiation used today is the same as used centuries ago. Things change, and most individuals are not entirely consistent, either. If computed as you suggest, Pi^root163, which equals 2,224,255.524210951847131440033073, then e^2,224,255.524210951847131440033073, the calculator returns an error, invalid input. Of course it cannot handle that calculation, it can compute numbers up to 9.9999999999999999999999999999999x10^9999 "only". It naturally will not accept 2.7182818284590452353602874713527^2,224,255.524210951847131440033073 either. So there it is. Meanwhile, having already achieved the correct result using what you call the wrong way, I shrug and say 'Equations can confuse, but the numbers don't lie.' P.S. -- The referenced equation from Mathworld is still wrong. Can that error be fixed? Thank you for your attention. YodaWhat (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said, exponentiation is right-associative. This is a mathematical definition. See e.g. the Google search . Don't trust some old calculator. It's harder to implement right-associative and many calculators don't do it. Modern programming languages usually follow the mathematical definition. See e.g. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2%5E2%5E3, or enter 2^2^3 at https://pari.math.u-bordeaux.fr/gp.html. They both compute 2^2^3 = 2^(2^3) = 2^8 = 256, whereas (2^2)^3 = 64. Anyway, the article never says ab c so we don't even have to discuss the correct meaning unless you change the article to use that notation incorrectly. It's not an insult to simply say that somebody is wrong. You are however insulting me, and you are still wrong. Please see No personal attacks and Civility. By the way, it wasn't me who reverted you, but I agree with the user who did it. The article is correct and MathWorld is correct. $$e^{\pi \sqrt{163}}$$ only has one exponentiation since π and 163 has the same baseline in the typography. The expression is $$e^{(\pi \times \sqrt{163})}$$ by syntactic definition, without even having to define exponentiation. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Missing minus sign?
The article states

Euler's formula, with n taking the values 1,... 40 is equivalent to

n2 + n + 41

Shouldn't this be as follows?

Euler's formula, with n taking the values -1,... -40 is equivalent to

n2 + n + 41 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark.sullivan (talk • contribs) 18:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Your quote is incomplete. The article says:

Euler's prime-generating polynomial

 * $$n^2 - n + 41, \, $$

which gives (distinct) primes for n = 1, ..., 40, is related to the Heegner number 163 = 4 · 41 − 1.

Euler's formula, with $$n$$ taking the values 1,... 40 is equivalent to
 * $$n^2 + n + 41, \, $$

with $$n$$ taking the values 0,... 39

 * This is correct. It would give the same result to take -1,... -40 in $$n^2 + n + 41, \, $$ but I have never seen a source choose the negative values. The issue is that Euler wrote $$n^2 - n + 41, \ $$ while modern sources often write $$n^2 + n + 41, \, $$ so we explain that it merely corresponds to shifting n by 1. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Heegner number


text:
2004 in literature

This article contains information about the literary events and publications of 2004.

Events

 * January
 * The poet Jang Jin-sung, in trouble with the North Korean authorities, defects to South Korea.
 * The Richard & Judy Book Club is launched on UK daytime television.
 * February – Canada Reads selects Guy Vanderhaeghe's The Last Crossing to be read across the nation.
 * February 16 – Edwin Morgan becomes Scotland's first official national poet, the Scots Makar, appointed by the Scottish Parliament.
 * May 23 – Seattle Central Library, designed by Rem Koolhaas, opens to the public.
 * June 1 – Controversy surrounds Battle Royale by Koushun Takami (高見広春), when an 11-year-old fan of the story in Sasebo, Nagasaki, murders her classmate, 12-year-old Satomi Mitarai, in a way that mimics a scene from the story.
 * October 14 – Edinburgh becomes UNESCO's first City of Literature.
 * October 31 – Denoël in Paris publishes Irène Némirovsky's Suite française, consisting of two novellas, Tempête en juin and Dolce, written and set in 1940–1941, from a sequence left unfinished on the author's death in Auschwitz concentration camp in 1942.
 * December 18 – The première of Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti's play Behzti (Dishonour) at England's Birmingham Repertory Theatre is cancelled after violent protests by members of the Sikh community.
 * unknown dates
 * Kansas City Public Library's Community Bookshelf is built.
 * The typeface Calibri, designed by Luc(as) de Groot, is introduced.

Fiction

 * Cecelia Ahern – PS, I Love You
 * C. C. Allentini – Dead of Winter
 * Germano Almeida – O mar na Lajinha
 * John Ames – Wake Up Sir!
 * R. Scott Bakker – The Darkness That Comes Before
 * Blue Balliett – Chasing Vermeer
 * Iain M. Banks – The Algebraist
 * Steven Barnes – The Cestus Deception
 * Alistair Beaton – A Planet for the President
 * Thomas Berger – Adventures of the Artificial Woman
 * Louis de Bernières – Birds Without Wings
 * Roberto Bolaño (posthumous) – 2666
 * Xurxo Borrazás – Ser ou non
 * T. C. Boyle – The Inner Circle
 * Anthony Cartwright – The Afterglow
 * Gennifer Choldenko – Al Capone Does My Shirts
 * Kate Christensen – The Epicure's Lament: A Novel
 * Stephen Clarke – A Year in the Merde
 * Susanna Clarke – Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell
 * Wendy Coakley-Thompson – Back to Life
 * Allison Hedge Coke – Rock, Ghost, Willow, Deer
 * Suzanne Collins – Gregor the Overlander
 * J. J. Connolly – Layer Cake
 * Afua Cooper – The Hanging of Angelique
 * Bernard Cornwell
 * Sharpe's Escape
 * The Last Kingdom
 * Douglas Coupland – Eleanor Rigby
 * Stevie Davies – Kith & Kin
 * L. Sprague de Camp, Lin Carter and Björn Nyberg – Sagas of Conan
 * Michel Déon – Your Father's Room
 * Cory Doctorow – Eastern Standard Tribe
 * Ben Elton – Past Mortem
 * Gustav Ernst – Grado. Süße Nacht
 * Giorgio Faletti – Niente di vero tranne gli occhi
 * Jon Fosse – Det er Ales (Aliss at the Fire)
 * Karen Joy Fowler – The Jane Austen Book Club
 * Ge Fei (格非) – 人面桃花 (Renmian Taohua, Peach Blossom Beauty)
 * Robert Goddard – Play to the End
 * Adrien Goetz – La Dormeuse de Naples
 * Helon Habila – Waiting for an Angel
 * Margaret Peterson Haddix – Among the Brave
 * Elisabeth Harvor, All Times Have Been Modern (Canada)
 * Michael Helm – In the Place of Last Things
 * Carl Hiaasen – Skinny Dip
 * Alan Hollinghurst – The Line of Beauty
 * Jiang Rong – Wolf Totem
 * Cynthia Kadohata – Kira-Kira
 * Mitsuyo Kakuta (角田 光代) – Woman on the Other Shore
 * Peg Kehret – Escaping the Giant Wave
 * Thomas Keneally – The Tyrant's Novel
 * Stephen King
 * The Dark Tower VI: Song of Susannah
 * The Dark Tower VII: The Dark Tower
 * John Kiriamiti – My Life in Prison
 * Karl Ove Knausgård – A Time to Every Purpose Under Heaven (En tid for alt)
 * László Krasznahorkai – Destruction and Sorrow Beneath the Heavens (Rombolás és bánat az Ég alatt)
 * Thor Kunkel – Endstufe
 * David Leavitt – The Body of Jonah Boyd
 * Tanith Lee – Piratica
 * David Lodge – Author, Author
 * Andreï Makine – The Woman Who Waited (La femme qui attendait)
 * Henning Mankell – Depths
 * David Michaels – Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell
 * David Mitchell – Cloud Atlas
 * Aka Morchiladze – Santa Esperanza
 * Bharati Mukherjee – The Tree Bride
 * Alice Munro – Runaway
 * V. S. Naipaul – Magic Seeds
 * Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o – Mũrogi wa Kagogo (Wizard of the Crow)
 * Garth Nix – Grim Tuesday
 * Cees Nooteboom – Lost Paradise (Paradijs verloren)
 * Daniel Olivas – Devil Talk: Stories
 * Linda Sue Park – When My Name Was Keoko
 * Jodi Picoult – My Sister's Keeper
 * Terry Pratchett
 * A Hat Full of Sky
 * Going Postal
 * Michael Reaves and Steve Perry – MedStar I: Battle Surgeons and MedStar II: Jedi Healer
 * Marilynne Robinson – Gilead
 * Philip Roth – The Plot Against America
 * Edward Rutherfurd – Dublin: Foundation
 * Nick Sagan – Edenborn
 * Andrzej Sapkowski – Warriors of God
 * David Sherman and Dan Cragg – Jedi Trial
 * Kyle Smith – Love Monkey
 * David Southwell – Conspiracy Files
 * Muriel Spark – The Finishing School
 * Olen Steinhauer – The Confession
 * Neal Stephenson
 * The Confusion (Vol. II of the Baroque Cycle)
 * The System of the World (Vol. III of the Baroque Cycle)
 * Sean Stewart – Yoda: Dark Rendezvous
 * Thomas Sullivan – Dust of Eden
 * Michel Thaler – Le Train de Nulle Part
 * Colm Tóibín – The Master
 * Zlatko Topčić – Bare Skin
 * Karen Traviss – Star Wars Republic Commando: Hard Contact
 * Jonathan Trigell – Boy A
 * Andrew Vachss – Down Here
 * Vivian Vande Velde – Heir Apparent
 * Bob Weltlich – Crooked Zebra
 * A. N. Wilson – My Name Is Legion
 * Michael Winter – The Big Why
 * Carlos Ruiz Zafon – The Shadow of the Wind
 * Juli Zeh – Gaming Instinct
 * Florian Zeller – La Fascination du pire (The Fascination of Evil)

Children and young people

 * David Almond – Kate, the Cat and the Moon
 * Mary Bartek – Funerals and Fly Fishing
 * John Fardell – The Seven Professors of the Far North
 * Mem Fox – Where Is the Green Sheep?
 * Cornelia Funke – When Santa Fell to Earth
 * Virginia Hamilton (with Barry Moser) – Wee Winnie Witch's Skinny: An Original African American Scare Tale
 * E. L. Konigsburg - The Outcasts of 19 Schuyler Place
 * J. Patrick Lewis (with Gary Kelley) – The Stolen Smile
 * Robert Muchamore – The Recruit (first in the CHERUB series)
 * Jenny Nimmo – Charlie Bone and the Blue Boa
 * Liz Pichon – My Big Brother, Boris
 * Carlos Cuauhtémoc Sánchez – The Eyes of My Princess
 * Lemony Snicket – The Grim Grotto
 * Dugald Steer (with Nghiem Ta, etc.) – Egyptology: Search for the Tomb of Osiris

Drama

 * Alan Bennett – The History Boys
 * Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti – Behzti
 * Neil Brand – Stan (radio)
 * Bryony Lavery – Frozen
 * Brent Hartinger – Geography Club
 * Louis Nowra – The Woman with Dog's Eyes
 * John Patrick Shanley – Doubt
 * Florian Zeller – L'Autre (The Other)

Poetry

 * Seamus Heaney – Beacons at Bealtaine

Non-fiction

 * Steve Almond – Candyfreak
 * Thomas P.M. Barnett – The Pentagon's New Map
 * Ingmar and Ingrid Bergman and Maria von Rosen – Tre dagböcker (Three diaries)
 * T. Mike Childs – The Rocklopedia Fakebandica
 * Richard A. Clarke – Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror
 * Jonathan Coe – Like A Fiery Elephant: The Story of B. S. Johnson
 * Allison Hedge Coke – Rock, Ghost, Willow, Deer
 * Anne Coleman – I'll Tell You a Secret
 * Flora Fraser – Princesses: The Six Daughters of George III
 * Leonie Frieda – Catherine de' Medici
 * Sheila Hancock – The Two of Us: My Life with John Thaw
 * Gareth Stedman Jones – An End to Poverty?
 * Pedro Lemebel – Adiós mariquita linda
 * Doris Lessing – Time Bites: Views and Reviews
 * Lawrence Lessig – Free Culture
 * Mario Vargas Llosa – The Temptation of the Impossible
 * Roger Lowenstein – Origins of the Crash
 * Hugh Masekela – Still Grazing (autobiography)
 * Predrag Miletić – Biciklom do Hilandara
 * Farah Pahlavi – An Enduring Love: My Life with the Shah
 * Chuck Palahniuk – Stranger Than Fiction: True Stories
 * Michael Palin – Himalaya
 * Sethy Regenvanu – Laef blong mi (From village to nation: an autobiography)
 * Anita Roddick – Take it Personally: How globalization affects you and powerful ways to challenge it
 * Miranda Seymour – The Bugatti Queen: In Search of a Motor-Racing Legend
 * Owen Sheers – The Dust Diaries
 * Rebecca Solnit – Hope in the Dark
 * Ben Stein – Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, The Truth, and What to Do About It
 * Jon Stewart and writers of The Daily Show – America (The Book): A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction
 * Milt Thomas – Cave of a Thousand Tales
 * J. Maarten Troost – The Sex Lives of Cannibals
 * United Kingdom Government – Delivering Security in a Changing World
 * Francis Wheen – How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World (also Idiot Proof: A Short History of Modern Delusions)
 * Alford A. Young Jr. – The Minds of Marginalized Black Men

Films

 * 2046 - inspired by Liu Yichang's "The Drunkard"
 * Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
 * The Phantom of the Opera

Deaths

 * January 3 – Lillian Beckwith, English novelist (born 1916)
 * January 4
 * Joan Aiken, English novelist and children's writer (born 1924)
 * Jeff Nuttall, English poet, artist and activist (born 1933)
 * Dorota Terakowska, Polish writer and journalist, author of fantasy books for children and young adults (born 1938)
 * John Toland, American author and historian (born 1912)
 * January 10
 * Alexandra Ripley, American novelist (born 1934)
 * (or January 11) Spalding Gray, American writer and actor (born 1942)
 * January 13 – Zeno Vendler, American philosopher and linguist (born 1921)
 * January 14 – Jack Cady, American fantasy and horror novelist (born 1932)
 * January 15
 * Alex Barris, Canadian actor and writer (born 1922)
 * Olivia Goldsmith, American novelist (complications from cosmetic surgery, born 1949)
 * January 24 – Abdul Rahman Munif, Arab writer (born 1933)
 * January 29
 * Janet Frame, New Zealand novelist, poet and short story writer (born 1924)
 * M. M. Kaye, Indian-born English novelist (born 1908)
 * February 2 – Alan Bullock, English historian (born 1914)
 * February 4 – Hilda Hilst, Brazilian poet, playwright and novelist (born 1930)
 * February 5 – Frances Partridge, English diarist (born 1900)
 * February 7 – Norman Thelwell, English cartoonist (born 1923)
 * February 17 – Bruce Beaver, Australian poet and novelist (born 1928)
 * February 27 – Paul Sweezy, American economist and editor (born 1910)
 * February 28 – Daniel J. Boorstin, American historian (born 1914)
 * February 29 – Jerome Lawrence, American playwright (born 1915)
 * March 9 – Albert Mol, Dutch author, actor and dancer (born 1917)
 * March 27 – Robert Merle, French novelist (born 1908)
 * March 29 – Peter Ustinov, English actor, dramatist and memoirist (born 1921)
 * March 30
 * Alistair Cooke, English-born American journalist and broadcaster (born 1908)
 * Michael King OBE, New Zealand historian, author and biographer (born 1945)
 * April 19
 * Norris McWhirter, English writer and activist (born 1925)
 * John Maynard Smith, English evolutionary biologist and writer (born 1920)
 * April 25 – Thom Gunn, English poet (born 1929)
 * April 26 – Hubert Selby, Jr., American author (born 1928)
 * May 2 – Paul Guimard, French writer (born 1921)
 * May 12
 * Syd Hoff, American author and illustrator (born 1912)
 * Alexander Skutch, American scientific writer and naturalist (born 1904)
 * May 31 – Lionel Abrahams, South African novelist, poet and essayist (born 1928)
 * July 1 – Peter Barnes, English playwright (born 1931)
 * July 8 – Paula Danziger, American children's and young adult novelist (born 1945)
 * August 8 – Farida Diouri, Moroccan novelist (born 1953)
 * August 12 – Humayun Azad, Bangladeshi author, poet, scholar and linguist (born 1947)
 * August 14 – Czesław Miłosz, Polish writer and Nobel laureate (born 1911)
 * August 30 – Mario Levrero, Uruguayan novelist (born 1940)
 * September 18 – Norman Cantor, Canadian historian (born 1929)
 * September 24 – Françoise Sagan, French novelist (born 1935)
 * September 28 – Mulk Raj Anand, Indian novelist in English (born 1905)
 * October – Natalya Baranskaya, Russian short-story writer (born 1908)
 * October 8 – Jacques Derrida, Algerian-born French literary critic (born 1930)
 * October 13 – Bernice Rubens, Welsh-born novelist (born 1928)
 * October 16
 * Vincent Brome, English biographer and novelist (born 1910)
 * Harold Perkin, English social historian (born 1926)
 * October 20 – Anthony Hecht, American poet (born 1923)
 * November 9 – Stieg Larsson, Swedish journalist and crime novelist (heart attack, born 1954)
 * November 24 – Arthur Hailey, Canadian novelist (born 1920)
 * December 2 – Mona Van Duyn, American poet (born 1921)
 * December 8 – Jackson Mac Low, American poet (born 1922)
 * December 12 – Phaswane Mpe, South African novelist (born 1970)
 * December 13 – Jón frá Pálmholti (Jón Kjartansson), Icelandic writer and journalist (born 1930)
 * December 18 – Anthony Sampson, British journalist and biographer (born 1926)
 * December 28 – Susan Sontag, American novelist (born 1933)

Awards

 * Nobel Prize for Literature: Elfriede Jelinek
 * Camões Prize: Agustina Bessa-Luís

Australia

 * The Australian/Vogel Literary Award: Julienne van Loon, Road Story
 * Victorian Premier's Literary Award C. J. Dennis Prize for Poetry: Judith Beveridge, Wolf Notes
 * Kenneth Slessor Prize for Poetry: Pam Brown, Dear Deliria: New & Selected Poems
 * Mary Gilmore Prize: David McCooey, Blister Pack; Michael Brennan, Imageless World
 * Miles Franklin Award: Shirley Hazzard, The Great Fire
 * Victorian Premier's Literary Award Vance Palmer Prize for Fiction: Annamarie Jagose, Slow Water

Canada

 * Giller Prize: Alice Munro, Runaway
 * Governor General's Awards: See 2004 Governor General's Awards
 * Griffin Poetry Prize: Anne Simpson, Loop and August Kleinzahler, The Strange Hours Travelers Keep
 * Edna Staebler Award for Creative Non-Fiction: Andrea Curtis, Into the Blue

Sweden

 * Astrid Lindgren Memorial Award: Lygia Bojunga Nunes

United Kingdom

 * Caine Prize for African Writing: Brian Chikwava, "Seventh Street Alchemy"
 * Carnegie Medal for children's literature: Frank Cottrell Boyce, Millions
 * Cholmondeley Award: John Agard, Ruth Padel Lawrence Sail, Eva Salzman
 * Eric Gregory Award: Nick Laird, Elizabeth Manuel, Abi Curtis, Sophie Levy, Saradha Soobrayen
 * James Tait Black Memorial Prize for biography: Jonathan Bate, John Clare: A Biography
 * James Tait Black Memorial Prize for fiction: David Peace, GB84
 * Man Booker Prize: Alan Hollinghurst, The Line of Beauty
 * Orange Prize for Fiction: Andrea Levy, Small Island
 * Queen's Gold Medal for Poetry: Hugo Williams
 * Whitbread Best Book Award: Andrea Levy, Small Island

United States

 * Aiken Taylor Award for Modern American Poetry: Henry Taylor
 * Agnes Lynch Starrett Poetry Prize: Aaron Smith, Blue on Blue Ground
 * Bernard F. Connors Prize for Poetry: Jeremy Glazier, "Conversations with the Sidereal Messenger"
 * Bobbitt National Prize for Poetry: B.H. Fairchild, Early Occult Memory Systems of the Lower Midwest
 * Brittingham Prize in Poetry: John Brehm, Sea of Faith
 * Compton Crook Award: E. E. Knight, Way of the Wolf
 * Frost Medal: Richard Howard
 * Hugo Award for Best Novel: Lois McMaster Bujold, Paladin of Souls
 * Lambda Literary Awards: Multiple categories; see 2004 Lambda Literary Awards.
 * National Book Award for Fiction: to The News from Paraguay by Lily Tuck
 * National Book Critics Circle Award: to Gilead by Marilynne Robinson
 * PEN/Faulkner Award for Fiction: to The Early Stories: 1953–1975 by John Updike
 * Wallace Stevens Award: Mark Strand
 * Whiting Awards:
 * Fiction: Daniel Alarcón, Kirsten Bakis, Victor LaValle
 * Nonfiction: Allison Glock, John Jeremiah Sullivan
 * Plays: Elana Greenfield, Tracey Scott Wilson
 * Poetry: Catherine Barnett, Dan Chiasson, A. Van Jordan

Elsewhere

 * Premio Nadal: Antonio Soler, El camino de los ingleses

title: 2004 in literature


text:
European Society for Evolutionary Biology

The European Society for Evolutionary Biology (ESEB) was founded in 1987 in Basel (Switzerland) with around 450 evolutionary biologists attending the inaugural congress. It is an academic society that brings together more than 1500 evolutionary biologists from across Europe and beyond. The founding of the society was closely linked with the launch of the society's journal, the Journal of Evolutionary Biology with the first issue appearing in 1988. ESEB aims at supporting the study of evolution. Beside publishing the journal and co-publishing Evolution Letters, the society organises a biannual congress and supports other events to promote advances in evolutionary biology. ESEB also supports activities to promote a scientific view of evolution in research and education.

Its objectives are to "Support the study of organic evolution and the integration of those scientific fields that are concerned with evolution: molecular and microbial evolution, behaviour, genetics, ecology, life histories, development, paleontology, systematics and morphology."

ESEB supports young researchers through sponsoring the annual EMPSEB (European Meeting of PhD Students in Evolutionary Biology) research conference for Ph.D. students.

Presidents
Source: ESEB
 * 1987–1989 : Arthur Cain (first president)
 * 1989–1991 : Bengt Bengtsson
 * 1991–1993 : John Maynard Smith
 * 1993–1995 : John L. Harper
 * 1995–1997 : Wim Scharloo
 * 1997–1999 : Stephen Stearns
 * 1999–2001 : Godfrey Hewitt
 * 2001–2003 : Deborah Charlesworth
 * 2003–2005 : Rolf Hoekstra
 * 2005–2007 : Paul Brakefield
 * 2007–2009 : Isabelle Olivieri
 * 2009–2011 : Siv Andersson
 * 2011–2013 : Brian Charlesworth
 * 2013–2015 : Roger Butlin
 * 2015–2017 : Laurent Keller
 * 2017–2019 : Nina Wedell
 * 2019–2021 : Ophélie Ronce


text:
USS Asheville

Four ships of the United States Navy have been named Asheville after Asheville, North Carolina.

 * USS Asheville (PG-21), was a gunboat that served in the Caribbean and off the China coast, and was sunk by Japanese forces early in World War II.
 * USS Asheville (PF-1), an Asheville-class patrol frigate, served on the East Coast doing escort duties during World War II.
 * USS Asheville (PGM-84), a high-speed gunboat, served in the Vietnam War.
 * USS Asheville (SSN-758), is a Los Angeles-class submarine, currently in service.

title: USS Asheville


text:
Template talk:Disputed

Link to Dutch wiki
This page is semi-protected so I cannot edit it, however, could someone please give it a link to nl:Sjabloon:Twijfel ? Salaskan 09:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Add [Category:Disputed] in the template ?
By adding this category in the template, it becomes very easy to make the list of disputed pages : Category:Disputed. This would be superior to the "What Links here" method (includes a lot of undisputed article), or the search method (not real-time update of the search index), both currently used in Accuracy dispute. We plan to use this method in the new Template:Todo.

I'm asking this because the template is protected, and thus I cannot change it. Pcarbonn 19:04, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree, but the category ought to be Category:Accuracy disputes. Also this template should use the standard  markup.  --Eequor 11:40, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure what is this standard markup: where is the documentation ? Also, are you suggesting that one category should contain both the disputed articles and the disputed statements ? My initial idea was to keep them separate ? Pcarbonn 20:50, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yellow box
How about a yellow box around this like the one for Template:Protected? Or maybe blue, if yellow isn't fitting enough. Either way, we should have some way of making this warning more visible. -- [[User talk:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 02:01, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't think it needs to be any more visible. But see also Template talk:NPOV. --Joy [shallot]   21:59, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please add red hand

Please add the red hand logo to this template. Masterhomer 09:31, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Done. Have a cookie. - Mark 09:40, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Proposed box

 * I agree with whoever posted that box above. Many similar messages are already standardized to this.  Just one thing:  I don't like the colour - but that's just my personal preference and no-one needs take any notice of it. Neonumbers 10:41, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I changed the box to the new layout. Thanks for the work -- Chris 73 Talk 23:39, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't see what was wrong with using O RLY owl:

___ {o,o} -"-"- O RLY? The factual accuracy of this article is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.
 * )__)

--82.139.47.117 14:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Disputeabout
I propose a new box Template:Disputeabout, where a brief message about the topic of the dispute can be added. Often, long articles are tagged as disputed, just because one subtopic is disputed. A brief message about the nature of the dispute would greatly help the casual user. E.g.   would look like

Comments are welcome -- Chris 73 Talk 23:49, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

wastes whitespace
This template seems to include a couple of blank lines above it. Can they be removed and/or can the template be made to look more like the other templates (that don't seem to waste space above)? zen master 15:38, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

change needed
In order to avoid problems listed at Meta-templates considered harmful, please "subst:" this template so that it no longer directly depends on Template:Message box. -- Netoholic @ 08:04, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

Template:disputed/perpetual

 * Template:npov/perpetual

link to instructions in the template?
I think this template might be improved if it included instructions on how to complete the process, the way that Template:Copyvio had instructions added to it that, if you'd just added the tag, to make sure you wrote an entry at WP:CP as well. Prior to that, a lot of copyvios were being mishandled because so many people thought that once they'd slapped on the tag, they'd done their part. Right now I see the "disputed" tag being misused a lot by people who think it's what they slap on if they see anything in an article they disagree with, and that it goes on with the "dubious" tag. It might be good if they got instructed to read and make sure they've followed the instructions at Accuracy dispute when they put the tag on. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Display problem
I wouldn't want to mess this up further myself, but the template isn't displaying correctly in the "Classic" skin. The stop sign is too big for the surrounding box, and the text therein as left justified (with empty space on the right). Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Fixed. Why isn't this template using Message_Box, though? --Zetawoof 20:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

section accuracy
is there a template for an accuracy issue thats restricted to a specific section and if not should i create one? Plugwash 00:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Template:Disputed-section. Jon513 17:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Choice of icon
Wouldn't Image:Circle-question.png be a more appropriate icon to summarize the message in this template, as well as the messages in Disputeabout and Sectfact? --  Denelson83  07:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, it is far more appropriate. The stop hand, as mentioned in regards to, sends the message that you shouldn't reach the article at all. Instead we should be saying that the reader should read with caution. joturn e r 22:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone in favor of Image:Circle-question-red.png? I belive it is a bit more appropiate than Image:Circle-question.png and far more appropiate than the stop hand. -- Dom th  e  dude  0  0  1  22:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Personally, I was in favour of the stophand. Disputed, unlike point of view, isn't just a question, it's trying to combat actual falsehood - a black-and-white contradiction of facts.  Disputed appears on the most war-torn articles around, and this template should really catch the reader and tell them not to believe what they're reading.  So, between the two, if it had to be a question mark, I'd definitely go for the red.

This template should not exist
I don't believe this template should exist. Factual accuracy is not relevant to policy. Official Wikipedia:Verifiability policy says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." In other words, it doesn't matter whether anything is factual or not, but whether it can be found in a reliable source. Disputing whether something is factual takes debate off on in irrelevant tangent. It doesn't matter whether anything in the article is true or factual. Operation Spooner 03:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Factual accuracy is extremely relevant to the credibility of the encyclopedia. Even though Wikipedia purports to be about verification and notability, verification against falsehoods only leads to ridicule and flight of users to other resources.  "Building an encyclopedia" implies "Building, to the best of our ability, a factually accurate encyclopedia". --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you're wrong simply because what is "true" for one editor might not be considered by another editor to be true. You see, the idea of verifiability, not truth, as found in the Wikipedia policy, WP:V, is that whenever "factual disputes" occur, NPOV means that both or all sides of the dispute are covered neutrally in the article.  So I agree that this maint. tag should not exist.  It is completely against policy. –  Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  15:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you always think in black and white only? "you're wrong", "completely against policy"... In any case, to the point: your objection would be true in a finished and perfect encyclopedia, but not on Wikipedia, which is a work in progress. On Wikipedia, articles might contain statements that are factually incorrect. Either because they are not sourced at all, or they are taken from poor sources that should not have been used in the first place, or even from disputed sources. And although it would at first glance seem reasonable to say tat if so, a sourcing tag should be used, this tag adds additional importance to that by asserting that the statement is likely to be incorrect. Debresser (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My point exactly— the tag itself was "black and white" to imply that, if placed at the top of an article, the whole article is a pack of lies. The addition that I made to the tag, plus the acceptable modification, will better alert editors to precisely what you bring out above:  That either the factual disputes need to be sourced if not already sourced, and they need to be reliably sourced if the existing sources are wanting. –  Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  12:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

 * So the current version is all good then? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Well, I think it is better than it was before surely. Debresser (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Ditto, and thank you both! – Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  11:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Category problem
To my knowledge, use of this template is supposed to put articles into Category:Accuracy disputes, but it doesn't seem to be working. Before I go on a debugging run, anyone have any ideas why the problem may have occurred? --Elonka 10:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what's going on. Category:Accuracy disputes is tagged with __HIDDENCAT__, which means that it's not shown on member pages.  Wow, learn something new every day.... --Elonka 20:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Dispute discussion on another page
In cases where an article dispute may be discussed on another page (e.g. a Mediation Cabal discussion page such as this one. At the moment this template will only forward to the talk page of the article. --Deadly∀ssassin 23:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Another example of this problem, which is currently in the news, is the article currently called Burma, whose title is disputed. The link from the template should go to the page Talk:Burma/Myanmar, as this subject has been split out from Talk:Burma. --207.176.159.90 (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Related template search help request
Are there any templates that permit tagging an article as not necessarily factually innacurate, but nonetheless misleading, out-of-context or not comprehensive? - particularly over-application of information that only applies to a subset of instances (not necessarily related to geogrpahy - c.f Template:Globalize.

--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Language
A suggestion has been made at Template_talk:Disputed-section to add "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." This would match the wording of POV and POV-section. However, it would make no sense to make the change on disputed-section and not here. Any objections to this change?--Aervanath (talk) 09:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Copied from Template talk:Disputed-section to centralise discussion
Shouldn't this template include language similar to Template:NPOV-section, i.e. "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved", except that it should link to Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute? Xasodfuih (talk) 08:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would support the change, but I won't make it until someone else chimes in in support. I'll also post this suggestion at Template talk:Disputed, since the main template is probably used more frequently, and the two templates should have the same language.--Aervanath (talk) 08:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Two points:
 * 1) I think these messages should be as succinct as possible.
 * 2) I think disputes are often not resolved. They merely fade with time. So removing this template after no discussion has taken place for some time would be perfectly valid, even if the issues had not been resolved. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * On NPOV disputes that is sometimes the case (yet the language is there), but for accuracy, either the source(s) say or don't say what's claimed, so there's actually a stronger reason to invite people to actually solve these. Xasodfuih (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Change the display if no talk section is linked to?
In my experience, this template is often removed if an editor places it without starting a discussion at the talk page (a practice which I agree with, since just pasting the tag on without stating why is often just POV-pushing). Would it be worthwhile to add code that either a) adds a red warning/error message, or b) hides the template, if someone adds it without giving a link to a talk page. Doing either one would be very easy (for example, the second would work by just wrapping the template in "" and "" r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 22:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Sounds like overkill to me. Debresser (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess deciding when to remove a bad tag is something that humans are better at. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 23:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's more or less my thoughts also. Debresser (talk) 06:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Feature Request
Other warning templates like Unreferenced has some extra code so that substitution of the template will automatically fill the date parameter. It is achieved by wrapping the template in "" and "" --Quest for Truth (talk) 10:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Padlock-bronze-slash2.svg Not done: is not required for edits to  unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. Just be sure to test it in a sandbox first. Thanks. :-)   K rakatoa    K atie   12:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

"Usage" expansion
Similar to how Template:Pov operates, I propose the following be added to the documentation of Template:Disputed so it doesn't become a permanent resident at articles:

{{Pre|

When to use
Place this template on an article when a serious dispute has arisen over factual accuracy and you wish to attract editors to the article who may be able to assist in the dispute's resolution. Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies.

An article whose factual accuracy is in dispute is one where some editors insist there is information present that is verifiably wrong. A factually accurate article presents information that is verifiable using reliable sources, unbiased, and is not original research. Personal convictions of Wikipedia editors that are not cited to reliable sources are irrelevant.

When to remove
This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

 * 1) No discussion about factual accuracy issues was started on the article's talk page.
 * 2) Discussion about factual accuracy issues is dormant.
 * 3) There is consensus in the discussion that the problems have been resolved.

Removing this tag may be tendentious—just like placing it on the article may be tendentious—but it is not an act of vandalism. }} I will proceed to notify the community at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle presently.—Biosketch (talk) 07:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

 * The nr 2 point in "When to remove "is very problematic. The template is there to make people aware of that there are factual inaccuracy's in the article, as long as those problems hasn't been resolved, there is absolutely no reason to remove the tag. It also functions as a warning to the reader. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit protected
Please change this to look like a section template when "|what=section" is activated, or if disputed-section is activated (which uses "|what=section" parameter)

 * small=

Add the above line just above the "|date=" line

70.24.248.211 (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Yes check.svg Done No noticeable errors in the sandbox, so I'm fulfilling this request.  elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 00:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a problem with this: see next section. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've reverted this edit. See Uanfala (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Link to named talk page section doesn't work if called from disputed-section
When this template is called via disputed-section, the feature to link to a named talk page section does not work.--Srleffler (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

 * We probably need to add  to the code of Template:Disputed-section. Debresser (talk) 07:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not the problem; the problem is that the fix text is not displayed when left is set, as described at Template talk:Disputed-section. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Is an admin willing to fix this year-old problem? If not, I guess I/we can try to create new template(s) w/o this problem… --Elvey (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Unprotected. I'm not really sure of the best way to fix this, but disputed-section only had 300 transclusions, so I reduced the protection to semi-protection, and this template was only semi-protected to start with. So you should be able to fix it without admin help now. (If you want help with the code, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page.) — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 21:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm unaware of a proper way to fix this too; I was thinking of working backwards, with a fork of this template with the edits that broke it undone, just for disputed-section to use, in other words, a kludge fix. --Elvey (talk) 01:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've undone the original edit that caused this situation. Links should work now. A consequence of this is that Disputed section is no longer small by default. Uanfala (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 July 2012
The following entry has an error that I, the author's legal representative, would like to have corrected, or be told, simply, how to correct: Legal Name: Hope, William Edward S.          THIS NAME IS WRONG - THE AUTHOR, WILL STANTON'S, LEGAL NAME IS WILLIAM FRANK STANTON Birthdate: 1918            BIRTHDATE, FULLY, IS OCTOBER 16, 1918 Biography: Bio:Will Stanton            IF THIS READS "WILL STANTON, AUTHOR" IT WILL LEAD TO THE AUTHOR'S BIO ON WIKIPEDIA Bibliographic Comments: Author:Will Stanton Author Tags: Merril04 (1), Merril05 (1) Shortfiction Barney (1951) The Pioneer (1952) The Girl in the Flaxen Convertible (1953) The Last Present (1956) Dodger Fan (1957) Over the River to What's-Her-Name's House (1958) Who Is Going to Cut the Barber's Hair? (1959) You Are with It! (1961) The Scarecrow of Tomorrow (1962) The Gumdrop King (1962) As Long as You're Here (1963) L'ultimo regalo (1965)

75.34.67.15 (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌ You need to put the template on the talk page of the article in question.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Image
I changed the exclamation mark symbol to a magnifying glass symbol. I think that magnifying glass is better, beacuse one should investigate the sources in order to find out if they are correctly represented in the article or not. --ilaiho (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for comments on an issue in a tag similar to this one
Hi, there is a general issue with a tag that is related to this one, and I would like to request some feedback since the problems are similar to some of those that have been discussed here earlier.

Please have a look at Template talk:Unreliable sources, and reply in that talk page if you want to comment. The reason why I'm posting about it here is because it doesn't seem like anyone is watching the other template's talkpage. Anonimski (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Change are to be
I think that it would be better that it be changed because it is expressing a condition, and I do not see how my change would be controversial. (Because that would probably be a problem with our changing templates with no protection, why do not we just lock those templates for administrators?) Gamingforfun 3 6 5 (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Gamingforfun365, you are suggesting that we change the "Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced." sentence? Flyer22 (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

 * What? It is only a minor thing for us to use more formal English (because the template is suggesting a conditional clause). Gamingforfun 3 6 5 (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Gamingforfun365, I was asking what part of the template's text you are looking to change (there is the tag and then there is the guidance on how to use the tag). I didn't state that I object to any change. Flyer22 (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Well, that was at first ambiguous. Anyways, yes. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

 * How does "Please help to ensure that disputed statements be reliably sourced." flow better than "Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced."? Flyer22 (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The use of the subjunctive in conditional clauses is more formal, and we have a formal wiki. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 (talk) 03:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello? Gamingforfun 3 6 5 (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

 * I asked about flow. The suggested "Please help to ensure that disputed statements be reliably sourced." does not flow as well to me as "Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced." If you want more opinions about this, ask about it at Accuracy dispute. Flyer22 (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

 * IMHO "are" sounds better than "be", so I propose keeping things as are (not be). Debresser (talk) 08:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Are is what we almost always hear in everyday speech; be may be used in such formal passages, such as those in conditional clauses. Surely, it may sound awkward, but it is correct. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Correct as it may be, "are" seems to enjoy WP:CONSENSUS, so I'd propose to close this discussion as "no consensus for change". Debresser (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Concur. There seems to be a feeling that "be" in this construction would be awkward/stilted.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Coding problem
As presently coded, if the page on which this template is placed has no talk page, then the talk link will not appear even if the talkpage parameter is specified, which impedes the ability to centralize discussion (especially if some new stub with no talk page repeats a disputed claim in a more established article and the discussion should be centralized at the talk page of the main article). We can either remove the test for the existence of the talk page, or have separate tests for the existence of the parameter and the existence of the page. I would advocate the former, since in the event that the dispute is localized to a single article and it has no talk page, it's perfectly fine for it to be a redlink, since the next step in making it an actual dispute is to click that redlink and go create the talk page by adding the dispute as a thread to it. Regardless, the behavior should also be normalized at, which is presently testing for the existence of the parameter, and thus making it impossible to just use the talk page of the extant page by default, as this template does and would continue to do. I would just fix this myself, but I figure these are used often enough there should be some discussion about the exact desired behavior, if anyone has contrary opinions. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Update: I've adjusted the code at the inline version to behave better, and think that it should be borrowed for the non-inline template. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think there's an error in the template's documentation. I tried to use this template with the talkpage parameter, but it didn't create a link to a section of the talkpage: Jarble (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's working fine for me here: User:SMcCandlish/sandbox20. PS: section name doesn't mean section of the talk page, but section in the article that is being disputed. If you wanted to link to a specific talk section, it would be Talk:Talk page name#Section name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Should the box be small when applied to sections?
After this request back in 2012, if the template was applied to a section (as opposed, for example, the whole article) the message box is small and floating left (it looks like this). There's probably a good reason for this that I'm not aware of, but I'm planning to revert that for consistency with similar message templates (for example Template:POV section or Template:Unreferenced section), which retain their full size. This will also fix this four-year-old problem. Uanfala (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No objection here. The template should be small, only if the editor indicated specifically it should be small, not because of the mere fact it regards a section. Debresser (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've edited it now to allow users to individually set the parameter "small", both directly on this template and when invoked from Disputed section. Uanfala (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

template for one piece of information
What if only one piece of information within one line or phrase or even a word, what would be the right template for that?--Abu aamir (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

 * There are a number of inline tags, depending on the nature of dispute. As it happens, I keep a list of them on my user home page. Eperoton (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC of potential interest
An RfC is underway that could affect this template and may therefor be of interest to watchers of this page. The discussion is located at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 November 2021
The parameter "talkpage" could be renamed to "discuss", as used in other templates, such as Template:Merger. To make it backwards compatible, as alias or synonym could be left behind. Thank your. fgnievinski (talk) 05:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe talk is the standard parameter for this, which the template already accepts. Do you have anything to support your opinion that discuss is widely used? On Template:Merge the discuss parameter holds the full page name, whereas on this template talk is merely the section heading. I think conflating these may get confusing. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg not done for now: looks like this needs a consensus. Please garner the needed consensus before using the template again.  P.I. Ellsworth  -  ed.  put'r there 02:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The following templates support "|discuss=" parameter pointing to the talk page and section: Template:Merge, Template:Merge to, Template:Merge from, Template:Split, Template:Split_section, Template:Original research, Template:Globalize, Template:Being merged. fgnievinski (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I added a discuss parameter alias.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! fgnievinski (talk) 03:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Feature request 2 December 2023: template:multiple issue
When used with the multiple template, the text and link to the talk page are not shown. Please add that link? Perhaps shorten to ? There are templates that leave longer lines: Example page. Thank you Adakiko (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit request to complete TfD nomination
Template:Disputed has been listed at Templates for discussion (nomination), but it was protected, so it could not be tagged. Please add:

to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. Kinopiko talk 06:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: I attempted to do this, but was blocked by existing template on the /doc, I think. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Disputed