Template talk:Controversial

Is usage correct?
The template was cloned from Wikipedia's Template:Controversial. Their usage instructions state "To use this template, add Controversial to an article’s talk page", which is the reason for the choice of tmbox which dictates the color scheme. On the BH wiki this template is being used directly on articles, so should ambox be used instead, or perhaps mbox which has namespace detection? --Peculiar Investor 14:50, 8 January 2015 (CST)
 * I never noticed that. Would wikipedia:Template:Criticism section be a better choice? (Redirects from Template:Criticism) Note that it's very similar to POV. --LadyGeek 16:37, 8 January 2015 (CST)
 * Consider it a case of new eyes reading for the first time. I don't know the background to the creation/inclusion of this template on the wiki and the decision process to use it. There doesn't seem to be any history on the finiki editor's lounge either. Exploring further, how does this fit with Bogleheads® debates? Sorry, more questions than answers at this point. --Peculiar Investor 17:08, 8 January 2015 (CST)
 * I have posed the question to the wiki editors. Please reply here or in the editor's lounge. --LadyGeek 18:20, 8 January 2015 (CST)

Categorization of articles using template isn't working correctly
In an edit last night I attempted to fix how articles that use this template get categorized, but it hasn't worked as intended. Rather than spend time investigating, I'll await the decision above about whether this is an appropriate template to be used. --Peculiar Investor 07:54, 9 January 2015 (CST)