None of the links in the first paragraph say that the article in question is "fully compatible with observations".
Einstein–Cartan theory: not undisputed, in particular it does not fully address the issue of quantum gravity.
Gauge theory gravity: not undisputed, in particular it clearly states: "The theory has not been widely adopted by the rest of the physics community, who have mostly opted for differential geometry approaches like that of the related gauge gravitation theory.".
Teleparalleism: a few other theories are presented upon the very page.
Euclidean quantum gravity: contains a link to Gauge theory.
Can this template at Wikipedia be true? It seems to suggest that Einstein-Cartan theory, Gauge theory gravity, Teleparalleism and Euclidean Quantum Gravity are fully compatible with observation
The "template" was "true", because it was automatically generated, it has been replaced with a new Navbox (which you refer to as a template). A template is the boilerplate which defines the shape and appearance of the object, a Navbox is the list of links related to the article.
Shortening of navigation and box.
navbox (plural navboxes)
(Wiktionary and WMF jargon) A navigation box; a template placed on a page, outputting a box containing links to other, related articles.
It also suggests that Loop Quantum Gravity and BEC Vacuum Theory among others, are experimentally constrained whereas string theory/M theory are disputed!
You can find someone who would disagree with just about anything. On another stack exchange site someone with an extremely high reputation score proceeded to dispute what they had wrote one comment prior, flipping back and forth between supporting what was written in an answer (that had no editing) and taking issues with it and their prior comments. They resorted to extremes and gross exaggeration to encourage one to accept their point.
Wikipedia is maintained to be neutral and discourages conflict of interest editing. Understand correctly, I neither say that everything on Wikipedia is correct nor that nothing is either not disputed nor agreed upon - the point being made is that "navigation links" do not imply endorsement nor support or disprove content.
Content must be based upon what is known and attempt to present it neutrally, if you have a dispute with a specific page you are free to edit it.
"What I understand by "Developmental/Disputed" is that it is still ..."
Wikipedia has a webpage titled: "Alternatives to general relativity" which describes: Self-consistency, Completeness, Classical tests, Agreement with Newtonian mechanics and special relativity, The Einstein equivalence principle (EEP), Parametric post-Newtonian (PPN) formalism, Strong gravity and gravitational waves and Cosmological tests (amongst others) as tests that ought to be met for a theory to gain acceptance.
The "observational test" seems to imply: "It looks good".
So my question is "Is this template really reliable?"
I'm not trying to pick on you. Indeed I mentioned someone else in particular, more than once.
The information presented is only as good as it's interpretation and factualness.