Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WP:DT redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Deletion today or Wikipedia:Dynamic tension.
Shortcuts:

Dispute templates are used to alert other editors that work is needed on a certain article, and auto-categorize pages so that patrolling editors can aid their talent to the problem. The primary purpose of this page is to display and discuss the use of these sometimes controversial aids to joint edit collaboration.

They should normally not be used without a clear description from the applying editor of the rationale, preferably presented in a numbered list form on the article's talk page, in a section which includes the name of the template that was applied. As these items are dealt with, it is suggested each line be struck through. Some guidance should be given by the posting editor as to what action will resolve the matter when using section and article (page) tagging templates.

It is preferable that in-line templates be applied to content that is being objected to on bias or fact grounds. Inline templates are preferred because they can be attached directly to disputed sentences. Section templates follow next in preference to tagging a whole article.

Many editors consider use of any banner template in an article a serious measure of last resort, and would prefer other measures be exhausted before such detractions from the project be used. If one must be used, please make a thorough note listing deficiencies or items being disputed in bulleted or numbered paragraph format under a clear notice section heading on the article's talk page.

Please remember to use these appropriately, and use the most specific messages you can find for the situation.

For placement at top of an article[edit]

What to type What it makes Where it goes
{{Autobiography|date-flagged}}

links talk edit

Articles which are autobiographies and may not be NPOV because of that, with the date at which they were flagged.
{{Contradict}}

links talk edit

Self-contradicting article
top
{{Contradict-other|[[Article]]}}

links talk edit

One or both contradicting articles
top
{{Dispute about|'''The topic of dispute'''}}

links talk edit

Disputed articles with list of topics
top
{{Disputed}}

links talk edit

Disputed articles
top
{{Disputed-category}}

links talk edit

Disputed articles
top
{{Disputed title}}

links talk edit

Disputed article title
top
{{Hoax}}

links talk edit

Suspected hoaxes
top
{{Neologism}}

links talk edit

Possible neologisms
top
{{Notability|
guideline (e.g. "Biographies")}}

links talk edit

Non-notable topic, listing the specific guideline at issue
top
{{Notability}}

links talk edit

Non-notable topic or failing to meet the current notability guidelines (verbose)
top
{{POV}}

links talk edit

Disputed articles
top
{{POV-check}}

links talk edit

Possibly biased articles
top
{{POV-title}}

links talk edit

Disputed article sections
under title
{{Unbalanced}}

links talk edit

Articles which contain Unbalanced citations.

For placement at top of article or section[edit]

What to type What it makes Where it goes
{{Advert}}

links talk edit

Pages that promote commercial products or services
{{Cite check}}

links talk edit

At the top of an article or section where the text misrepresents the sources cited.
{{Content}}

links talk edit

Above the site of dispute in article or section
{{Fanpov}}

links talk edit

Pages that read like a fansite instead of the formal tones expected of an encyclopedia.
{{Incoherent}}

links talk edit

Section where some sentences in a section or the text as a whole does not relay an understandable message
{{Missing information|Info}}

links talk edit

Article or section where information not present may be worthy of inclusion
{{Multiple issues}}

links talk edit

  • Use the section=y parameter if you use the template for a particular section.
  • To tag a specific issue, set any string of text to the parameter, such as issue=y
  • To specify the month tagged for the categories that sort articles by month, type issue=September 2014 or issue=April 2007
Top of article or section with three or more issues
{{Original research}}

links talk edit

Possible original research.
{{Peacock}}

links talk edit

Article or section that has peacock terms
{{Recentism}}

links talk edit

Top of article, or top of section in dispute.
{{Refimprove}}

links talk edit

Possibly inaccurate articles
top
{{Science review}}

links talk edit

Top of articles or sections
{{Self-published|Source}}

links talk edit

On an article where a self-published (online or in print) source is cited, and is therefore not legitimately citable as a secondary source, according to policy.
{{Story}}

links talk edit

Pages that read like a narrative and tell a story rather than providing encyclopedic information.
{{Synthesis}}

links talk edit

Possible unpublished synthesis. (The text in quotation marks is replaced with the title of the article.)
{{Tone}}

links talk edit

Pages that tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia.
{{Undue|article}}
{{Undue|section}}

links talk edit

Sections or text where a matter such as a controversy or incident has been given more weight than is appropriate in the context of the article or biography as a whole.
{{Unreferenced}}

links talk edit

Lacks attributions from reliable sources. See template page for special usages.
{{Weasel}}

links talk edit

Article or section that has weasel words

For placement in or at top of a section only[edit]

What to type What it makes Where it goes
{{Disputed-section}}

links talk edit

Disputed article sections
under section header
{{Expand section}}

links talk edit

Top of section to be expanded.
{{POV-lead}}

links talk edit

Disputed article intro
top
{{POV-section}}

links talk edit

Disputed article sections
under section header
{{Section OR}}

links talk edit

Section contains possible original research.

For inline article placement[edit]

What to type What it makes Where it goes
{{Citation needed}} or {{cn}} or {{fact}}

links talk edit

[citation needed]

After factual claims that need a citation to back them up.
in-line
{{Dubious}}

links talk edit

[dubious ]

Disputed statements
in-line
{{Failed verification}}

links talk edit

[not in citation given]

After factual claims that have been checked and not found in the indicated source. Explain in Talk.
in-line
{{Lopsided}}

links talk edit

[unbalanced opinion]

One-sided statements
in-line
{{Nonspecific}} or {{Unverifiable}}

links talk edit

[not specific enough to verify]

After factual claims that could be relevant, but are not cited and are too general for a {{citation needed}}.
in-line
{{OR}}

links talk edit

[original research?]

After text passages based upon original research
in-line
{{POV-statement}}
links talk edit
[neutrality is disputed] After passages that appear to have a non-neutral point of view.
{{Synthesis-inline}} or {{syn}}

links talk edit

[improper synthesis?]

After text passages based upon improper synthesis
in-line
{{Verify credibility}}

links talk edit

[unreliable source?]

After suspect citations or source references
in-line
{{Verify source}} or {{Check}}

links talk edit

[verification needed]

After suspect citations or source references
in-line
{{Who}}

links talk edit

[who?]

After passages mentioning general groups (such as "many scientists") that could be made more specific by naming (and citing sources for) specific individuals.
in-line

For placement on talk pages of articles[edit]

What to type What it makes Where it goes
{{Calm}}

links talk edit

Talk pages which are likely to have incivil or hot-headed disputes.
{{Controversial}}

links talk edit

Talk page
top
{{Controversial-issues}}

links talk edit

Talk page
top
{{Pbneutral}}

links talk edit

Talk page
top
{{Off topic warning}}

links talk edit

Talk pages which are frequently used by inexperienced users as a forum for discussion of things not related to improving the corresponding article.

For placement on talk pages of users[edit]

See also[edit]