Wikipedia:Template index/Disputes
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 add 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
editWhat to type | What it makes | Where it goes | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
{{Autobiography}}
|
|
Articles which are autobiographies and may not be NPOV because of that, with the date at which they were flagged. | ||
{{Self-contradictory}}
|
|
Self-contradicting article top | ||
{{Contradicts other|Article}}
|
|
One or both contradicting articles top | ||
{{Dispute about|'''The topic of dispute'''}}
|
|
Disputed articles with list of topics top | ||
{{Disputed}}
|
|
Disputed articles top | ||
{{Disputed category}}
|
|
Disputed articles top | ||
{{Disputed chem}}
|
|
Disputed articles top | ||
{{Disputed list}}
|
|
Disputed articles top | ||
{{Neologism}}
|
|
Possible neologisms top | ||
{{Notability|guideline (e.g. "Biographies")}}
|
|
Non-notable topic, listing the specific guideline at issue top | ||
{{Notability}}
|
|
Non-notable topic or failing to meet the current notability guidelines (verbose) top | ||
{{POV}}
|
|
Disputed articles top | ||
{{Unbalanced}}
|
|
Articles which contain Unbalanced citations. |
For placement at top of article or section
editWhat to type | What it makes | Where it goes | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
{{Advert}}
|
|
Pages that promote commercial products or services | ||
{{Cite check}}
|
|
At the top of an article or section where the text misrepresents the sources cited. | ||
{{Content}}
|
|
Above the site of dispute in article or section | ||
{{Disputed map}}
|
|
Article or section that includes a disputed map | ||
{{Fanpov}}
|
|
Pages that read like a fansite instead of the formal tones expected of an encyclopedia. | ||
{{Incoherent}}
|
|
Section where some sentences in a section or the text as a whole does not relay an understandable message | ||
{{Missing information|Info}}
|
|
Article or section where information not present may be worthy of inclusion | ||
{{Multiple issues}}
|
|
Top of article or section with three or more issues | ||
{{Original research}}
|
|
Possible original research. | ||
{{Peacock}}
|
|
Article or section that has peacock terms | ||
{{Recentism}}
|
|
Top of article, or top of section in dispute. | ||
{{Refimprove}}
|
|
Possibly inaccurate articles top | ||
{{Science review}}
|
|
Top of articles or sections | ||
{{Self-published}}
|
|
On an article where self-published (online or in print) sources are cited, which are not legitimately citable as a secondary source, according to WP:Verifiability policy. | ||
{{Story}}
|
|
Pages that read like a narrative and tell a story rather than providing encyclopedic information. | ||
{{Synthesis}}
|
|
Possible unpublished synthesis. (The text in quotation marks is replaced with the title of the article.) | ||
{{Tone}}
|
|
Pages that tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. | ||
{{Undue weight|article}} {{Undue weight|section}}
|
|
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}}
|
|
Lacks attributions from reliable sources. See template page for special usages. | ||
{{User-generated}}
|
|
On an article where user-generated content is cited, which is not legitimately citable as a secondary source, according to the WP:Reliable sources guideline. | ||
{{Weasel}}
|
|
Article or section that has weasel words |
For placement in or at top of a section only
editWhat to type | What it makes | Where it goes | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
{{Disputed section}}
|
|
Disputed article sections under section header | ||
{{Expand section}}
|
|
Top of section to be expanded. | ||
{{POV lead}}
|
|
Disputed article intro top | ||
{{POV section}}
|
|
Disputed article sections under section header | ||
{{Section OR}}
|
|
Section contains possible original research. | ||
{{Unreferenced section}}
|
|
Top of section lacking citations |
For inline article placement
editWhat to type | What it makes | Where it goes |
---|---|---|
{{Citation needed}} or {{cn}} or {{fact}}
|
After factual claims that need a citation to back them up. in-line | |
{{Disputed inline}}
|
After a particular disputed statement or alleged fact in-line | |
{{Dubious}}
|
After a specific statement or alleged fact that is sourced but that nevertheless seems dubious or unlikely in-line | |
{{Failed verification}}
|
After factual claims that have been checked and not found in the indicated source. Explain in Talk. in-line | |
{{Lopsided}}
|
One-sided statements in-line | |
{{Nonspecific}} or {{Unverifiable}}
|
After factual claims that could be relevant, but are not cited and are too general for a {{citation needed}}. in-line | |
{{OR}}
|
After text passages based upon original research in-line | |
{{POV-statement}} |
[neutrality is disputed] | After passages that appear to have a non-neutral point of view. |
{{Peacock term}}
|
After text that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. See Puffery | |
{{Synthesis inline}} or {{syn}}
|
After text passages based upon improper synthesis in-line | |
{{Verify credibility}}
|
After suspect citations or source references in-line | |
{{Verify source}} or {{Check}}
|
After suspect citations or source references in-line | |
{{Weasel inline}}
|
After text that creates a misleading impression that something specific and/or meaningful has been said. See WP:WEASEL | |
{{Who}}
|
[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
editWhat to type | What it makes | Where it goes | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
{{Calm}}
|
|
Talk pages which are likely to have incivil or hot-headed disputes. | ||
{{Controversial}}
|
|
Talk page top | ||
{{Controversial-issues}}
|
|
Talk page top | ||
{{Off topic warning}}
|
|
Talk pages which are frequently used by inexperienced users as a forum for discussion of things not related to improving the corresponding article. |