en.m.wikipedia.org
Wikipedia:Template index/Disputes
< Wikipedia:Template index  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes)
"WP:DT" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Deletion today, Wikipedia:WikiProject Donald Trump, or Wikipedia:Dynamic tension.
See also: Wikipedia:Neutrality templates, Template:Dispute templates, and Wikipedia:BLP § Templates
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
What to typeWhat it makesWhere 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 title}}
Disputed article title
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
{{POV-check}}
Possibly biased articles
top
{{POV-title}}
Disputed article sections
under title
{{Unbalanced}}
Articles which contain Unbalanced citations.
For placement at top of article or section
What to typeWhat it makesWhere 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
{{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}}
  • 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=June 2021 or issue=April 2007
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
What to typeWhat it makesWhere 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
See also: Wikipedia:Inline templates
What to typeWhat it makesWhere it goes
{{Citation needed}} or {{cn}} or {{fact}}
[citation needed]After factual claims that need a citation to back them up.
in-line
{{Dubious}}
[dubious discuss]Disputed statements
in-line
{{Failed verification}}
[failed verification]After factual claims that have been checked and not found in the indicated source. Explain in Talk.
in-line
{{Lopsided}}
[unbalanced opinion?]One-sided statements
in-line
{{Nonspecific}} or {{Unverifiable}}
[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}}
[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.
{{Peacock term}}
[peacock term]After text that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. See Puffery
{{Synthesis inline}} or {{syn}}
[improper synthesis?]After text passages based upon improper synthesis
in-line
{{Verify credibility}}
[unreliable source?]After suspect citations or source references
in-line
{{Verify source}} or {{Check}}
[verification needed]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
What to typeWhat it makesWhere 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.
For placement on talk pages of users
Main page: Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace
See also
Last edited on 10 May 2021, at 17:49
Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted.
Privacy policy
Terms of Use
Desktop
HomeRandomNearbyLog inSettingsDonateAbout WikipediaDisclaimers
LanguageWatchEdit