Wikipedia talk:Template index/Disputes

Discussion on the talk page
Many of these templates refer to "discussion on the talk page". In the vast majority of cases when I have seen these applied, there is no explanation of the reason for the dispute, nor any discussion, on the talk page. Does this render the dispute void and the template removable or are there other relevant rules?

161.73.146.153 17:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Vaporware as a special kind of hoax
Consider adding this to hoax templates under ((vaporware)). This may also be useful for emergent medical technologies. Perhaps this should be modified to be a general warning about the claims of any emergent technology.

Uniformity
Should there be uniformity among these templates?


 * indented


 * use of "stop hand" icon and size


 * grey background


 * wording

etc. &mdash;Ashley Y 01:33, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

I'd like to see two styles, one simply "italic and indent" for most of these, and another one meaning "stop: read the talk page before editing". &mdash;Ashley Y 04:12, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

Relocation of templates
Background - Some templates relate to article issues not article information, but were in "general". because of this, wiki-ists with article disputes often were unaware and used disputed tags when there was a more appropriate tag elsewhere.

Put the templates that deal with "article issues" on the same page as the templates that deal with "article disputes". People looking for a way to say "something needs fixing on an article" will probably want to see these all together. templates to do with page descriptions rather than page issues belong in General templates.

A big leap but I trust approved of by others. Note that "Template messages:Disputes" provbably needs renaming "Template messages:Article issues and disputes".

Hopefully this will increase awareness of tags which tdo not signidfy dispute, and reduce divisive "NPOV tagging" disputes.

Moved to "article issues":
 * ''attention, cleanup, contradict, hawaiian, Limitedgeographicscope, all 'merge' templates, POV check, reqimage, split, Translation, Undecided, Wrongtitle, Wrongtitlecat

Kept in "general":
 * ''current, disambig, Expansion, Free software, In Wikipedia, lipsum, subst:mnl?, otheruses, otherplaces, subst:ref &lt;N&gt;, solution, SpecialChars, spoiler, wikicode

FT2 22:45, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Need a {wrong} tag
Hi, I'd like a tag that says something like "this page has stuff on it that is known to be wrong, but we haven't got around to fixing it yet, please beware". This is for things that are not "disputed", just not fixed yet! I need this for 47 Ronin - I wrote the current content, and I now know that the sources I relied on were incorrect, but I just haven't had the time to do the massive amount of research (there's no single good source in English which covers the material) needed to complete the re-write, and I want to warn people until then. Would someone like to create one, or should I just do one? And if so, what's a good name for it? Noel (talk) 01:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * My suggestion would be to blank out the portions you need to re-write, leaving it back more-or-less in a stub version. The history is always available for you to go back into and start the re-work.   Leaving a note on the Talk page would probably help.  Really, I doubt this sort of situation would happen enough that a new template is needed. -- Netoholic @ 06:05, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

Done. See Template:Incorrect. -Sparky 19:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Nearly all these templates contain information for editors, not readers
Nearly all of these templates contain information for editors, not readers. It is clearly appropriate that they should by and large be on the talk page rather than acting as a big distraction at the top of the head of the article.

There are quite a few of these tags, and some are fairly widely used, so it may take a little while to convert them to talk pages, but I am giving notice that I intend to do that as time permits. Pcb21| Pete 00:16, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Please do not do this unilaterally, as I suspect there are many that disagree with you. Dispute tags like  and  belong on the article pages, not in talk, for several reasons, for example:
 * They are a warning to readers, not just editors, that there is a specific reason to be wary of a particular page, beyond the general disclaimer of Wikipedia. It's important not to sweep problems under the rug.
 * They are much more likely to be seen by editors in the article. (As an editor, I rarely visit the talk page when I am just browsing Wikipedia, and even when I do it is usually to scroll to some particular complaint &mdash; I rarely read the whole Talk page, which can get very long, unless I am the primary author of a page.  I suspect that many editors are similar.)
 * Having a notice in the article is an insistent barb to prompt editors to correct problems; in contrast, complaints in Talk are very often ignored (especially if no one is actively watching the article at the specific time the complaint is posted).
 * &mdash;Steven G. Johnson 04:21, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * I second Stevenj's note. I created Template:ISBN to flag pages that mentioned books lacking ISBN numbers and I noticed someone moved the template flag to the talk pages where nobody will see them.  What's the point in having these alert boxes if they're going to be hidden away?  PedanticallySpeaking 19:20, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * I really cannot agree at all with this line of reasoning. You two say that if there is a problem with an article that can be characterized by a template then it should dominate the article. However bespoke problems (i.e problems that do not fit inside a template) should go on the talk page. Or do the pair of you think we should abandon talk pages all together. It is ludicrous to suggest that certain comments should have privileges just because they can be templatized. Pcb21| Pete 20:16, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If the template/message is an aid to readers (IPA notice, etc.), denotes a problem which would injure the credibility of the article (NPOV, accuracy, etc.) or has to do with its inclusion on Wikipedia (VFD, Unencyclopedic, etc.), then I think it should appear on the article page. Everything else related to cleanup tasks, missing information, etc. should be noted only on the talk page. That includes missing ISBNs. -- Netoholic @ 20:21, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)


 * (written in response to stevenj and PedanticallySpeaking) While I can understand the inclination to make all of these notices as in-your-face as possible, I think this represents a shift away from ideas in Avoid self-references and the related ideas that Wikipedia articles are freely redistributable. I think that the recent increase in the number of self-referential notices displayed in articles really should be discussed in a much broader forum than this subpage (or at least there should be some advertisement that a discussion is going on here). While reusers of Wikipedia content are able to strip out self-referential templates--there is little guidance provided about which templates are used for what purposes. I don't think we need to be too overly concerned about helping re-users, I don't think we should be making Wikipedia content unnecessarily difficult to reuse.


 * My opinion is that the only notices that should go on the articles (rather than the talk pages) are those which are extremely important alerts or warnings to readers--such as NPOV or disputes of accuracy or VfD (i.e., most of those listed in the disputes table).


 * I don't like to see the articles cluttered up with a lot of editorial and housekeeping notes. Apparently some people hold the belief that random readers/editors, upon seeing an editorial note will be both inclined and capable of taking action. Others, including myself, feel that the notes function as a way of identifying these articles to persons who have an interest in taking care of problems such as copyediting, wikifying, looking up ISBN numbers, merging, etc. And for that purpose, having the article's talk page appear in specific categories would be sufficient to enable people to find articles that need attention. older ≠ wiser 20:37, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Nearly all the templates are useful for everybody.
 * 1) Merges must be on the article page, because they direct the reader to another article on similir/same topic.
 * 2) OrginalResearch must be at articles top, because it warns the reader the page may contain original research.
 * 3) Cleanup/attention warns the reader the article may be of dubious quality.

It doesnt make the contents less reusable. Exactly the opposite, usualy it valuable meta-information. If some templates are not approprite for some specific output, it is easy to stop displayng them.

Other reasons - no matter of what any specific page says, I do believe this is still a wiki, and there is no strict border separating editors and readers. Avoid self-references should be applied only to actual articles contents. Extension to Dispute, Cleanup, Delete and other maintenance templates IMO doesn't make sense. How would you make VfD without self-reference?

--Wikimol 22:21, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nearly all the templates are useful for everybody. I heartily disagree. Editorial notes not related to disputed content are not particularly helpful to readers. Lack of differentiation in templates between meta-data and content does make the content less reusable. Outside of the context of Wikipedia the editorial notes are meaningless and unhelpful. Sure there is no strict boundary between readers and editors within Wikipedia, but so what? As Avoid self-references indicates, there are exceptions for templates such as VfD and others. The issue at hand seems to be whether such editorial notes should still be considered exceptions or if we should simply abandon all pretense of avoiding self-reference in templates and let any downstream users deal with the vagaries on their own. I mean to a certain extent, I don't have a problem with that since I personally really don't particularly care about downstream uses at present. But it seems that changes the express objective of Wikipedia to build a free encyclopedia. It is not about building a Wiki--that is a means to an end and not the goal itself. Most of these editorial notes are about communicating within the community of Wikipedia editors and not directly relevant to the content of the article. older ≠ wiser 22:40, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

The general question of avoiding self-reference / templates / is Wikipedia still a wiki encyclopedia or will we one day remove the edit link needs longer discussion in a broader forum. The specific issues of mergers and original research are IMO clear. I won't start a revert war over it, only state it boldly again - removal of Merge* and OriginalResearch templates to Talk pages is harmful. Btw Pcb21s changes were IMO not discussed enough before commiting.

Propably we should paste it to Village pump or RFC to draw more attention to the topic. --Wikimol 10:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Rather than try and have discussion on the VP (which is way overloaded), put a notice there pointing people here. Noel (talk) 16:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Please don't equate putting templates on a talk page to making the encylopedia read-only. They are obviously not the same "general" question. It comes close to making you look silly.


 * Ok, I don't think it's so important now, and have no problem with looking silly, thus I won't try to explain it further now.


 * You say "removal of [...] templates to talk pages is harmful". Please explain why these templates should have special privilege over all other comments and worries about articles that go on talk pages.


 * Merges must be on the article page, because they direct the reader to another article on similir/same topic.
 * For the same reason we include "See also", create categories etc.
 * OriginalResearch must be at articles top, because it warns the reader the page may contain original research.
 * Same reason as disputes - it warns the reader the page propably is not standard Wikipedia production. IMO issues of credibility are for so called readers much more important than anything noted in Avoid self-references. Expecially in "downstream", where Wikipedia is quoted as source, and Talkpages are frequently not present.


 * But this is the point I come to again and again. Lots and lots of Wikipedia articles have problems with them. Some of these are "common problems" that we can create templates for. Other problems are more bespoke, so we have to discuss them one-by-one. There is no real reason to do one on the talk page and the other on the article page.


 * Re my original changes. There has been no specific policy on where to put the messages and precious little talk about it. The current state of having them littered over article pages grew out of the original decision to have vfd boilerplate text on article pages because of the time-sensitive nature of vfd. When templates came along it became easier to create these boilerplate messages and so the number of them sky-rocketed. Because there was no specific policy, I fell back on the most appropriate more general policy (avoid self-references) AND commented on my changes here. I strongly believe I was correctly following the policy of "BE BOLD" by implementing a policy where there was none before. Now that substantial discussion has blown up, I won't unilaterally change the policy page, but work on trying to persuade people of the correctness of my argument here. Pcb21| Pete 11:31, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * There was a habit where to put them. You developed a policy to change the existing habit - I think in such cases you can be less bold, but thats not the question here. I'm sure your intent is the best.
 * --Wikimol 16:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Yep and yours is too. I hope my explanation of where the habit came from (boilerplate text for vfd) indicates why it seemed to me why it hadn't been thought about much before. 19:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Somewhat more philosophically
Is fixing one page (by either finding some sources, or doing the merging, or removing the unsupportable line to the talk page) better than adding templates to ten pages? It seems to be it is, but then editors would rack up less edits that way, and so the templates that effectively say "here is a problem that I can't be bothered to fix" proliferate Pcb21| Pete 19:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Agree. As further evidence, I present WikiProject Stub sorting. -- Netoholic @ 20:12, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)


 * I understand the desire ... the responsibility to create encyclopedia-worthy articles from the snippets of information that many folks drop into Wikipedia, but I think that most people who are inclined and encouraged to write or enhance articles (and there are those people who are inclined but discouraged by various means) are already doing so at the pace that they can sustain. It is all fine to say "we should do this" but please recognize that we in the stub sorting project believe that one route to facilitating authorship is to categorize the snippets so that they might be more easily found by the potential authors.  If you disagree with that, ok, but please don't damn the WikiProject just because you disagree with the premise (I refer not to you two specifically, but the general "you" of the voices that seem so very frustrated that "we're not doing useful work" in their opinions). Courtland 06:55, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

Template:Morbid warning has been deleted
I didn't want to unilaterally delete the row in the table on the project page related to the "morbid warning" template, but rather bring to your attention (those who maintain this page) that this template has been deleted as the result of a "templates for deletion" process. I'm not sure where the voting discussion went as it does not appear to be in either Templates_for_deletion/Log/Deleted or Templates_for_deletion/Log/Not_deleted. Courtland 07:03, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
 * Meh, if it's gone it's gone. I yanked it from the page to avoid confusion. --iMb~Meow 06:08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Major reorganization of Template messages table
I've done a major reorganization of the entries in the article-related template messages table. This makes the redundancies between this list and Maintenance and Cleanup more obvious. Please see my remarks on Wikipedia talk:Template messages and comment there if you wish. - dcljr 16:03, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does "Wrongtitle" belong on the disputes page?
It seems to me wrongtitle has nothing to do with disputes, see Template_talk:Wrongtitle. Joe D (t) 18:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You're right, I've moved it to /General. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   18:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Template:Disputed and Template:DisputeCheck
Do we really need both of these? They seem redundant to me. I've tightened up the wording on Template:DisputeCheck a bit, but it's still rather vague. I get the feeling that the vagueness is intentional. If it were clarified, I think it would come out to be the same as Template:Disputed - basically, saying that an editor doubts (disputes) some of the facts in the article. It has been suggested to me that Template:Disputed has some (unspoken) greater significance, to the effect that it is only for major disputes. If so, it should be made explicit in its wording and on its template talk page. Thanks. FreplySpang (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Noncompliant template considered too general
-- discussion moved from User talk:Jossi, regarding noncompliant:

noncompliant

Sorry, but I think this template is terrible. It doesn't say anything specific, just that at least one out of four (fairly broad) things is wrong. There are already templates for accuracy disputes, NPOV, both (totallydisputed), OR, and unverified claims. Do you suppose you could please replace this one with templates for the specific other issues which you want to cover (presumably WP:NOT items) instead? I fear this one will cause more problems than it solves. --James S. 00:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * James, this template addressed a very specific issue that is to be compliant all four content policies apply. I have seen in many instances that WP:NPOV is used to sacrifice WP:V, or that article may comply with WP:NPOV and WP:V but fail on WP:NOT. SO all this template is doing is to assert that you need to comply with all four. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. totallydisputed is already overused when the issue is really an accuracy or NPOV dispute, but not both. Is this template going to help? Shouldn't we really have a bunch of specific templates for the list of things that Wikipedia is WP:NOT? --James S. 01:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the point of this template is so that we don't use multiple templates: one for NPOV, one for original research, etc.-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  ♥  ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  11:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

need a template to verify source
There needs to be a template, or something like that (as in ), to put in the text when the article claims a source says something, but it may not. In other words, there needs to be a message that requests a quote from the source on the talk page, to verify that it actually says what it is purported to say. Because, right now, anyone can stick up a source and just make something up (which is easy to get away with if few people have access to the source). People will lie or misinterpret what a source says, but they're much less likely to fabricate a quote when requested. RJII 04:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * For sections and articles use Not verified (which served me well today, I must say.) For in-line comments, I have created Verify source for you, or Check for short. --James S. 05:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. How about one really specific called "quote", "veriquote," or something like that, which would mean a quote from the source is requested on the Discussion page to verify the claim of what the source says? Or is that too much? Requesting a quote is helpful for getting rid of false claims about sources. RJII 06:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you want the resulting text to say? --James S. 16:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * How about "verify reprint source" to ask editors to verify a citation of a clearly unreliable URL with "format=reprint" against the original source, or "verify reprint credibility". I've been using verify credibility, but it's not quite right.  I've been an Admin for some time, but I don't want to act without consensus as to the need and wording. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

verify qualifications of the author of source
How about an inline thing to find out who the author or the source cited is, or what his qualifications are? People sometimes cite sources written by Average Joes who write an essay and just post it on a website. But, we don't know if it's a credible source ..if he is qualified, such as having a degree in History, or whatever. Sometimes no author is even listed. What can I use for that? RJII 05:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "(please verify credibility of this source)" -- is that what you want? That seems rare enough that you might just want to take it up on the talk page. But if you think it will help, I'll create it. --James S. 06:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, maybe ((verify credibility)) or something like that would be good. Thanks. RJII 18:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Done verify credibility produces . --James S. 08:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Thanks. RJII 03:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Exclusion template
How about a template indicating that notable and sourceable information is being censored, or prevented from being entered into a section of an article? RJII 16:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to think how to word it. How about: "Relevant and notable information may be excluded from this section" ?? Or, "It is disputed whether relevant and notable information is being excluded from this section" ??? RJII

I'll go ahead and make one. RJII 17:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think these templates are going to serve Wikipedia well. RJII 18:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed the titles, due to a complaint that "censorship" is inflammatory. It's now Template:Exclusion and Template:Exclusion-Section RJII 00:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Should the picture of the hand be there, or should it be a picture of something else? RJII 02:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC) Also, can someone please make sure I did all the technical stuff right, like categories, etc? I've never made a template before. Thanks. RJII 04:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm... Personally, I think these templates will make edit wars even more disruptive to the readers. - dcljr (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a great need for them. There are templates regarding information that's IN articles, but there wasn't one dealing with information that is being taken OUT of articles (often to maintain a POV). The reader needs to know that there's a dispute going on about information that was taken out of the article, and for that reason the text MAY be missing an important piece of information. When a consensus is reached that the information should not be included in the article, the dispute tag is removed. Or, if a consensus is reached that the information should be included, it's put in the article and the tag is removed. I think it would REDUCE edit wars, greatly. A huge source of edit wars occur because people are taking out and putting back in the same information back and forth. If someone can just put a tag up, then the dispute gets moved to the talk page instead of edit warring. When the dispute is resolved, the tag is removed. The editors and readers are both better off for it. RJII 19:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah... good luck with that. &lt;g> - dcljr (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

What happened to these? Did they get deleted? Someone please re-create them. I need one. --James S. 18:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * They got reworked into content, so just use content instead of exclusion. – T i f e g o(t)18:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That template is so vague it's useless. RJII 18:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately it got deleted, without good reason. Here's one I created that may suit your purpose: It's up for deletion as well, without good reason (put up for deletion by enemies of mine). Vote for it, so it doesn't get deleted as well. Obviously there is a need for this kind of thing. RJII 18:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Official template policy?
What's the policy on templates. I've got somebody that keeps removing an NPOV tag on an article even though the dispute is still going on in An Anarchist FAQ. This is considered vandalism, right? RJII 21:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but not really "official" so much as "there's only one thing left to do," the way policies and guidelines are written. You essentially have to take it to Dispute resolution if there's an edit war over a dispute tag -- it proves at least one party isn't editing in good faith. --James S. 18:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

New template
I've gone ahead and added Unbalanced. Details and explanation are over at User:Nikodemos/Asymmetric controversy. -- infinity  0  16:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Article page or talk page?
Sorry, I am not very familiar with the policy and I couldn't find this info at first glance in the policy pages, so I thought I'd just ask: Should we put such tags as or  in the main page of an article, or only in the talk page? By putting it in the talk page there is a risk that very few people will see it, and therefore no action will be taken by people who would if they knew there is a problem. However, by putting it in the main page, it damages it and makes it look like it is really not worth reading, unless the reader is familiar with editing and the policies.

Tag meaning "What does this mean?"?
I think there should be a tag meaning "It is not clear what this sentence means, can someone please clarify it?". Is there one that I have missed? A Geek Tragedy 22:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"Suspected Plagarism" Template needed
I think Wikipedia really needs a template for suspected plagarism. There have been a few times, when I have seen content that seemed like plagarism; I Googled the same words, and it turned out to be plagarism. --Persept 01:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"Name a specific person" Template needed
I've seen many historical articles with statements like "Democritus found fault with the philosophers around him..." without giving examples of those unnamed philosophers. I'd like a simple in line template analagous to or  to go after such a vague description of unnamed actors. At present the Template name who seems to be vacant; it should expand to something like "insert specific name"

Its application would extend beyond historical articles to descriptions of current events, political and religious movements, etc.

I don't know how to go about this, but I suspect a reader of this page does. --SteveMcCluskey 01:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've put a draft of a template on my sandbox. I'd appreciate any comments on the idea. --SteveMcCluskey 21:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm generally against the proliferation of these kinds of templates, but as far as they go, it's good. I'd rather see all these things remain on talk pages whenever possible.--ragesoss 00:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh, I really wanted something like this the other day at liger, but I just ended up ranting on the talk page. &mdash; Laura Scudder ☎ 17:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Box size uniformity.
I think it might just be wise if all of the notice boxes had an idendical size. -- Cat out 02:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Controversial: no message of being displaced
How is it that the controversial template in the list has no message about being displaced shown? --Eleassar my talk 20:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there an "out of date" tag?
I just added the CIA factbook link to Demographics_of_Guyana. The article doesn't match the reference. Is there an "out of date" template, or one that indicates the article needs to be changed to truly match the source? --Howdybob 15:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, this is probably the closest, which includes "References may not verify the text."


 * Addhoc 15:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

how about a 'this article is US-centric' template?
That's probably not a serious suggestion. I guess 'missing info' might be the best choice from those available? If not, someone might want to put whatever they think best on the Criminal law article. Harry R 14:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, the template is, which produces:


 * Addhoc 15:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposing a new template: {Informal}
{Magazine} and {Story} indicate that a page reads more like a magazine article or a personal story than an encyclopedia entry...but what about pages that are neither like magazines nor stories and still aren't like encyclopedia articles at all?

I propose a template along these lines:

To meet Wikipedia's standards of quality, this article or section may require cleanup. The current version of this article or section does not possess the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Please discuss this issue on the talk page. Editing help is available.

Does this sound like a good idea?

If I'm mistaken and such a template already exists, please let me know what it's called. EvaXephon 05:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

A month later, I've had no feedback, so I guess this template wasn't a good idea after all =( EvaXephon 02:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't these be subst:'ed?
I noticed while browsing the category for Suspected hoax articles (I'm not sure how to wikilink to a category page, sorry), this page shows up in the list. Should the templates in the table be subst:'ed so this page doesn't show up on every disputed-type category on Wikipedia? Errick 07:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

subpages
These template message lists are getting too long. They should be split up into even more subpages. See Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages for main discussion -Eep² 16:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we have tags for these?
I often run across the following in wikipedia articles or talk pages: Jacob Haller 19:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ethnic, cultural, religious or racial slurs
 * Unclear or incoherent passages
 * Possible undue-weight passages
 * Claims, with citations for some, but not all, of the claim
 * I sometimes add the citation and leave the cn tag, but other editors may remove the cn tag.
 * Claims, with weak citations, which could use stronger citations
 * Same problem
 * Claims, with some citations supporting the claim, and potentially other citations contradicting the claim, but nowhere to put them
 * Contradictions between citations
 * Accuracy or bias concerns regarding section titles
 * Sections which use the same terms in different senses than the main article; common in criticism sections.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Haller (talk • contribs) 19:04, August 17, 2007


 * For "Claims, with citations for some, but not all, of the claim", I use verify source. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed reorganization
The current header format (e.g., "for placement ") doesn't seem too particularly helpful for finding what you want&mdash; at least, not for my silly mind :P. I would like to reformat it to reflect the Template messages table better, which groups the elements into their respective subjects (e.g., factual, neutrality, etc). If anyone has any objections, lemme know. Cheers. =) -- slakr \ talk / 19:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Contradictory categories
Is there a tag for contradictory categories? Andjam (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, but you can use the generic Contradict using the about parameter indicating that it is about the cats.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

POV tag
Who changed the wording of this tag? The new wording is totally inadequate in my view, and should be changed back again. Gatoclass (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

edit ninjas
Added a caution template for WP:EDITNINJAS issues. I think is important to point out not just what are the issues with the article, but also why the issues might happen. Might have not used standards, so do edit, but I feel it does belong here. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

TotallyDisputed
There is a template on the page called, but it's just a redlink. Why has it not been removed? -Zeus- 02:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

New template related to POV proposed
Please see here for my proposal of a new template, that would be put on articles that need to have their sources globalized - i.e. on articles that rely on a very similar set of sources likely representing one and the same POV.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Please help add new template to this article
It's too complicated for me to add here. This is:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Intro-fringe  Thanks a lot. Introman (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Introduction
The intro bit could use a rewriting, to sound a little less confusing and provide more useful information. -- &oelig; &trade; 09:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

POV/BIAS tag could be changed
The POV or BIAS tag could be changed. When placed on a page it says, among other things, "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (January 2009)." However, the WP:LAMEest thing happened when WP:CABALDEMONS worked together to continually remove the tag despite its clear language not to remove it. You see, between that language and WP:VANDTYPES, I assumed it was vandalism to remove the tag. So, since active and constructive conversation on the issue was occurring in Talk, and for the reasons stated above, I restored it 4 times and, as a result, got blocked under WP:3RR by an action started by one of the cabalists.

My suggestion to prevent such an occurrence in the future would be to remove the language "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (January 2009)" from the message.

Alternatively, VANDTYPES could be edited to explicitly state removing the POV or BIAS tag is not vandalism.

Better yet, a decision could be made that removing the tag is indeed vandalism. Then the VANDTYPES page could be updated. I think that would be ideal given the purpose and usage guidelines for the POV/BIAS tag.

So, what do you think? I am going to paste this same message on the VANDTYPES page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Which page do you want to have the discussion at? It's a bit like forum shopping to have two separate discussions, so it'd be better to pick one or the other.   Will Beback    talk    02:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not forum shopping. Further, I provided notice of the double listing.  It think it is best on both pages.  One or the other may change as a result, so each page should have the discussion as it relates to that page, in my opinion.  Of course, I could simply be unaware of a better forum for this kind of discussion.  Perhaps a single place is better, and perhaps that single place is on neither Talk page.  If you think something is more appropriate, let me know and/or feel free to move this talk to that better location.  I think you can see this is a legitimate and even compelling issue, okay, maybe not compelling, so I would like it to take place in the best location.  Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)