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[edit]

What to type What it makes Where it goes
((Autobiography))

links talk edit

This date-flagged is an autobiography or has been extensively edited by the subject or by someone connected to the subject. It may need editing to conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. There may be relevant discussion on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Articles which are autobiographies and may not be NPOV because of that, with the date at which they were flagged.
((Self-contradictory))

links talk edit

This article or section appears to contradict itself. Please see the talk page for more information.
Self-contradicting article
top
((Contradicts other|Article))

links talk edit

This article appears to contradict the article Article. Please discuss at the talk page and do not remove this message until the contradictions are resolved.
One or both contradicting articles
top
((Dispute about|'''The topic of dispute'''))

links talk edit

The factual accuracy of part of this article is disputed. The dispute is about The topic of dispute. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced. See the relevant discussion on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Disputed articles with list of topics
top
((Disputed))

links talk edit

This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Disputed articles
top
((Disputed category))

links talk edit

The inclusion of one or more of the categories on this page is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.
Disputed articles
top
((Disputed chem))

links talk edit

Disputed articles
top
((Disputed list))

links talk edit

The inclusion of certain items in this list is currently being disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the article's talk page.
Disputed articles
top
((Neologism))

links talk edit

This article may document a neologism or protologism in such a manner as to promote it. Please add more reliable sources to establish its current use and the impact the term has had on its field. Otherwise consider renaming or deleting the article. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Possible neologisms
top
((Notability|guideline (e.g. "Biographies")))

links talk edit

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be shown, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted.Find sources: "Disputes" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Non-notable topic, listing the specific guideline at issue
top
((Notability))

links talk edit

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be shown, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted.Find sources: "Disputes" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Non-notable topic or failing to meet the current notability guidelines (verbose)
top
((POV))

links talk edit

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Disputed articles
top
((Unbalanced))

links talk edit

This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page.
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

This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by removing promotional content and inappropriate external links, and by adding encyclopedic content written from a neutral point of view. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
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

The relevance of particular information in (or previously in) this article or section is disputed. The information may have been removed or included by an editor as a result. Please see discussion on the talk page considering whether its inclusion is warranted.
Above the site of dispute in article or section
((Disputed map))

links talk edit

The factual accuracy of the map included in this page is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help replace the disputed map with another suitable one or improve it if possible. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Article or section that includes a disputed map
((Fanpov))

links talk edit

This article may be written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view. Please clean it up to conform to a higher standard of quality, and to make it neutral in tone. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Pages that read like a fansite instead of the formal tones expected of an encyclopedia.
((Incoherent))

links talk edit

This article may lack focus or may be about more than one topic. Please help improve this article, possibly by splitting the article and/or by introducing a disambiguation page, or discuss this issue on the talk page.
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

This article is missing information about Info. Please expand the article to include this information. Further details may exist on the talk page.
Article or section where information not present may be worthy of inclusion
((Multiple issues))

links talk edit

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) No issues specified. Please specify issues, or remove this template. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
  • 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=February 2024 or issue=April 2007
Top of article or section with three or more issues
((Original research))

links talk edit

This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Possible original research.
((Peacock))

links talk edit

This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. Please remove or replace such wording and instead of making proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Article or section that has peacock terms
((Recentism))

links talk edit

This article appears to be slanted towards recent events. Please try to keep recent events in historical perspective and add more content related to non-recent events.
Top of article, or top of section in dispute.
((Refimprove))

links talk edit

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.Find sources: "Disputes" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Possibly inaccurate articles
top
((Science review))

links talk edit

This article reads like a scientific review article and potentially contains biased syntheses of primary sources. Please replace inadequate primary references with secondary sources. See the talk page for details. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Top of articles or sections
((Self-published))

links talk edit

This article may contain excessive or inappropriate references to self-published sources. Please help improve it by removing references to unreliable sources where they are used inappropriately. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
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))

links talk edit

This article is written like a story. Please help rewrite this article to introduce an encyclopedic style and a neutral point of view.
Pages that read like a narrative and tell a story rather than providing encyclopedic information.
((Synthesis))

links talk edit

This article or section possibly contains synthesis of material which does not verifiably mention or relate to the main topic. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Possible unpublished synthesis. (The text in quotation marks is replaced with the title of the article.)
((Tone))

links talk edit

This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Pages that tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia.
((Undue weight|article))
((Undue weight|section))

links talk edit

This section may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. Please help improve it by rewriting it in a balanced fashion that contextualizes different points of view. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
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

This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.Find sources: "Disputes" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Lacks attributions from reliable sources. See template page for special usages.
((User-generated))

links talk edit

This article may contain improper references to user-generated content. Please help improve it by removing references to unreliable sources, where they are used inappropriately. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
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))

links talk edit

This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed.
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

This section's factual accuracy is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Disputed article sections
under section header
((Expand section))

links talk edit

This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it.
Top of section to be expanded.
((POV lead))

links talk edit

The neutrality of this article's introduction is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Disputed article intro
top
((POV section))

links talk edit

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Disputed article sections
under section header
((Section OR))

links talk edit

This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Section contains possible original research.
((Unreferenced section))

links talk edit

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Top of section lacking citations

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
((Disputed inline))

links talk edit

[disputed ]

After a particular disputed statement or alleged fact
in-line
((Dubious))

links talk edit

[dubious ]

After a specific statement or alleged fact that is sourced but that nevertheless seems dubious or unlikely
in-line
((Failed verification))

links talk edit

[failed verification]

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.
((Peacock term))

links talk edit

[peacock prose]

After text that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. See Puffery
((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
((Weasel inline))

links talk edit

[weasel words]

After text that creates a misleading impression that something specific and/or meaningful has been said. See WP:WEASEL
((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
((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]