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)
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.
Should there be uniformity among these templates?
etc. —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". —Ashley Y 04:12, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
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":
Kept in "general":
FT2 22:45, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
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)
Done. See Template:Incorrect. -Sparky 19:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Nearly all the templates are useful for everybody.
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. Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)
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)
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 Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Deleted or Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Not_deleted. Courtland 07:03, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
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)
It seems to me ((wrongtitle)) has nothing to do with disputes, see Template_talk:Wrongtitle#Design. Joe D (t) 18:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
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)
-- 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)
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♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 11:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
There needs to be a template, or something like that (as in [citation needed]), 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)
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)
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)
What happened to these? Did they get deleted? Someone please re-create them. I need one. --James S. 18:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
I've gone ahead and added ((Unbalanced)). Details and explanation are over at User:Nikodemos/Asymmetric controversy. -- infinity0 16:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
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 ((merge|DEST ARTICLE)) or ((importance)) 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.
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)
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)
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 [citation needed] or [original research?] 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 think it might just be wise if all of the notice boxes had an idendical size. --Cat out 02:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
{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:
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)
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)
These template message lists are getting too long. They should be split up into even more subpages. See Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages#subpages for main discussion -Eep² 16:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I often run across the following in wikipedia articles or talk pages: Jacob Haller 19:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Haller (talk • contribs) 19:04, August 17, 2007
The current header format (e.g., "for placement <at the top of the article|to the right of left field|etc...>") doesn't seem too particularly helpful for finding what you want— at least, not for my silly mind :P. I would like to reformat it to reflect the Wikipedia: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)
Is there a tag for contradictory categories? Andjam (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
There is a template on the page called
((TotallyDisputed))
, but it's just a redlink. Why has it not been removed? -Zeus- 02:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
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| talk 13:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
The intro bit could use a rewriting, to sound a little less confusing and provide more useful information. -- Ϫ 09:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
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)