Wikipedia:Template index/Disputes

"WP:DT" redirects here. Not to be confused with Wikipedia:Deletion today, Wikipedia:DiscussionTools, 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 type	What it makes	Where it goes
{{Autobiography}} links talk edit		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		Self-contradicting article top
{{Contradicts other|Article}} links talk edit		One or both contradicting articles top
{{Dispute about|'''The topic of dispute'''}} links talk edit		Disputed articles with list of topics top
{{Disputed}} links talk edit		Disputed articles top
{{Disputed category}} links talk edit		Disputed articles top
{{Disputed chem}} links talk edit	This chemical structure or diagram's factual accuracy is disputed. Page last edited 347 days ago {{{1}}}. Please discuss the issue on this diagram's talk page. See also: Wikipedia structure drawing guide. Usage: {{Disputed chem|why}} – All: Category:Disputed chemical diagrams	Disputed articles top
{{Disputed list}} links talk edit		Disputed articles top
{{Neologism}} links talk edit		Possible neologisms top
{{Notability|guideline (e.g. "Biographies")}} links talk edit		Non-notable topic, listing the specific guideline at issue top
{{Notability}} links talk edit		Non-notable topic or failing to meet the current notability guidelines (verbose) top
{{POV}} links talk edit		Disputed articles top
{{Unbalanced}} links talk edit		Articles which contain Unbalanced citations.

For placement at top of article or section

What to type	What it makes	Where it goes
{{Advert}} links talk edit		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		Above the site of dispute in article or section
{{Disputed map}} links talk edit		Article or section that includes a disputed map
{{Fanpov}} links talk edit		Pages that read like a fansite instead of the formal tones expected of an encyclopedia.
{{Incoherent}} links talk edit		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		Article or section where information not present may be worthy of inclusion
{{Multiple issues}} links talk edit	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=October 2024 or issue=April 2007	Top of article or section with three or more issues
{{Original research}} links talk edit		Possible original research.
{{Peacock}} links talk edit		Article or section that has peacock terms
{{Recentism}} links talk edit		Top of article, or top of section in dispute.
{{Refimprove}} links talk edit		Possibly inaccurate articles top
{{Science review}} links talk edit		Top of articles or sections
{{Self-published}} links talk edit		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		Pages that read like a narrative and tell a story rather than providing encyclopedic information.
{{Synthesis}} links talk edit		Possible unpublished synthesis. (The text in quotation marks is replaced with the title of the article.)
{{Tone}} links talk edit		Pages that tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia.
{{Undue weight|article}} {{Undue weight|section}} links talk edit		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		Lacks attributions from reliable sources. See template page for special usages.
{{User-generated}} links talk edit		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		Article or section that has weasel words

For placement in or at top of a section only

What to type	What it makes	Where it goes
{{Disputed section}} links talk edit		Disputed article sections under section header
{{Expand section}} links talk edit		Top of section to be expanded.
{{POV lead}} links talk edit		Disputed article intro top
{{POV section}} links talk edit		Disputed article sections under section header
{{Section OR}} links talk edit		Section contains possible original research.
{{Unreferenced section}} links talk edit		Top of section lacking citations

For inline article placement

See also: Wikipedia:Inline templates

What to type	What it makes	Where it goes
{{Citation needed}} or {{cn}} or {{fact}} links talk edit		After factual claims that need a citation to back them up. in-line
{{Disputed inline}} links talk edit		After a particular disputed statement or alleged fact in-line
{{Dubious}} links talk edit		After a specific statement or alleged fact that is sourced but that nevertheless seems dubious or unlikely in-line
{{Failed verification}} links talk edit		After factual claims that have been checked and not found in the indicated source. Explain in Talk. in-line
{{Lopsided}} links talk edit		One-sided statements in-line
{{Nonspecific}} or {{Unverifiable}} links talk edit		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		After text passages based upon original research in-line
{{POV-statement}} links talk edit		After passages that appear to have a non-neutral point of view.
{{Peacock term}} links talk edit		After text that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. See Puffery
{{Synthesis inline}} or {{syn}} links talk edit		After text passages based upon improper synthesis in-line
{{Verify credibility}} links talk edit		After suspect citations or source references in-line
{{Verify source}} or {{Check}} links talk edit		After suspect citations or source references in-line
{{Weasel inline}} links talk edit		After text that creates a misleading impression that something specific and/or meaningful has been said. See WP:WEASEL
{{Who}} links talk edit		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 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

Main page: Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace

See also

• Wikipedia:Responsible tagging
• Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems