Wikipedia talk:Template index/Disputes

message: 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)
thread_title:  Discussion on the talk page 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Need a {wrong} tag

message: 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)
* 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)
thread_title:  [[Template:Morbid warning]] has been deleted 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Major reorganization of Template messages table 

message: It seems to me  has nothing to do with disputes, see Template_talk:Wrongtitle#Design.  Joe D (t) 18:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, I've moved it to /General. --Joy [shallot] 18:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Does "Wrongtitle" belong on the disputes page?

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[:Template:Disputed]] and [[:Template:DisputeCheck]] 

message: -- discussion moved from User talk:Jossi, regarding :
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 (), 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Noncompliant template considered too general 

message: 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)
replies: text: For sections and articles use  (which served me well today, I must say.) For in-line comments, I have created  for you, or  for short.  --James S. 05:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: What exactly do you want the resulting text to say? --James S. 16:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 , 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. — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: need a template to verify source

message: 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)
replies: text: "(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)
replies: text: Yes, maybe ((verify credibility)) or something like that would be good. Thanks. RJII 18:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done  produces . --James S. 08:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent! Thanks. RJII 03:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: verify qualifications of the author of source

message: 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)
replies: text: Hmm... Personally, I think these templates will make edit wars even more disruptive to the readers. - dcljr (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yeah... good luck with that. <g> - dcljr (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: They got reworked into , so just use  instead of . –Tifego(t)18:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That template is so vague it's useless. RJII 18:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Exclusion template

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia: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)
thread_title: Official template policy?

message: I've gone ahead and added . Details and explanation are over at User:Nikodemos/Asymmetric controversy. -- infinity0 16:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tag meaning "What does this mean?"? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Suspected Plagarism" Template needed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Heh, I really wanted something like this the other day at liger, but I just ended up ranting on the talk page.  — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Name a specific person" Template needed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Box size uniformity. 

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

message: {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.<noinclude>
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)
thread_title:  Proposing a new template: {Informal} 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Shouldn't these be subst:'ed? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  subpages 

message: I often run across the following in wikipedia articles or talk pages: Jacob Haller 19:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For "Claims, with citations for some, but not all, of the claim", I use . — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Can we have tags for these?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed reorganization 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: POV tag

message: 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)
thread_title:  {{tl|edit ninjas}} 

message: 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)
thread_title: TotallyDisputed

message: 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)
thread_title:  New template related to POV proposed 

message: 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)
thread_title: Please help add new template to this article

message: The intro bit could use a rewriting, to sound a little less confusing and provide more useful information. -- œ™ 09:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  POV/BIAS tag could be changed