Template:Fringe theories/sandbox

This is the template sandbox page for Template:Fringe theories (diff).
See also the companion subpage for test cases.

Template documentation[view] [edit] [history] [purge]

Template usage notes

Use this template when you have identified a serious issue regarding WP:Neutral point of view that fails to present a fringe theory within the context of the mainstream view or scientific consensus.

Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should first discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, and should add this tag only as a last resort. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what sources establish the mainstream view or scientific consensus, the tag may be removed by any editor.
The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.
This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view, giving a misleading overview of a fringe theory. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public.

When to use[edit]

Place this template on an article when you have identified a serious issue of balance and the lack of a neutral point of view that make a fringe theory appear to be the main scholarly point of view, despite it being rejected by the mainstream view or scientific consensus, and you wish to attract editors with different viewpoints on the mainstream or scientific view to the article. Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies.

An unbalanced or non-neutral article is one that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources. A balanced article presents mainstream views as being mainstream, and minority views as being minority views. The personal views of Wikipedia editors or the public are irrelevant.

When to remove[edit]

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

When not to use[edit]

This template is not for use on articles which discuss actual fringe theories appropriately, in line with what secondary sources say about them. For example, the template should not be placed on articles like Flat Earth, Perpetual motion, or Cold fusion.

How to use[edit]

Place {{Fringe theories|date=May 2024}} at the top of the disputed article, then explain your reasons on the article's talk page. To specify the section of the talk page, use {{Fringe theories|date=May 2024|talk=talk page section name}}. If the date is not included it will probably be added later by a WP:BOT.

This template will categorize tagged articles in Category:Articles needing more viewpoints or a dated subcategory thereof.

This template should only be used in the main (article) namespace. Do not place this template on talk pages, user pages, policies and guidelines, or other pages.

This template is a self-reference.
Please do not subst: this template.

Alternatives[edit]

If the dispute involves only a section of an article, use {{Fringe section}}.

If the dispute involves non-neutral presentation of viewpoints, but not actually fringe theories, use {{POV}} or {{POV section}}. See below for a list of other similar templates.

See Wikipedia:NPOV dispute for more info.

For issues relating to article balance due to insufficient coverage of the subject rather than editorial bias, use {{Cleanup weighted}}

Wikipedia project pages[edit]

Templates[edit]

Disputed factual accuracy[edit]

Boxes:
- {{Disputed}} For disputing entire article
- {{Dispute about|what}} For disputing part of an article
- {{Disputed section}} For disputing a section in an article
- {{Disputed tag}} For disputing recent promotions or amendments of policies and guidelines
- {{Under discussion}} For use on project pages (e.g., policies and guidelines), not on articles

Inline:
- {{Dubious}}, and {{Disputed inline}} Statement
- {{Under discussion inline}} Statements on project pages

Both accuracy and POV[edit]

Boxes:
- {{Controversial}} Talk page

Disputed neutrality (POV)[edit]

Boxes:
- {{POV}} Article, {{POV section}} Section, {{POV lead}} Lead section
- {{POV map}} Map

Inline:
- {{Lopsided}} Statement
- {{POV statement}} Statement

Wiki[edit]

The above documentation is transcluded from Template:Fringe theories/doc.
Editors can experiment in this template's sandbox and testcases pages.
Add categories to the /doc subpage. Subpages of this template.

v t e Citation and verifiability article maintenance templates
Sourcing	{{Circular}} {{Dubious}} {{Excessive citations}} {{Further reading cleanup}} {{More citations needed}} {{More citations needed section}} {{More footnotes needed}} {{No footnotes}} {{No significant coverage}} {{One source}} {{One source section}} {{Only primary sources}} {{NRIS only}} {{Primary sources}} {{Primary sources section}} {{Religious text primary}} {{Self-published}} {{Self-reference cleanup}} {{Self-sourcing examples}} {{Refexample section}} {{Sources exist}} {{Text-source}} {{Third-party}} {{Unreferenced}} {{Unreferenced section}} {{Unreferenced category}} {{Unreliable sources}} {{Unreliable sources section}} {{User-generated}}
BLP-specific	{{BLP unreferenced}} {{BLP unreferenced section}} {{BLP primary sources}} {{BLP self-published}} {{BLP sources}} {{BLP sources section}} {{BLP IMDb-only refimprove}} {{BLP IMDb refimprove}} {{BLP no footnotes}} {{BLP more footnotes needed}} {{BLP one source}}
Topic specific	{{Localist}} {{Media IMDb refimprove}} {{More medical citations needed}} {{More science citations needed}} {{Neologism}} {{Science review}} {{Unreferenced law}} {{Unreferenced-law section}} {{Unreferenced medical section}}
Dispute-related	{{Cite check}} {{Cite check section}} {{Content}} {{Disputed}} {{Dispute about}} {{Disputed section}} {{Disputed chem}} {{Disputed list}} {{Disputed map}} {{Expert needed}} {{Hoax}} {{Original research}} {{Original research section}} {{Speculation}} {{Speculation section}} {{Synthesis}} {{Verifiability}} {{Verify sources}}
Citation improvements	{{Citation style}} {{Citations broken}} {{Cleanup bare URLs}} {{Format footnotes}} {{Full citations needed}} {{Ibid}} {{Page numbers improve}} {{Page numbers needed}} {{Shallow references}}
General advice	Citing sources Reliable sources Maintenance template removal Citation needed Find sources Combining sources Referencing styles