Alternative Views Template‑class | |||||||
|
There is northing wrong with fringe theories being in Wikipedia. This if anything refers to a neutral point of view problem. There may be some way of working the idea into the POV tag or have it as an alternate but it should not be placed as well. Dmcq ( talk) 16:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
The Template:Fringe theories page does not seem to provide template documentation - e.g. the syntax for the template and instructions on how to use it – e.g. as does Template:Tone and many other such templates. I think this would involved a {{ Documentation}} tag. It would be nice for someone (someone more expert than myself) to add this. — BarrelProof ( talk) 18:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I think it might be useful, and potentially increase the usefulness and effectiveness of the template, if there were a way to adopt the phrasing in the template appearance from "fringe theory" to "minority theory". There is an at least real perception of there existing s difference between the two phrasings, and it might not be unreasonable to make provisions for that. I am speaking particularly of the current discussion at Talk:Christ myth theory regarding the use of this template (I think) there. John Carter ( talk) 16:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
This article may present
fringe theories, without giving
appropriate weight to the mainstream view or scientific consensus. |
Delta13C ( talk) 15:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Per a discussion on Talk:Fringe that determined that should only be the main use of that template as long as no WP:FRINGE-related template existed, it was moved to Template:Fringe show. The hatnote does not display in the template when used. It is only there to signify that the new main use of {{ Fringe}} is to redirect to this template. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I added a brief section at #When not to use, in order to deal with users who—trying to mind-read their intent here—apparently think of this template as a kind of warning sign, something like, "Caution, this article touches on subjects that are not accepted as mainstream science!", like you might place on the Young Earth creationism article, if such a thing were needed (not!). I recently removed the template from COVID-19 anti-lockdown protests in the United Kingdom, in an apparent example of this type of misunderstanding.
Checking the list at What links here (articles), I see various other articles worth checking for this type of misunderstanding. For example: although I haven't read through it thoroughly, at first glance Titanic conspiracy theories would appear to be another example of an article that should not have this template.
Could use assistance from any editors willing to go through the what-links-here list and remove the template from articles that shouldn't have it. Also, please have a look at the new /doc page section, and adjust the wording as needed. I considered also adding a bullet to the {{ Template notes}} box at the top of the page as a briefer statement of it, perhaps:
or some such, but have not done so, so far. I think it could benefit from it, though. Pinging top contributors to the /doc page and template: @ WhatamIdoing, MSGJ, LuckyLouie, SebastianHelm, Vanisaac, Jdaloner, and TheDragonFire: for feedback. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 19:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Alternative Views Template‑class | |||||||
|
There is northing wrong with fringe theories being in Wikipedia. This if anything refers to a neutral point of view problem. There may be some way of working the idea into the POV tag or have it as an alternate but it should not be placed as well. Dmcq ( talk) 16:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
The Template:Fringe theories page does not seem to provide template documentation - e.g. the syntax for the template and instructions on how to use it – e.g. as does Template:Tone and many other such templates. I think this would involved a {{ Documentation}} tag. It would be nice for someone (someone more expert than myself) to add this. — BarrelProof ( talk) 18:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I think it might be useful, and potentially increase the usefulness and effectiveness of the template, if there were a way to adopt the phrasing in the template appearance from "fringe theory" to "minority theory". There is an at least real perception of there existing s difference between the two phrasings, and it might not be unreasonable to make provisions for that. I am speaking particularly of the current discussion at Talk:Christ myth theory regarding the use of this template (I think) there. John Carter ( talk) 16:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
This article may present
fringe theories, without giving
appropriate weight to the mainstream view or scientific consensus. |
Delta13C ( talk) 15:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Per a discussion on Talk:Fringe that determined that should only be the main use of that template as long as no WP:FRINGE-related template existed, it was moved to Template:Fringe show. The hatnote does not display in the template when used. It is only there to signify that the new main use of {{ Fringe}} is to redirect to this template. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I added a brief section at #When not to use, in order to deal with users who—trying to mind-read their intent here—apparently think of this template as a kind of warning sign, something like, "Caution, this article touches on subjects that are not accepted as mainstream science!", like you might place on the Young Earth creationism article, if such a thing were needed (not!). I recently removed the template from COVID-19 anti-lockdown protests in the United Kingdom, in an apparent example of this type of misunderstanding.
Checking the list at What links here (articles), I see various other articles worth checking for this type of misunderstanding. For example: although I haven't read through it thoroughly, at first glance Titanic conspiracy theories would appear to be another example of an article that should not have this template.
Could use assistance from any editors willing to go through the what-links-here list and remove the template from articles that shouldn't have it. Also, please have a look at the new /doc page section, and adjust the wording as needed. I considered also adding a bullet to the {{ Template notes}} box at the top of the page as a briefer statement of it, perhaps:
or some such, but have not done so, so far. I think it could benefit from it, though. Pinging top contributors to the /doc page and template: @ WhatamIdoing, MSGJ, LuckyLouie, SebastianHelm, Vanisaac, Jdaloner, and TheDragonFire: for feedback. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 19:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)