Template talk:Hoax

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hoax template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

This template was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: no consensus, 31 August 2013, see discussion. no consensus, 8 May 2013, see discussion. no consensus, 9 September 2011, see discussion.

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Counter-Vandalism Unit This template is within the scope of the Counter-Vandalism Unit, a WikiProject dedicated to combating vandalism on Wikipedia. You can help the CVU by watching the recent changes and undoing unconstructive edits. For more information go to the CVU's home page or see cleaning up vandalism.Counter-Vandalism UnitWikipedia:Counter-Vandalism UnitTemplate:Counter-Vandalism UnitCounter-Vandalism Unit articles

This template was created at the suggestion of User:Aquillion during a discussion if WP:CSD ought to be expanded to cover hoaxes. One viewpoint was that tagging a suspected hoax as such might deter the hoaxter early on. Pilatus 19:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This template looks like a good idea, and I applaud you for it. Though, do you really want the background colour to be THAT yellow? It really burns my eyes..a softer kind of yellow or gray would be preferable to me -- SoothingR 19:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that it's a lesser level of warning that the {{TotallyDisputed}} template, so it shouldn't be pink or red but stronger than the orange {{Controversial}} tag. Yellow is a good shade but I agree that this particular hue is really violent. As this is the first template that I created I have no good idea about template syntax. Do tone it down if you know how. Pilatus 19:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK. What about this?

This article may be a hoax. If you can confirm or deny this please weigh in on its talk page but do not remove the notice while the discussion is in progress. If the article's accuracy is clearly confirmed as a hoax, you may want to list this article on articles for deletion. If it is confirmed true, please remove this notice.

Or this?

This article may be a hoax. If you can confirm or deny this please weigh in on its talk page but do not remove the notice while the discussion is in progress. If the article's accuracy is clearly confirmed as a hoax, you may want to list this article on articles for deletion. If it is confirmed true, please remove this notice.

-- SoothingR 19:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I find the lighter yellow better suited for its purpose. Cheers, man! Pilatus 19:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :).-- SoothingR 20:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that the light yellow one is better. Johntex\^talk 20:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like this template. I have two suggestions for improving the wording:

1. Change to "If the article's accuracy is clearly confirmed as a hoax, please list this article on articles for deletion"
2. Change to "If the article is confirmed true, please remove this notice."

I think the first change is more consistent with what we want to happen. I think the second change helps clarifying that we are talking about the discussion on the article, not an AfD process necessarily. Johntex\^talk 20:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested rewording:

This article may be a hoax.

If you can confirm or deny this, please explain why on its talk page, but do not remove this notice :while the discussion is in progress.

If the discussion clearly confirms that it is a hoax, you may want to nominate this article for :deletion by following the instruction in the AfD footer section of :Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Today.

If the discussion clearly confirms that it is not a hoax, then please remove this notice.

What I'm trying to spell out for a first-time reader is the sequence of steps to be followed and links to where to go to carry them out. I'm sure it could be done more elegantly!

P.S. I prefer the first colouring.

Dlyons493 Talk 22:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The stop hand should probably not be there -- this template looks more like a "For deletion" message than a template for noting concern by some editors that it might be a hoax.

I think this template would be much more appropriate if the template looked like {{cleanup-verify}}, since the problem it really describes is the article makes extraordinary claims and doesn't cite adequate sources, so the editors are lead to believe it might be a hoax.

It turns out that {{cleanup-verify}} has a very similar function.

If the article described a well-known hoax like the Goodtimes Virus, then the article, would of course be revised to explain that such and such is a well-known hoax, so deletion is not necessarily the outcome, even if an article is about a hoax; the outcome can always be rewrite. --Mysidia (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Denelson83 has tried a couple of times to change the icon to a question mark, which seems much more in keeping with the meaning of the template. I notice it was changed back each time with no comment here or in the edit summary. Any particular reason people seem so wedded to the "stop hand"? Joyous | Talk 15:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template survived a discussion at TfD. The debate can be found here. -Splash^talk 18:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the name of the category Category:Suspected hoaxes is misleading and incorrect. I would assume that the category would contain encyclopedic articles on events that are still regarded by the world or by some people as a possible hoax. Good examples would be Andreas Grassl, who claims to have been rendered autistic savant after a trauma. The Daily Mirror and the BBC have both expressed doubts that his condition was as dramatic as made to sound, and suspect a media hoax involving the patient, the hospital staff, and possibly other media organizations. Is there any way that we can label the category of suspected hoax articles so that it makes it clear that it will contain Wikipedia articles that are suspected to be hoaxes? --DDG 16:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Something like "Suspected Hoax Articles" would be quick and to the point, if a little unclear.... Stratadrake 01:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the template icon to the question mark, which I (and others, if the Village Pump is anything to go by) think more accurately expresses the import of the template. The stop hand - apart from being a very hackneyed image - is on a considerable number of templates, all of them with different meanings but which look at a brief glance to be identical. While a case can be made for a uniformity of templates, with consistent use of size and colour of the text box, some quick identification for readers as to which type of warnin box is present is very useful, and in the case of templates where the articles themselves should be questioned, a question makrk makes moe sense than a stop sign. Grutness...wha? 00:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally approve of this change. The question mark looks much better than the overused stop-hand. Joyous | Talk 00:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JSYK, Category:Suspected hoaxes has been listed for merging into Category:Articles lacking sources. A CfD discussion is currently underway. - N (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the text from "The authenticity of this article has been questioned" to "The truthfulness of this article has been questioned."

The opposite of "authentic" is "fake" or "spurious", but the disputed article is an article in the genuine Wikipedia. It's the content that is spurious. Please review and fix, if needed. I'm not a native speaker. Pilatus 16:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but I think "truthfulness" sounds odd. It has a moral connotation, so that the opposite of "a true statement" is "a false statement", but the opposite of "a truthful statement" is like... "a misleading statement". I think that it's a bit general, and though I'm not sure that will make people use it to tag articles that simply have POV problems, I don't think it's a good description of a hoax article. I wonder how else we could phrase it... --Galaxiaad 18:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Hoax}} is a serious template. Please refrain from adding humorous links. Thank you. —David Levy 02:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the word truthiness on this template made my day. Personally, I think it should stay (delinked, of course) because there isn't enough soul in Wikipedia (gut, as Colbert would put it). Having that word doesn't compromise the purpose of the template while at the same time prevents us from looking like angry deletionist stiffs and/or censorship robots. I think we should all lighten up a bit, maybe stop GAFing and contribute to Wikipedia someplace more worthwhile. Axem Titanium 05:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If building a serious encyclopedia bores you, perhaps this is what you seek. Actually, given that you're a fan of The Colbert Report (as I am), maybe you'd prefer this. —David Levy 06:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really wouldn't say it bores me (considering I spend so much time editting it). I'm just a little disenchanted by the virulent hard-assed-ness that I see sometimes. Oh well. I actually don't mind, I just thought it would be a nice touch. Axem Titanium 06:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, working on Wikipedia bores me once in a while. That's why I occasionally contribute to other, less serious wikis (though not the two that I mentioned). I hope that you understand why some of us object to the addition of a joke to a serious template and recommend that such efforts be focused elsewhere. —David Levy 06:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. No complaints from me, at least. You might have a little trouble with some anons though. Axem Titanium 06:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do we tag images that we believe to be hoaxes (e.g. photoshop maniulations)? CKCortez (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, we now have a solution for that. Take a look at {{main talk other}}. I designed it just for templates like this one. If you use that one then you can easily make this hoax template have the "messagebox" standard look and another text when on "other" types of pages. Then it should perhaps say "The truthfulness of this page or media file has been questioned."

I could of course do the conversion, but I'd rather see that you do it and then tell me if you had any problems doing it or if anything was unclear in its doc page. So that I can make it better if needed. Thus you could be the first beta-tester of {{main talk other}}.

--David Göthberg (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at it, but I realized -- is "Image:" the only "other"? If someone might suspect that a category is a hoax, or a portal. So, I think I will make Template:Image hoax for now. But yours is a good idea. CKCortez (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, making a separate template like {{image hoax}} works too. I just took a look at it, it seems nice.

--David Göthberg (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template has been deleted in the Spanish Wikipedia. --201.243.141.238 (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for a template to put here,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_maximum_entropy_production

as at least two of us have some doubts about sources which have been obtained from advocacy sites which appear to be reprints of articles from reliable sources. We have no specific evidence at this time, but would like to recruit anyone who can help make a determination one way or other. I wanted to add something like this, to alert reaader to nature of concern,

hoax|There is some passing concern about the quality of sources for current content beyond normal reliability issues. Please see talk page.

but AFAIK there are no qualifiers that show up on page. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In truth, I do not think this template should be used for that purpose. You do not think the article or a section of it is a hoax. You just want to question the sources. To do so you should use {{Dubious}} or even {{Verify credibility}}. Debresser (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes sense but what about "elaborate hoax" or "boy in balloon" (LOL)? I think those terms will do however but would you care to comment on "elaborate hoax?" Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I do not understand these terms, which perhaps has to do with the fact that English is not my first language, I can not comment on this. Debresser (talk) 19:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I thought this made world headlines,

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22boy+in+balloon%22+%22elaborate+hoax%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi= In any case, the immediate problem is due to citations that link to subject's own websites that appear as journals. However, the citations on gscholar are questionable and there are a lot of irregularities here. In short, a sceptical mind could construe all the citations as being a hoax of somekind. None of the reviewers except for the "adherents" ( for lack of better term) seem to think there is much merit here, almost as if this is a perpetual motion machine for which the author has sources which appear to be credible but in fact are not independent. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I may give you some advise. Announce on the talkpage, that you want to sources to be reviewed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and post there. Debresser (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I added that to my watch list and I'll give it some thought but I'm trying to recruit people who know the field. This is an area with many "crackpots" but this is a rather confusing situation. It looks like the journals are almost fake, this could go beyond reliable and maybe even wikipedia. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just tell them so on wp:rs/n. They'll work it out.That is what they do all the time. Afterwards you can come back to the article with the backup of consensus. Debresser (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the {{db-hoax}} template imply the action of this template and include the tagged article into Category:Wikipedia suspected hoax articles. One editor's blatant hoax is another's suspected suspected: putting db-hoax pages into the category might help rescue pages which have been tagged in too much haste. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is at Template talk:db-meta. --Bsherr (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Fake election sandboxes (permalink)

I've sandboxed some changes that affect how this works OUTSIDE of "mainspace" (aka "the main encyclopedia").

• Template:Hoax/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (permalink)
• Template:Hoax/testcases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (permalink)

The sandboxed version honors the new |intentional=1 parameter. Outside of "main" space it replaces the message with a different, informational messages. If the page is moved to the main encyclopedia with |intentional=1, it intentionally displays a very ugly error saying that this parameter is not supported in articles.

Outside of "mainspace" it changes the color from red to blue, changes the icon from a "?" to an "i", and adds a line of text explaining the new "intentional" parameter.

I've updated the testcases page.

Why did I do this? So that editors who intentionally create "placeholder drafts" can do so without the risk that they will be labeled as actual hoaxes, or, if they are labeled as such, that they can just add |intentional=1 and the template's display will change.

I did NOT change any categorization, but that should be considered if this change is adopted.

I have NOT updated the documentation yet. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]