Template talk:POV: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 03:29, 3 December 2010 editLegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk \| contribs)10,034 edits →change message: + Cmt← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:43, 3 December 2010 edit undoKillerChihuahua (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users34,578 edits →change message: Be done, alreadyNext edit →
Line 518:		Line 518:

	::::::::::::::::::I'll back out of this conversation so others can participate as well. I apologize for thinking a tag that says not to remove it should be restored per the tag's text, per Alecmconroy generally speaking, and per common sense to get more voices involved in the dispute. Thinking it was vandalism, I never thought 3RR was involved. But that should not stand in the way of improving policy. "The policies are quite clear". No, they are not. Not to me. Not to Kevinkor2 who opened this subsection. Not to Alecmconroy. Not to the people involved in the other instances Alecmconroy mentioned. We are seeking to make the policies even clearer, almost certainly a harmless change. Kevinkor2, sorry, but you are on your own right now. Good luck. --] (]) 03:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)		::::::::::::::::::I'll back out of this conversation so others can participate as well. I apologize for thinking a tag that says not to remove it should be restored per the tag's text, per Alecmconroy generally speaking, and per common sense to get more voices involved in the dispute. Thinking it was vandalism, I never thought 3RR was involved. But that should not stand in the way of improving policy. "The policies are quite clear". No, they are not. Not to me. Not to Kevinkor2 who opened this subsection. Not to Alecmconroy. Not to the people involved in the other instances Alecmconroy mentioned. We are seeking to make the policies even clearer, almost certainly a harmless change. Kevinkor2, sorry, but you are on your own right now. Good luck. --] (]) 03:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
			(outdent) Per common sense, I would think a four-year veteran of this site would have read the policy he was pointed to, rather than violate ] which I happen to know for a fact you are well aware of, LAEC. This tendentious arguing to add detailed verbiage to protect people from failing to listen to those who point them to policies and who instead engage in disruptive edit warring is pointless. You might as well argue we put the entire content of the policy, as well as the policies for BLOCK, EW, and every other conceivably applicable policy in the template - ensuring that it violates size standards by a factor of (I'm guessing) about a thousandfold, gets rolled up, and is therefore never read at all. Cease this, please. You've wasted enough time with your edit warring, your arguing, and now your campaign to validate your actions ''post hoc'' by adding verbiage which you can then point to and say, 'Oh, that's why I edit warred against advice, against policy, against common sense - because that wasn't there to tell me not to'. Be done, already. You erred. Don't do it again. But don't try to make it out that somehow it is someone else's fault for not spoon feeding you diligently enough. And don't "protect" the imaginary editors who might conceivably be as obtuse in the future. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 12:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:43, 3 December 2010

Template:POV is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.

Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8

Interwiki addition

] —Ppntori 19:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
] - Alsandro · T · w:ka: Th · T 17:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
] -- 118.68.60.114 (talk) 13:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC).

Done You can do this yourself, the /doc page isn't protected. —Ms2ger (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Restore POV-because or a similar template for talk pages?

Hi.

I was thinking, perhaps maybe the now-unused {{POV-because}} template could be restored, and turned into a talk page-only template? Perhaps maybe something like "{{NPOVD-summary}}" which could be used to give a brief summary of an ongoing NPOV dispute? Most of the objections to the use of {{POV-because}} seemed to involve problems with putting it on the main page, because someone might use it to push a point of view, and NPOV discussions should stay on the talk page. There does not seem to be any reason to object, therefore, to putting it on a talk page. It would prevent the need for spending hours and hours digging through hundreds (or thousands, if it's a very long and ongoing NPOV dispute, such as that on the article "Armenian genocide") of posts just to figure out some idea of what is the big bone of contention. mike4ty4 07:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Why wasn't I heard? mike4ty4 07:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please remove this comment, "u suck", under Minor POV. — ze ro » 05:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Y Done - Harryboyles 06:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

+fr

Hello, would you be so kind to add:

]
?

Thank you, --10caart 11:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. Note that interwikis are on Template:POV/doc, which is not protected. Sandstein 13:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Putting link to talk page inside an ifexist

I suggest putting linking to the talk page inside ifexist like i did to {{Disputed}}, so that there wont be any linking to non-existing talk pages. — H92 (t · c · no) 14:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

N Not done. The link is there so that people will know where to discuss the concerns; use of this template should be combined with a description of the problem on the talk page, and the link on the template encourages that. --ais523 15:06, 11 May 2007 (U T C)

Section specific templates

{{editprotected}} I'm trying to merge all of the redundant section specific templates, including Template:POV-section into all the "whole article" versions. Could "this article" be changed to "this article or section"? Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 17:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. —David Levy 18:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be kind of nice if the template could read "article" or "section" only with an extra parameter. Perhaps "what=_____"? — brighterorange (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I am undoing Mr.Z-man's merge of section templates into article templates, in accordance with the TfD closing statement, for a variety of reasons that I have stated on his talk page. Note that the merge was not discussed in advance, and there is no way to tag the intro section only. For now, I ask that " or section" be deleted. I agree with Brighterorange's comment that these should be merged, but that they should have an optional parameter for "section" instead of a blind redirect. Thank you. BenB4 12:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, so {{{1}}} isn't being used at this template, I think I'll use that. What's the default -- "article" or "article or section"? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Scratch that, {{{1}}} is being used, to specify a talk page section. Silly of me to miss that. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the request? — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Please delete " or section" because the section-specific templates including {{POV-section}} have been restored. BenB4 00:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I added a {{{what}}} param, as contemplated above. This allows derivative templates like {{POV-section}} to call into this one. Superm401 - Talk 17:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Editing suggestion

{{editprotected}} Far too many editors mistakenly think that there has to be a consensus to add a POV tag. A lot of edit-warring could be avoided if the following wikilink were added to the tag:

<small>]</small>

Which would appear as:

Please do not remove the tag until the dispute is resolved.

-- THF 02:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a widely-used template and the link being suggested is a how-to guide, not policy. As such, I've disabled the editprotected request while discussion continues. If no one objects (or cares), feel free to re-enable the editprotected request. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No objects over a week later, so I am restoring the editprotected tag. THF 08:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Merging {{POV}} and {{Unbalanced}}

Essentially the same templates. There is no need to have so many neutrality templates. Merge and redirect. - 82.16.7.63 03:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect {{Unbalanced}} towards {{POV}} - essentially a duplicate. Addhoc 13:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Redirect per nom --h2g2bob (talk) 03:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The templates are not the same. WP:UNDUE is a very distinct aspect of NPOV, namely that the material in question is not merely biased in itself (which a rewrite could change), but instead says that this material at that length gives undue weight to the article as a whole and thereby diminishes the article's encyclopedic accuracy. —AldeBaer 17:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Rewrite. I'd stress that this template is about WP:UNDUE - we need such a template, but the current 'unbalanced' one is not worded very clearly.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Rewrite - I agree that this describes a different aspect of POV. The POV tag means to me that other points of view are not present, while unbalanced describes undue weight or does not present enough of a particular point of view. I think the distinction is important as a POV tag can bias an article as much as the claimed bias context. If you can say to a reader that the dispute is not about missing a point of view but the balance presented.. I think that can decrease the impact of adding such a tag and the information presented to the reader. I think it is important to have several specific neutrality tags to increase civility, decrease wikistress, and inform the reader. Morphh 17:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Support merge. Looks like this merge has been proposed for about a year, I recommend moving forward. --El on ka 16:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

In view of the fact that this discussion is essentially over two years old, and both templates have evolved ever since, I think this discussion should be administratively closed. If somebody feels that a merge would still be in order, I recommend opening a new discussion. However, if a new discussion were opened, fairness demands that editors on {{Unbalanced}} be notified, which had not been done in this case. Debresser (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Change request

Could somebody please add "sections" to the description, so it would say, "The neutrality of the article or section is disputed...". Some articles have just a section that is not neutral, like Nintendo Power. If this is not needed could you please explain why? Codelyoko193 _Talk HHC! 18:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Because there is already a separate template for NPOV section violations. THF 19:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, OK, thanks. Codelyoko193 _Talk HHC! 23:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Transclusion Problems

{{editprotected}} A user pointed out in this ANI thread (read the thread for more details) that when this template transcludes it shows the name of the currently displayed article talk page and not the talk page of where the template was placed. It must have something to do with the {{TALKPAGENAME}} param. Is there anyway to subst that param?¤~Persian Poet Gal 23:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: the discussion is archived here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not simple to automatically subst the template. But the situation described there is very rare - a NPOV template. It's easy enough to manually subst this template on the template page and fix the talkpage reference by hand. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Talkpage link is too frequently null: Policy change, or, robot solution?

the template ALWAYS says "Please see the discussion on the Talk page", and editors way too infrequently are actually discussing the issue on the Talk page. So it looks like lots of drive-by tagging. Editors should ALWAYS start the discusison on the Talk page, so that for one thing they're not tag-and-run artists, and so that for another thing other people have a place to direct comments. I shouldn't have to START the discussion on the Talk page when someone else tagged the article. So: Do we set up a policy ("start talk topic when adding this tag"), or, do we run a bot to clean this mess up (around 5000 pages include it right now)? The current situation is no good, and my own opinion is that the tag is being used in bad faith because this lack of transparency encourages that. Why should anyone use this tag if they're not going to stick around and participate in the solution by being available for Talk? I'm sure there's an affirmative answer to that question, but in practice 9/10ths of taggers ignore it, according to my spot-checking of 20 well-sampled tagged articles. I looked at the top link and the bottom link form the ten What links here?limit=500 pages. Beanluc 01:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is an issue. Sometimes a POV tag can bias an article more then the claimed POV content. If they know enough to add a tag, you'd think they could at least describe what is POV about an article. I hate coming across these and you don't know what to address. Morphh 11:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

My approach is that if an article has had a POV tag for a long period of time, and there has been no discussion of it on the Talk page during that time, it's probably safe to remove it. If there's any evidence of actual controversy over the article, it should be kept - but there's no need to have a tag claiming the article is disputed if there appears to be no actual dispute. Terraxos 23:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the talk page section part of the tag should be made mandatory. Perhaps you can make it so that if it is omitted, the template doesn't show up and instead adds the article to a category, like for example "articles with pov tags without section titles" or something similar? Shinobu (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Vertical space

{{editprotected}}
The 'noinclude' tag should be on the preceding line (i.e., immediately after the 'includeonly' closing tag). As it is, there is an extra newline that creates excess vertical space when it's included. Hairy Dude (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly an issue of browser implementation, but I'm not seeing the same newline problem; tried pasting a few {{POV}} transclusions, they all sat directly adjacent to each other as I assume they're intended to. Normally I might get rid of the newline, anyway, just to be on the safe side, but this particular template has quite a few transclusions... anybody else have some input? – Luna Santin (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I see no problems either in the implementation, on four different browsers (IE6 and 7 on Windows XP, and my personal computer's Firefox 2 and Safari 3 on Mac OS X). Although it might be nice to change it, it's not worth it because of the many implementations of the template. As such, I'm going to decline this request unless someone else can confirm that there is a problem. Nihiltres 17:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I see this easily. Examine:

{{POV}}
This is the first line of the article.

There is clearly extra space there. Even better, compare:

{{POV}}
{{POV}}

with:

{{unreferenced}}
{{unreferenced}}

or with virtually any repeated {{ambox}} template. They are supposed to stack, even when there is a newline there, to aid in readability and allow for comments.

Please remove the newline between </includeonly> and <noinclude>, like in every other ambox template. Many thanks. MilesAgain (talk) 02:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

confirmed that there is an extra with this as compared to other templates. And the change would clearly have been harmless anyway, what was the point of declining it?

Done. —Random832 04:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Controversial in docs

{{Controversial}} goes on the talk page, not the "Page" as the docs currently say towards the end. MilesAgain (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I switched to a doc subpage, so you can fix the documentation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

ty MilesAgain (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Category inclusion

Please change the category inclusion part of the template from:

{{#if:{{{date|}}}|]|]}}

to:

{{{category|{{#if:{{{date|}}}|]|]}}}}}

like on other templates, so we can use the template in user and talk pages as an example, without actually adding those pages to the NPOV categories?

Thanks. Libcub (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. --- RockMFR 03:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Image request

Description: Can you please remove Image:Unbalanced scales.svg and replace it with Image:Emblem-scales.svg. I believe this is an uncontroversial change, but if you disagree let me know. Thanks in advance! -- Tkgd2007 (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done - should be uncontroversial. Nihiltres 02:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the old one better. Why should this one be used instead? --Pwnage8 (talk) 05:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Image change

{{editprotected}} Please change the image to Image:Ambox scales.svg following ambox image standardization. See relevant discussion here: Misplaced Pages talk:Article message boxes. Thanks!! -- penubag (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Editprotected

{{editprotected}}

Could someone add

to the list of categories so there is a list of all disputes. (I need it for the {{opentasks}} bot).

Done But categories belong in the documentation, which is not protected. Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It actually hasn't been done for some reason and the category needs to be in the <includeonly> tags on the template to it adds all pages with the template transcluded onto them. Atyndall93 | talk 08:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see what you mean, sorry.

Done Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou :-) Atyndall93 | talk 01:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain, but it hasn't been inserted correctly, its been placed into a convulted pipe linking this. If an admin could just replace the current template with this:

{{ambox | type = content | image = ] | text = '''The ] of this {{{what|article}}} is ].''' Please see the discussion on the ].{{#if:{{{date|}}}|''({{{date}}})''}} Please do not remove this message until the ] }}<includeonly>{{{category|{{#if:{{{date|}}}|]|]}}}}}]</includeonly><noinclude> {{pp-template|small=yes}} {{Documentation}} </noinclude>

it would be much appreciated. All that has been done is has been moved from inside the }}} to outside it. So that all pages transcluded with it are put into the category. Thankyou very much. Atyndall93 | talk 04:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm also sorry. :)

Done (Hopefully!) Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk) 08:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Added without explanation

A surprising number of times this template is added there is no explanation given, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. Sometimes it remains up blighting the article for months despite no explanation ever being provided. I remove this tag whenever it seems to have been added in a drive-by fashion with no explanation of what the POV issue actually is, and I encourage other people to do the same. Just saying "there's a POV issue but I won't say what it is" is not a reasonable way to improve articles. What can we non-psychic editors really do except leave the tag up for eons or just remove it? --Rividian (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Add a space

Add a space by replacing:

the ].{{#if:{{{date|}}}|''({{{date}}})''}}

With:

the ]. {{#if:{{{date|}}}|''({{{date}}})''}}

Gary King (talk) 05:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Y Done – {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 13:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

Why is it necessary to say  and ? Khoikhoi 20:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible bug

On the Cue to Recall page, there's a history section with the {{POV|date=December 2007}} tag and wikipedia does not format the history section title properly if the POV-tag is on the same line. Is this a template bug? Jason Quinn (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I changed the page. It seems that the POV boiler cannot be on the same line as a heading or there are problems. Here is the (old version) that last shows the bug. I'm disappointed that nobody has looked into this in a solid year! Jason Quinn (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change to `{{POV}}` / `{{NPOV}}`

I have started a discussion concerning this template at WP:VPR. Comments welcome. CIreland (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Archived at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 39. CIreland (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed reworking

I've made significant changes to the layout of the template on the sandbox. Comments? If there are no objections I'll request a protected edit to get this updated. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Enabling editprotected as there has been no response. These changes bring the template styling inline with other cleanup / dispute templates, and increase legibility. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree on the need for a change (see section above) and I also think that the revision you have suggested is better than what we currently have but I think there are still some problems which I would like to discuss before the template is changed.

The text reads: This article may not present the subject from a neutral point of view. The semantic issue I have with this is that it may not be the subject of the article whose neutrality is disputed.
I am also concerned that the issue that the template itself is not neutrally worded is not resolved. Whilst an improvement, I think even the suggested new version gives too much implicit substance to the assertion of non-neutrality.
The use of this template is frequently edit-warred over; I think a new wording needs to remove (or greatly reduce) the incentive to do so.

CIreland (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, suggestions:

How about "areas of this article may not present be presented from a neutral point of view"?
I'm not sure that it's possible to resolve this while keeping to the general "This article <OBSERVATION>. Please <INSTRUCTIONS>" format common to our cleanup / dispute templates. It's easier to state that the article implies no prejudice if it can be argued that its format is derived from a standard wording.
IMO the problem is that the template is deliberately vague as to the exact problem, and is frequently hoisted to the top of articles which may not be entirely in dispute. I think promotion of templates which key into specific issues ({{undue}}, {{fringe}}) where possible will help to reduce this. I don't think this can be solved entirely when a proportion of the userbase argues that {{copyedit}} is a borderline accusation of illiteracy.

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The difference between {{copyedit}} and {{NPOV}} is that using the former only really risks annoying other editors whereas {{NPOV}} is frequently speciously used to alter the balance of the article itself. DGG suggested previously something like "The fairness of this article is being discussed". The idea is avoid the template being able to be used to cast a largely balanced article in a poor light in order to push a POV. CIreland (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That's rather a watering-down of the existing wording. I've gone for a different approach - concentrate on the dispute rather than the article. See the sandbox for the new version. Thoughts? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Truth be told, I preferred your first suggestion.

Rather than

The point of view expressed in this article is currently being disputed on its talk page.

How about:

The points of view expressed in this article are currently being discussed on its talk page.

But I still worry that someone may complain that an article shouldn't be "expressing points (or point) of view)" at all. CIreland (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

And well they should worry about that - it's the whole point of the template. I'm aware that the template is used as an attack in many cases, but that's something which should be resolved by policy - not by making the template's message so dilute that it becomes unclear what exactly it is. We really need to use the word "dispute" because it's a technical description of the process. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point about "points of view", changing my mind on that. I don't follow why it has to be "disputed", which I especially dislike. May I suggest a few alternatives:

being discussed
being debated
being reviewed

Or here's something rather different, that keeps "dispute" but unequivocally attributes it to the editors rather than the content:

Editors are currently in dispute concerning points of view expressed in the article.

CIreland (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good! I've reworded. Comments? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I like it but I've dropped a note at WP:AN to see if anyone objects to a change. It's a widely used template and I might just get reverted on general principle if it's just us two. CIreland (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any problems with that wording, I'm all for it. --fvw * 21:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It's an improevment.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Please remember to keep the protection templates on the page that's actually protected. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Problem with new version The template was widely used for articles where the neutrality of the factual presentation, rather than the explicit opinions expressed, were disputed. The result is some awkwardness, as the template doesn't seem to fit anymore. "points of view" is an awkward construction from that angle. Please fix this, somehow. In my opinion, the old wording was fine, even if it was a bit stark. The edit-wars that resulted were because the tag was a flashpoint (rather than a cause) for underlying neutrality disputes, not because of any inherent problem with the tag. However, many of the previous versions here work as well "the neutrality of this article is under discussion" or some variant thereof. Ray (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, we'd be better creating a new template to cover the other cases. I see you just TfDed {{biased}}; I agree that it's redundant to this one, but it's possible we could still be able to have two templates to cover all the cases that this one currently does. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The template message now have changed content. NPOV used to be very similar to biased; but changing either without thorough discussion will not benefit the project. In this specific case I think too few points of view (ie three or four, if you count MZMMcBride) for such a heavily used template. Their should have been more effort to achieve some kind of broadly supported consensus, rather than this. Arnoutf (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I've reverted the change; this may be a positive rewording, but such a major change to a widely used article space template really requires a wider discussion and consensus than a Template talk: informal chat. Perhaps bring the suggested rewording to the VP? — Coren 06:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The matter of rewording was brought to the village pump and at the adminstrator's noticeboard people were invited to comment before the change was made. That you did not personally see these notices does not mean the change was not advertised at prominent noticeboards. Because your revert was based on incorrect assumptions, I am taking the liberty of re-reverting. CIreland (talk) 06:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Where would that be? I see the discussion here starting on the 8th, but no matching thread on AN or VP since; and certainly none where that wording has been raised. Please self-revert that bit of inadvertent wheel warring and start a wider discussion about such a change. — Coren 06:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The VP discussion is linked above. The AN request for opinions was just prior to the change. Let me dig in the archives.... CIreland (talk) 06:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive179; you'll notice the posting at WP:AN is also mentioned above. CIreland (talk) 06:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Found 'em. Yow; sometimes that inertia is hard to defeat— I suffered much the same problem when I basically rewrote WP:BOT. Took forever to even begin to get real feedback. Nevertheless, while I'm certain that you were all working out of good faith, a change to a mainspace template that's linked to thousands of articles really, really needs more than a half dozen editors commenting before being implemented. — Coren 06:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, so, we change it back to 25 July 08. Since you made the initial revert, it's probably best if you tell MZM, but I will if you think it's more appropriate. Does this seem like the best course of action? CIreland (talk) 06:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I had already discussed with MZM about the undo; and he had no objection because he implemented the {{editprotected}} without making a judgment call on the change itself. FWIW, I think you'll get more discussion for a change over such a relatively short template by putting the suggested wording in your notice itself rather than just a pointer to here. — Coren 06:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have reverted but the revert has broken Template:POV-section, possibly some others too. I have no idea how to fix it. (See, for example, the use of POV-section on Agriculture - and yes, I have tried purging the cache.) CIreland (talk) 06:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I don't get it; this is exactly the template that was there for the past six months and nobody would have noticed? I'm going to take a peek at the template code. — Coren 06:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was an edit on {{POV-section}} on Dec 17 that broke. Fix't. — Coren 07:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Are we sure that changes were only made to the section sub-template? (I really have no clue) CIreland (talk) 07:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

So this back to the old template which was crappy, didn't assume good faith, and questioned the contents without explanation rather than prominently pointing out an ongoing discussion? This will mean this template will remain the main tool for unproductive trolls and WP:POINTy-headed editors to continue to disrupt wikipedia. It should be restored to the new refactoring, which is actually useful and promotes discussion, rather than simply serving as a lazy recourse for the fringes to disrupt. We sink further and further into a sea of POV wars and do nothing to improve the environment, just throw more fuel into the fire. Arggghhh! --Cerejota (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Re-requesting

As per Cerejota's comment above, the revert has left us with a substantially worse-off template, and for no apparent good reason. If there are actual issues with the new template layout then they can be discussed as they are brought up. As-is, there was consensus for this change. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This thread is tl;dr. Reader's Digest version, please? --MZMcBride (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There was a long and healthy discussion about changing the layout of this template. It was changed. An admin reverted it because he decided it hadn't been discussed enough. Nobody else seems to agree. So the request is to restore the recent consensus version. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There were 3 reverts/undos on 27 December 2008, the last time the template was edited. Which version do you want restored? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This one, which is the same as the one two RVs before. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Done as there seems to be a consensus that this version is better than the old one. This is not meant to foreclose proposal and discussion of other alternatives. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

POV-section with date is broken

I'm reverting to the old revision until this can be fixed. Please thoroughly test new revisions before altering this highly visible template. --⟳ausa کui 23:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

After investigating a little more it looks like the recent changes to POV and POV-section templates have included changing the syntax of the secondary fields, which has broken this template on many pages where it has already been placed. Please check and fix this. --⟳ausa کui 23:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I see you've reverted the changes to the {{POV}} template. This issue appears to have been caused by a change to {{POV-section}} made back in April. I've updated the sandbox at {{POV-section}} with a version which fixes this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Done Thanks. I'll report back if there are any problems. --⟳ausa کui 09:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Error

In PayPal the category added by this template is not hidden. The category that should be hidden is NPOV disputes from or disputed Feb 2008. --Melab±1 ☎ 21:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Y Never mind I realized that it wasn't an error in the template, rather that the template {{hiddencat}} wasn't on the category's page. --Melab±1 ☎ 21:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

New template related to POV proposed

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} 13:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Specifying the section of the talk page

The documentation says, "To specify the section of the talk page, use {{POV|talk page section name}}." Doing so, does not give the putative desired result, i.e., a link to the discussion on the talk page. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

So why the change 1 week ago

Hello, I notice the wording now says 'Editors are currently in dispute concerning points of view expressed in this article', rather than 'the neutrality of this article is disputed'. The problem is that the current reading suggests 'some of the points of view might be wrong in some way', but the template used to be used to say 'it might not be neutral'; this is quite a difference.

Consider the following lead sentence:

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Adolf Hitler was a statesman famous for his vegetarianism. Hitler's animal rights activism was extremely popular in 1930s Germany, and by the early 1940s he had support from much of western Europe. Hitler's kindness to kittens was particularly appealing to King Edward VIII; Edward was popularly rumoured to endorse Hitler's political views. Unfortunately for Edward, the British population was historically unkeen on animal rights, bear baiting and fox hunting being particularly popular throughout English history; Britain reluctantly declared War on Hitler's germany.

The old NPOV template would clearly point out what people thought the problem might be. The new one is far too vagueClinkophonist (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

See the discussion above. Consensus is that the new version, while not perfect, is better in a variety of cases. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the phrase 'a variety of cases'. Ie. there are other cases where it isn't better. When there were several different templates to choose from, it was easy to pick the appropriate one, but now there is only this one, which may be slightly better for a variety of cases, but is significantly worse in others. Clinkophonist (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That the new wording is considerably less accusative is a feature IMO, not a bug. And there is still an entire category devoted to templates of this nature, if a better fit is to be found - the issue here was that {{NPOV}} was primarily applied to articles which were not flagrantly biased, and yet was worded as if it usually was. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The only templates there are for factual accuracy issues. This version of this template has effectively been turned into one of them - a paraphrased version of {{Disputed}}. In particular, the key detail it no longer mentions is the word neutrality, which was the whole point of the template; how can you think its reasonable to have {{NPOV}} but never mention neutrality?

All you've got now is oooh, there might be an issue - go and read the talk page; it should be There might be a neutrality issue - read the talk page for further details . Clinkophonist (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And that's how it should be, because it discourages editors from using this template as a badge of shame for any article they disagree with. Again, that's a feature. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree.--Cerejota (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The proposed wording is problematic primarily because for a large number of articles to which this tag is applied, it is inaccurate. Quite often, there are no issues with the presentation of opinions in the article, the issue is with the presentation of facts, or the lack thereof. I would not object to creating a collection of tags, and switching the tags on each article currently tagged (if somebody wants to undertake that onerous task), but the fact is that {{pov}} is used as a catch-all regardless of whether it's opinions, factual presentation, undue weight, etc., that are being alleged as a violation of WP:NPOV. One should not, when changing a tag, change it so that it no longer reflects the original taggers' intent in a significant fraction of articles. Ray 18:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Major template problem

Take a look at this version of an article (for a baseline reference). Then take a look at this diff and the article it creates.

Notice how the presence of the NPOV template changes the article from being about its title, to being about NPOV on Misplaced Pages. Clinkophonist (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand: there's a difference between {{NPOV}} and {{WP:NPOV}}. The former transcludes this template. The latter transcludes the policy page. It's a simple syntax error on behalf of the editor in question. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted to the previous and longstanding version of this template. Quite frankly, after the discussion about this last year, I am very annoyed that someone chose to revert the template again on the basis of just one new user's opinion and without having the courtesy of informing interested parties like myself about the discussion after I had previously expressed the strongest possible opposition to this change. Gatoclass (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've pinged you on your talk page, but it's probably better here - where was this old discussion? So far as I can see, you haven't made any previous comments on either this page or its two archives. Was there a discussion elsewhere? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Last time I left a message at AN voicing my objections and another admin reverted the changes on the basis that there had been insufficient discussion. The discussion, such as it was, then ended up here. Gatoclass (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Very well, although I don't see why comments were left at the VP instead of here. For now, I've prepared a new version of the sandbox which uses the existing wording but uses a more standard layout (which is more legible and makes better use of the template's width). Could you synchronise it? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason the discussion was moved to VPP is because this page is considered too out-of-the-way to have a debate about something that potentially affects thousands of articles. One of those little anomalies of the project.

What do you mean "synchronize"? You want me to post your sandbox code to the template? I'm happy to do that, as long as you're sure the new layout is correct. Gatoclass (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, just copy and paste the code across. I'm sure that the sandbox code is correct. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Done Gatoclass (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with Gatoclass, and have asked him to retract. The wording of all tags in wikipedia should be geared towards eventual resolution of the conflict, not its perpetuation by drive by tagging, which is what this tag promotes. That language is a relic of a past in which we had disputes but people behaved, but I am afraid that today with professional meatpuppets, and meta-controversies, such language belongs in the dust bin with {{totally-disputed}}. Unfortunately, since this is protected, it can lead to accusations of pullign wheelies. It is a bad situation. --Cerejota (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where the discussion to delete totallydisputed took place, but it appears to have been deleted for housekeeping rather than policy reasons, since the individual tags re neutrality and factual accuracy are still extant.

Re your comments, I gave my reasons for objection to the proposed changes here. There is clearly no consensus for the proposed change, and I am strongly opposed to it for the reasons stated in the supplied link. Gatoclass (talk) 09:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Misuse

Would anyone mind if we expanded the "badge of shame" instructions to specifically include language about not using it to "warn readers" about (perceived) neutrality failings of an article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Usage instruction not worded strongly enough?

At present the usage instructions (guidelines?) include the phrase:

"The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page."

To me, this means that the user of this template can start the discussion (and perhaps is strongly advised to do so), but is under no obligation — despite the fact that without the discussion, there's little or no point in using this tag. (For instance, see Billy_Fury#UK_chart_and_film_success.)

I propose that "should" needs to be changed to "must". — 92.40.178.206 (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There are no "musts" on Misplaced Pages and I think "should" gets the point across well enough. Gatoclass (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Change wording

The text currently says:

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

I think we might better communicate the way this template should be used if we change it to something like this:

You are invited to join the discussion about the neutrality of this article on the talk page. Please remove this message when the discussion has ended.

I think this wording will reduce the likelihood of people using this tag as a permanent 'warning to readers' (Category:NPOV disputes from December 2006 should be empty: POV discussions do not run for three years at a time), while perhaps being better encouraging new editors to join the conversation. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to make a few remarks about this proposal:

Not all editors who post a POV tag open a discussion on the talk page.
POV issues sometimes run and never end.
Sometimes the tag is simply forgotten, even though the issue was resolved (if not by discussion then at least factually, when a consensus version remains stable).

I think this means I am not in favor of this new wording. Debresser (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Support the change. It is much nicer to use positive language, and I think it gives the same information. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I support changing the final sentence to "Please remove this message when the discussion has ended." as this more closely reflects the guide to the use of this tag, which says "if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor". Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I wonder whether it would be possible to change what the template displays based on the date= parameter? For example, if the date is from two years ago, then the last sentence could say "Please remove this message if there has been no recent discussion about this issue on this article's talk page." WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

One more interwiki

Please can this be added ? hr:Predložak:Neutralnost Thank you.

--Gdje je nestala duša svijeta (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Done in this edit, which you could have made yourself, because interwikis go on the unprotected documentation page. Debresser (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Reason

Please, can this be added? Thank you. User:Andres Rojas

text = The '''] 
{{#if:{{{of|{{{1|}}}}}}|{{{of|{{{1|}}}}}}|of this {{{what|article}}}}} 
is ]'''.
<br />{{#if:{{{reason|{{{2|}}}}}}|'''Reason:''' {{{reason|{{{2}}}}}}<br />|}}
Please see the discussion on the ]. 
Please do not remove this message until the 
]

The reason in question is seldom something short enough to add to the cleanup tag itself, and in any case it is best that all discussion of the problem be had on the talk page: allowing editors who dispute an article's neutrality to give a long description of their grievances in the tag would cause all sorts of problems. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

change message

Hi everyone,

I suggest the wording of the last part of the template be changed from

Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

Please do not remove this message until there is consensus that dispute is resolved. It is not vandalism to remove this template.

This may fix the hole that the editors of Southern Poverty Law Center fell into Nov. 20, 2010 to Nov. 30, 2010.