Template talk:Editorializing?

Templates
Oh I see.. I didn't notice there already was another template editorializing without the question mark which already leads to the MoS page. Seems a bit redundant though to have two.. why is it so important to have one point readers to WP:OR and another one to WP:WTW?-- &oelig; &trade; 19:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Editorializing is common on Wikipedia. One form of editorializing is OR. Another form is weasel type words or puffery. We can't use the same template for two different issues. QuackGuru (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand. I just worry that we may be confusing editors by having such similar sounding tags for two different things. -- &oelig; &trade; 19:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I used one of the templates but it did not work. After I removed the OR an editor added even more editorializing using different references. Send both templates to deletion. QuackGuru (talk) 05:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Huh? They're still useful templates. I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding what you wrote.. You want them both deleted now just because one person decided to ignore it? --  &oelig; &trade; 07:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I was hinting you can do whatever you want with the templates. It is irrelevant to me at this point what happens to the templates. QuackGuru (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The original (earlier) version of this template was good. When we see inline editorial (e.g., POV) statements, there are times were we need to tag them as such.  But the last version linked to no OR, which is far different than throwing in an editorial statement here and there.  I've attempted to fix (and hope it works.)  As far as a NOR inline tag goes, I doubt it will be useful.  Recognizing OR is hard enough -- tagging it correctly (inline) is far tougher.  Best to tag whole sections/articles with banners.--S. Rich (talk) 03:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This definitely needs to be fixed. Having two templates differentiated solely by a single question mark is extremely confusing. Perhaps we can come up with a new title for this one, since the other deals specifically with MOS:NOTED. How about non-NPOV?, non-neutral?, or POV?? Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh wait, that last one already exists. Perhaps this template is redundant, then? Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This template was for when an editor thinks the text is sourced but it was the personal interpretation of the editor. How about "original research editorializing?" QuackGuru (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)