Template talk:POV/Archive 1

Rephrasing suggestion
Someone made a suggestion at MediaWiki:NPOV_dispute:


 * A suggested alternative NPOV boilerplate: The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please help Wikipedians restore neutrality by cut-and-pasting disputed phrases into Talk:Article SuchandSo, so that issues of neutrality can be solved and this notice eventually deleted.


 * This alternative phrase gives the reader a hint of how to proceed with the kind of fruitful discussion that eventually eliminates the need for the notice. This is a suggestion placed here for comment.

Could an administrator please update the boiler plate accordingly? Chitu 17:48, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Here is my idea:


 * The neutrality of his article is disputed. Please help Wikipedians restore neutrality by copying disputed phrases into the discussion page so issues of neutrality can be solved and this notice eventually removed.
 * It's the same idea, but shorter. Victor

Categorisation
Hi. Can we add category:POV disputes to the boilerplate text so that these are categorised? Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 13:30, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Title: POV or NPOV?
Shouldn't this be at Template:POV rather than Template:NPOV - the whole point is that the denote articles /aren't/ NPOV, after all...

James F. (talk) 22:59, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Categories
Category:NPOV disputes should be added to this template. Also it should use the standard markup. --Eequor 11:42, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Icon
The icon is too much of a distraction. Granted, this is supposed to be a transient header, but it often isn't, and the talk pages tend to be disorganized, so drawing more attention than necessary isn't exactly the best thing to do... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   11:00, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I actually find the icons to be very attractive and bring to point the dispute. I feel this icon (or similar ones) should be used on all notice templates (factual/neutral disputes) to make sure that the reader is warned and aware of the problem.--BakerQ 20:05, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

The icon is an unnecessary distraction. The text is already in italics, and stands out plenty. It makes Wikipedia look unprofessional. --Yath 01:58, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Come on, we've gone over this already. No silly pictures on templates. I'll remove in a few days if there's no objection to doing so. Dysprosia 05:30, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, I object. I happen to like it. I would also like to know on what basis the word unprofessional is being applied here: no-one pays me to edit Wikipedia; I have no special qualifications; this word is too often used as a psuedo-synonym for "not to my personal taste". --Phil | Talk 08:21, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * There are semantic issues with images that becomes undesirable. A stop sign and hand is a clear dissuasion to edit - contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia and as stated before becomes a distraction. We want to draw attention to our articles, not minor messages that will mean absolutely nothing to the casual reader. Dysprosia 11:05, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Could it be replaced by one with the usual number of fingers? &mdash;Ashley Y 10:19, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)


 * Fine, Phil. The icon is not to my taste, and I think it looks tacky and amatuerish. If it's not going to be removed, could someone with The Power please wrap the image in &lt;span id='npov_icon'&gt;&lt;/span&gt; so that it can be removed using my user CSS? —[[User:MikeX|MikeX (Talk)]] 07:12, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately we can't use &lt;span&gt; altogether, and using a &lt;div id="stop_icon"&gt; causes a line break after the icon. :( --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   11:29, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The current icon is over-large. Could its size be reduced to 16px or so? &#8227; &#5339;&#5505;  [ &#5200; ] 04:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Protected
Why is this template protected? &mdash;Ashley Y 00:59, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)


 * Cf. Wikipedia talk:Template messages --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;

Wording (moved from Template talk:DoubleDisputed)
Present NPOV wording on an article looks to a reader like it implies "this article is suspect and probably unreliable" FT2


 * Maybe the NPOV tag should be revised. What do you think about:


 * [[Image:Stop hand.png|20px|Stop!]] Our editors have not yet managed to bring this article to conform with Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Please help at its talk page. 

(I removed to avoid POV-ing this page...) Gady 00:07, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Thats not a bad idea, you know. Or:

''There is uncertainty between editors whether this article describes all points of view neutrally. Please evaluate statements carefully, paying attention to the quality of sources and conclusions until the article is refined. Please help at its talk page. ''


 * What I prefer about that one is it actually explains what NPOV means, for the reader, which current NPOV templates don't. That means they know how to interpret it more acurately, not "is it neutral" but "does it describe all points of view neutrally". It also explains what the implication is - not "dont trust it" but "evaluate it more carefully". FT2 02:43, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

-

I think it should stress more the temporariness. How about
 * The best way to represent this article in confromance with Wikipedia's neturality policy is a matter of debate at this time. Please help at the talk page

? Gady 04:39, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I see what you're trying, but I'm not sure its as effective in practice when you read it as a wiki user. Its not strong enough, that phrase "the best way to represent" it swings the other way and sounds a bit like "we arent sure of a few tweaks" where the issue may be out-and-out one sided POV. The 2nd wording above can capture both aspects without committing to either, and the temporariness, by describing it as "There is uncertainty between editors whether this article describes all points of view neutrally at this time ". It then explains how the reader should handle that situation, by evaluating more carefully.. FT2 15:34, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, maybe it was too soft. I think the proof of the pudding is the eating: if a new formulation will reduce "tag fights", its a good one. Otherwise, it isn't. Perhaps it will be enough to just add "at this time" to the current formulation, i.e


 * The neutrality of this article is disputed at this time. Please see its talk page.

(or help instead of see). Gady 17:12, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm all for explaining not just describing, if it can be done sensibly - it reduces potential for misuse, whilst also firming up and clarifying the state of the article for readers who (realistically) wont usually read WP:NPOV to find what the tag means in detail. But yeah, you got the test right, all right. FT2 01:27, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Self-referential link
Why does the period at the end link back to the template? It looks very odd (pticly if the Talk: link is red and the period is blue) and is pretty inaccessible, imho. Given the template is protected, I can't see much reason for linking to it; if we want to link back, surely some rewording of "edit this template" would be better? &mdash; OwenBlacker 00:18, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

neutrality link
can we get the word neutrality in the template to be a link to Neutral_point_of_view? a new user might be curious what on earth we mean by neutrality? can't do it myself because of template protection. Wolfman 14:57, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Style change proposal
To bring this in line with other message boxes (for example template:current) I propose to change this to:

I'll do this in a few days if there are no objections. violet/riga (t) 16:17, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that the category should say: Category:NPOV disputes 132.205.45.110 21:06, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In order to avoid problems listed at Meta-templates considered harmful, please "subst:" this template so that it no longer directly depends on Template:Message box. -- Netoholic @ 08:09, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

When should this template be used? (Request for comments)
This template currently says "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page." Sometimes this template is used on pages without any recent discussion, or without discussion of what parts are NPOV and how it could be fixed. I think this would be confusing to users, and I don't think the tag should be used in those cases. So I'd like to propose the following rule of thumb:
 * This tag should only be used on pages where "relevant discussion on the talk page" exists. If there has been no such active discussion on the talk page in the last month, the tag should be removed.

What do you think? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 23:00, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * I thought that was implicitly agreed upon already :) You could perhaps suggest considering Template:POV check after such a removal, because sometimes non-neutral language lingers after fixing specific instances someone explicitly complained about, and POV check is meant to address those. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   00:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * This is discussed at WP:NPOVD. Gnixon 17:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Please unprotect
I believe this should be editable by anybody. We can deal with vandalism just fine. Thanks. —Cantus&hellip; &#9742;   21:28, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

 The neutrality and accuracy of this article are disputed. This was put together in cases where Template madness runs rampant, etc. Please comment on it at its talk. Thanks. -SV|t 19:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Please reference the disputed article's history in this template, too.
The POV/NPOV template mentions the talk page as a source of further data when a dispute exists. The template should also explicitly mention the article's own history as a source of insight for the content of an article under dispute. The talk page is helpful, but the history is at least equally helpful, too.-- Un focused 14:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Article history, not just talk
This template should also refer the reader to the article's history, as well as the talk page. When there's a POV dispute, there will always be one POV on the article page, while other POVs are usually in the article's history. Referring users to the talk page is a good idea, but not as good as referring them to both. We remind users of the talk page, we should do the same for the article history. That way, the development of whatever POV the article has is clearly illustrated. Un focused 14:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Possible change of wording
I've just deleted Long_NPOV as being a fork of this template, but a number of users feel that the wording of Long_NPOV is superior to this one. Here's the proposed template:

Current template:

See also: this discussion

I also have another unrelated idea. I think that the talk page link should be to Template_talk:POV. Although it'll only work when the section is titled "POV dispute", there's no downside to it, and it can really help when there is a very large talk page. Alternatively, the anchor can be [/wiki/:# #]. The title of the dispute section would have to be given in the template using the pipe syntax (eg., but it will allow for different titles.  Again, there's no harm if they don't put anything using the pipes, it'll just link to a nonexistent anchor.  I prefer the latter method, as it allows for different section headings. -Frazzydee|&#9997; 17:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

POV-because
I have recently created a variant of POV at reason on the grounds that the reason for a POV warning is often not evident to the casaul reader and this will allow a short explanatory message to be included. It looks like this:

This was motivated by the parade of templates specialized for advertising, academic boosterism, and other POV problems that have been showing up on WP:TFD. I would rather have a template like this than specializing for lots of different POV problems. The down side is that someone might think it is sufficient to give a brief reason in the template without discussing at talk. The talk page link ameliorates this as best I know how, but if anyone has a better wording feel free. Dragons flight 20:52, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this template creates the risk that there will be disputes over the use and content of the POV warning template. See, for example, Talk:Palestinian exodus. I don't think that its current use indicates that it is serving any greatly beneficial purpose. Palmiro | Talk 17:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The user is directed to the talk page for a reason.

Lapsed Pacifist 19:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it seriously expected that anyone would read through the huge amounts of material on the talk page to find out the reason for the dispute? I think POV-because is not only usefull, but absolutely necessary. It could possibly improved by referencing to a specific section of the talk page, where the nature of the dispute would be explained in depth. -- H eptor  talk 02:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

POV-date
How about adding a date so that it says something like this:

.

Vandalised image
Stop hand.png is vandalised. --Whitewalls 23:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)