Template talk:POV/Archive 2

Wording
To make it more obvious that the talk page is the place to discuss, the template should read "The neutrality of this article is disputed, as outlined on the discuss page". That would avoid people adding the template without writing on the talk page.

Fred-Chess 23:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Change image?
The image of this template should be changed to Image:Nuvola apps important.svg. This template is a warning and not "a stop". --Off! 11:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I reverted it, the stop hand is a better image - like a warning! --Sunfazer (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I reverted it again as well. I prefer the current image. Further, this image is used on all of the other dispute/warning templates, so if we're going to change it here, we need to change it in all the other templates as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Size and color
Codemonkey, the current version is very ugly on pages. Bad color, bad size. I'd like to change it back to the version I had up earlier. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Style fixing
I changed the width style value to be the same as Template:current as it fixes a rendering problem with Safari (browser).—Tokek 12:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

POV maps
I've created a new template: Template:POV-map to deal with maps that do not conform to POV. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  10:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Scales or Stop
JA: In the interests of political neutrality, I think that the scales should be arranged to tip in opposite directions on alternate days, though of course an animated icon would be even better. 02:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL! I like it. It's a lot better than the hand. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear! Much better! 71.132.128.168 21:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks a lot nicer, good work! --H2g2bob 22:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, looks a lot better and more professional. --Snakemike 12:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The person who doesn't like it. If that isn't a stamp of approval, then what is? Publicola 05:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Other users have opposed the scales as well. The scales are fine but it needs to better indicate a content dispute. RevolverOcelotX
 * That was really a great idea, much better than the scary hand. Pecher Talk 13:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This has been changed back and forth a little, would it be worth opening this up to an opinion poll for more comment (as it does affect a lot of wikipedia pages)? Or would all the people who take part in the polls find this page anyway if they wanted to comment? Actually, I suppose what we really need is a POV tag at the top of this template ;) --h2g2bob 19:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the scales, because I believe this template needs to attract attention. Wikipedia's reputation has grown to such an extent that people expect accurate, neutral information from us - and there should be a big warning in place on articles that propagate either biased or false information.


 * In any case, this issue affects numerous articles, and a community-wide poll is absolutely necessary before we make any changes to long-standing consensus. -- Nikodemos 21:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I have always been a fan of including visual images on templates. I have long preferred using the hand, but in this case I think the scales are better. They communicate the meaning of the template visually. Please use the scales. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 21:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said above, I believe a community-wide poll needs to be held in matters that affect this extremely widespread template. -- Nikodemos 00:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You can put me down for scales. Dragons flight 02:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the scales too. They are patient but effective and do not scream "this article is crap."  GilliamJF 03:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Why not use both images—the "stop hand" on the left and the "scales" on the right, like this?


 * Yeah, I know it's overkill, but it just might satisfy both image arguments.  Denelson83  04:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ummmm, I thought the point was to be less imposing, not more imposing. Just the scales, please.  Dragons flight 05:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the scales. Good edit.  Jkelly 21:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I also like the scales.  The scales describe the content.  Good idea, whoever thought of it.
 * Me too! - Merzbow 00:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

-- Dom th  e  dude  0  0  1 

The scale is not cautious enough to get attention. Janviermichelle 08:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The scales are ultimately a better idea, but they could be made more vivid by putting a spark of fire on each side, so that it's apparent that this is a burning issue. --Joy &#91;shallot] 09:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Stop hand.svg is far better. It's a warning template, after all -- Sunholm  (talk)  15:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not a warning template. It's an indication of a dispute.  It's not like it's warning people not to do things. --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 19:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not a warning template, Sunholm. It is, as Lefty explained, an indication of a content dispute. As such the scales are infinitely superior. The hand indicates stop. We aren't telling people to stop. We are simply indicating that the article may lack balance. The scales make that clear in a non-confrontational manner and are a perfect image for such a template, far far superior to a quite literally heavy handed hand image. I simply don't understand what the fuss is about, and cannot for the life of me understand why someone people want to use an image that communicates the wrong message in preference to an image that communicates the right one with 100% accuracy. IMHO trying to insert the wrong image is so ludicrous that it qualifies for the BJAON page. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 01:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Change it so it looks like and. Apologies for edit warring. -- Sunholm  (talk)  20:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Change "article" to " "?
Following on from the POV-map template discussion, would it be a good idea to change "The neutrality of this article is disputed." to "The neutrality of this is disputed." This keeps all current uses exactly the same (default word is article), while allowing for other wording like "The neutrality of this map is disputed." (see above the creation of the POV-map template). Usage would be,  or whatever. "Type" is probably the wrong word to use, any ideas or suggestions on any of this? --h2g2bob 19:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Frequently changing and increasingly complex templates are becoming a problem on Wikipedia. I'd certainly appreciate it being left as it is. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit war
Sunholm and Dragons flight, stop it. You have both violated the three-revert rule. If it continues any longer, I will report you both to the 3RR violations board. I'm being very lenient. Let's decide on an icon here, shall we? --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 22:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We're trying to stop Sunholm from "edit warring" multiple pages as well. Dragons flight blocked him for 3 hours earlier. Just report Sunholm to WP:AN/3RR if he continues doing again. -- ADNghiem501 01:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking on yesterday's edits it seems that Sunholm breached 3RR. I don't think DF did so. Sunholm has been blocked by another user for 24 hours. As his last edit clearly breached 3RR I have reverted it to the previous version. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 03:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, yeah, you're right. Dragons flight didn't violate 3RR. Whoops. --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 19:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Adaption
I've adapted the template slightly to enable it to be used to indicate more specific problems than simply a whole article. By using it in the form the alternative text will replace the word article, allowing it to be used to refer to a specific problem such as a biased set of links, a biased list of sources, a biased paragraph, etc. However if no alternative text is specified, the word article is shown as default. The change doesn't in any way affect the normal usage of the template, merely gives it the potential to be used in a more specific manner when needed.

For example, produces

FearÉIREANN \(caint) 14:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

this could work
McKzzFizzer 16:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What are the rules for removing this template and others?
I'm concerned about John E. Sarno and Tension myositis syndrome which is a diagnosis Dr. Sarno invented. I flagged Sarno as POV-because the article didn't mention that his views (mainly on TMS which he invented as a diagnosis) are controversial. The Sarno page now basically says that some consider Sarno controversial, but that he is "still curing patients" with no citation. Is there some policy on not removing a POV flag until some resolution is reached? I'm probably going to flag the TMS page for POV or sources and I'd like to know in advance what to do it it's taken down. --Howdybob 05:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's case by case, the tagger has no more rights than any other user.Rlevse 15:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Template:POV-body


Article headers can often be NPOVed comparatively easily, while it can sometimes take months to NPOV an entire article. When agreement on the header does occur, it seems to have utility for readers to know the header is not disputed. Any thoughts on Template:POV-body being placed after introductions, above articles' table of contents (meaning it still must be read before readers can reach the TOC)? --Nectar 08:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think a section template might be good, but if almost the whole article is under dispute, I would think that people might also be prone to make edits to the headers, so it might be safer to just let readers know at the top that the article is disputed. --Howdybob 06:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Too long?
Could we make this shorter? It creates a lot of whitespace. OneWeirdDude 16:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

POV-because undeletion
POV-because was deleted a while ago, for dubious reasons (if people are abusing something, ban them; don't destroy functionality just because it might be abused), and I was going to put it up for undeletion review. Instead, I'd like to change the usage of this template a little to achieve the same effect. I propose that it be mandatory to provide a concise reason for the template, and that it be placed at the top of the section on the talk page which is linked from the template, set apart from the text in a box or bold or something or other, and have the template changed a little to signify to newcomers where they might find that concise summary. I know that some people may abuse it to insert their POV or "get a headstart" or whatever. So what? Discipline the people who are causing the problem. Our readers need to know why an article is disputed, in a concise way, without reading through tons of crap on the talk page, and without dismissing the entire article because of a tag at the top that only refers to one specific point. — Omegatron 03:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I added such a box to Talk:Renewable_energy, as an example of what I am thinking of. — Omegatron 04:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

PermProtect
Why was permprotect applied? Gnixon 15:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Vandalism . High visibility. The template is seldom edited. Just note on the talk page here if you have a legitimate need to change the template (also admins should propose changes on the talk page first). Mark your request with and an admin will make the edit. The documentation is not protected and can be freely edited (for example, interwikis can be added there). I hope this is acceptable for you. --Ligulem 18:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that sounds reasonable. Thanks.  Gnixon 01:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed change - dated categories
I suggest that the following change is made so that articles are put in Category:NPOV disputes or Category:NPOV disputes from date not both as per guidelines. This could reduce duplication of effort − Just add the date to unresolved POV tags when checking the alphabetical list to move them to the dated lists. It also reduces category bloat in articles.

to
Any comments before I apply ? -- TrevMrgn 02:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's try it -- TrevMrgn 20:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. NCurs e work 19:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Or section
Could an admin please add "or section" after "article"?-- Rouge Rosado  Oui?  23:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * + editprotected --h2g2bob 23:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've made it changeable; typing should give you what you want.  JDtalk 16:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please revert this - parameter 1 is for the talk page section
 * says 'section' instead of 'article' -- TrevMrgn 20:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

editprotected
 * Ah, sorry, I didn't notice that. Will do.  JDtalk 19:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Better centering


I noticed that on wide screens this template's text doesn't center properly. Please adjust the code for the template as noted above to correct this. Thanks. (→ Netscott ) 01:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I tested your code on a subpage of mine, User:AnonEMouse/TemplateTest2 and it created an ugly &amp;#160; mark on the side of the template. I can't play more, because, frankly, the current template centers fine for me. Can you please test your proposed change a bit, and come back (and restore the editprotected) only when you're absolutely sure of it? If you also include a screenshot of just how badly centered the thing looks in your browser that might help, since, as I wrote, it looks fine to me in Firefox on Windows XP. Thanks. AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you copied from the code from the edit space that would happen. To make the code display right in talk space I added an &amp; symbol. I'll adjust that... and then there'll be no problems (it just won't show up on the talk page). (→ Netscott ) 22:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Fast response! Anyway, now the template on my test page is 4 lines no matter how wide I resize my browser, while the original one is 4 lines with a narrow browser and 4 2 with a wide one (my screen settings are now 1280x1024). I prefer the original, I'm afraid. AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 4=4=4 no?, where's the difference? You've said that they are all four lines... ??? (→ Netscott ) 23:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's what I'm seeing on both Safari and Firefox. (→ Netscott ) 23:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, meant 2 when my screen was wide enough. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Missing functionality
Can we please have a way to add in information on why we think a page is POV? A one-sentence comment is often far more helpful at explaining a view than merely saying it has problems. Adam Cuerden talk 22:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There was a template like that called "POV-because" but it was deleted (thankfully so imho). (→ Netscott ) 22:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Not done per above. --WinHunter (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the template useage: "Place POV at the top of the disputed article, then explain your reasons on the talk page of the disputed article." In my experience, the NPOV template is often added as a drive-by edit and no reasoning is ever added to the talk page (I'm working two articles at the moment with this issue). This results in the tag remaining for some time because no editor can see a problem. If anything, I would wish for this to automagically open the talk page and start a section titled "NPOV check" or some such. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be better if you could just add the reason why you think it's POV inside the template itself.   — Omegatron 06:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Edit


Which would look like:

The CSS is a hack. The width, background and alignment should be in the "disputed" and "messagebox" css classes. At least this is one step in the right direction (toward orthogonality, that is). -- PatrickFisher 05:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So basically you're suggesting making the box wider? It seems to me to be fine at its current size – these messages distract readers from the article itself quite enough already without making them more prominent – Gurch 14:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see a need for the box to be wider. Denying this request. ZsinjTalk 19:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I came here to suggest a similar change, and glad it's been done already. However, the admins reviewing this change didn't understand the matter at hand.  That code above was cleaned from invalid/deprecated HTML with perfect CSS to boot.  The onl thing wrong is the size, which was set to 100%.  Just use the original size in pixels, and the problem should be pretty much solved.  Don't allow the present bad coding to be available in so many pages of Wikipedia where this template is used.-- Saoshyant  talk / contribs (I don't like Wikipedophiles) 16:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please add hsb:Předłoha:Neutralita. Thanks. - Gilliam 03:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)