Template talk:POV/Archive 6

this should only be placed on talk pages
Tags like this are really unacceptable when put onto article pages (the main namespace). If the exact same message were put into the article without using a template, then that would be very quickly moved to the talk page. The TALK PAGE is the place for this type of comment - that is what they are there for. This template is also useless for third party users of our content - none of which are named "Wikipedia", and the vast majority of which cannot be edited. If you really must leave a note for editors in the article, then use HTML comments (which would only be viewable when looking at the article's edit window). --mav 23:05, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Your premise is false: this is not necessarily a note for the editors, but for the readers, too. Therefore it's not useless to third-party users, they deserve to know that we have doubts about the article's neutrality. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   02:25, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * My premise is sound ; the message talks about editing and is directed to writers. That is the type of thing that goes on talk pages (just like a ToDo list or WikiProject tag). The fact that anybody, for any reason whatsoever and without having to back up their statements on the talk page, can add this is also important to consider. This template is really no different than somebody adding a comment in the article about the article - talk pages are for that. This is a very general and universal convention that I was editing these articles to conform to. I was not removing {{POV}) templates because those are used when there is an actual dispute. And the fact that none of those third parties are called "Wikipedia" and very few are editable, is a very important thing to consider. Expecting third parties to have to change dozens, if not hundreds of templates so that their use of our content makes sense for them, is completely unreasonable. --mav 03:27, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * It talks of editing because people change the phrasing all the time... it is directed to those who read just as much as it is directed to those who write.
 * Why do you believe that anybody should add this without having to back up their statements? That is, how is this different from the NPOV tag, which one can also add without having to back up their statements? Both actions would soon be reverted by editors.
 * I see most confusion stems from the phrasing of the template, as usual. Sigh. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   10:45, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * This is an old discussion but I agree. I believe the Totally disputed tag should go on the article and this template on the talk page as it is a note to contributers not to the reader. Falphin 00:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I have to agree, it should be posted in the Talk, if at all. I feel that it's pointless to post it in the main page really, it's not that hard to distinguish NPOV for the most of the time, if you're uncertain - use the Talk page.

Template placement
See Template locations for discussion on template placement (article versus talk page). <> Who ? &iquest; ? 15:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Removal of template
I'm not completely opposed to this as an analog to Cleanup, but it should be absolutely clear that this template can be removed unless specific reasons are put forward to dispute the neutrality, in which case it should be replaced with Template:NPOV. Otherwise there is a risk of it being used to tag articles people don't like without a justification. I have therefore created POV check to explain the use of the template.--Eloquence* 00:43, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with the text there. Note that people using it to tag articles they don't like is relatively minor compared to the risk that they'll just blank those articles - a fairly common occurence :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;


 * I still think this is fairly useless template. Either it is POV, or not - if one is not sure, he should go read up on the matter, ask in talk and not show his ignorance on the main article page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:38, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it would be more useful if it came with a short duration of, say, a week. It starts off sounding a bit like the article is already in NPOV dispute, but if nothing specific is listed, then it seems to me that its not really in NPOV dispute.  But there's nothing wrong with putting out a call for other editors to take a week or so to try to organize a list of areas that they think are in need of NPOV.  Perhaps the POV check template should aim for something more like that.  This would also provide a compromise mechanism for when the NPOV dispute is used as a permanent header without specific disputes being given.  How about something far less abrasive like the following?     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 09:00, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * If this template must be on the article itself, then limiting it to a max of a week would be an acceptable thing to do. --mav 03:31, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I like the template example shown above, because it is worded much nicer than the template, and in fact I am going to subst: the existing template and then, in the individual article, modify the wording to reflect that proposed above.  69.140.157.138 14:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion
I suggest changing the orange color of (the stripe on the left side of) this template to yellow, to reflect the idea that a POV-check is less serious than a NPOV dispute. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 03:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed code
See also Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 14 for related discussion. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 02:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean. And yes, I think the colours should reflect the severity level more than exactly what kind of issue it is about. The naming of the different severity levels was mostly chosen to make it simple to know what severity level different kinds of issues belong to. However, as MSGJ wrote over at Village pump (proposals): "POV-check may be less severe than NPOV, but it is still about the content of an article and not just about its style. Therefore you could argue that it is more "severe" than a style-related tag."
 * So this is a tough case. Mostly a matter of personal taste. I think I prefer to keep it orange.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The thing is that putting an orange-striped template on an article may be perceived as disruptive by editors who have invested effort in the way that an article is currently written. The yellow-striped version is nicer looking, and less likely to spark either an edit-war or a talk-page war.  69.140.152.55 (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have made a yellow version of the template available for those who wish to use it. Just insert   into the article in question.  The template takes two parameters:  an "article or section" parameter and a date parameter.  Full usage:
 * 69.140.152.55 (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Where to put NPOV tag
I think the 'Professional reviews' section of the article Blackbird is disputed, however, I'mn't exactly sure if placing this tag in that section is appropriate as it doesn't fit in the box. Bobertoq (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Category split from Disputed?
Not sure if this is the right place to put this, but I do a lot of work clearing backlogged POV dispute tags and it would help me to work more efficiently if this tag caused articles to be placed in a different category than the standard tag does. POV-check usually requires attention from an impartial editor who is at least somewhat knowledgeable about the subject, while POV-dispute is much easier for me to process, as I simply determine who if anyone is still currently disputing the article and if no one is I remove the tag. If there was some way to distinguish this tag from POV dispute and disputed section tags I would waste less time clicking on articles I cannot improve.

If this is the wrong place to post this, could someone point me to the right place? Thanks! -- LWG talk 03:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This is the place. It is easy enough to change the categorizing. Do any other editors also think this is a good idea? And what new category name should be used? Debresser (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There's no problem whatsoever in forking the category given that this template alone has 1314 transclusions. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok. Category:Articles needing POV-check? Debresser (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps more in line with the old category - Category:NPOV disputes to be checked? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Either one of those would be fine with me. I'd just like the categories for maintenance tags to sort articles by the type of work they require, and a POV dispute requires different work to address than a POV check request. -- LWG talk 13:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I decided for Category:Articles needing POV-check because Category:NPOV disputes to be checked would be incorrect since that is precisely what we are checking, whether there is a dispute. Debresser (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much! The only thing left is to patch the template's page to say the correct category, as it still says it puts pages in NPOV disputes. -- LWG talk 04:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This was done by Joy in this edit. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Regarding usefulness and effectiveness
POV-check is meant to provoke discussion about possible NPOV problems, as opposed to POV which is meant to address actual NPOV concerns. But is POV check necessary, effective, or helpful toward resolving POV issues? If not, what course of action should be taken? – Laundry Pizza 03  ( d c&#x0304; ) 02:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Below is a graph of the population of monthly categories in Category:NPOV disputes (populated by POV and similar non-inline templates) and Category:Articles needing POV-check (populated solely by POV check), at time of writing.

– Laundry Pizza 03  ( d c&#x0304; ) 02:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I would be in favor of deleting this template or redirecting it to . StudiesWorld (talk) 10:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the last time this was discussed seems to have been 2005. The tide has shifted, and this template no longer seems to serve a distinct purpose.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Stale instances
This template may be removed, among other reasons, "In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.". Subcategories of Category:Articles needing POV-check dated a decade or more ago have 285 entries.

I propose that we do one or both, of the following:


 * get a bot to remove every instance that is over, say, two years old
 * add code to the template, like that in orphan, so that it does not display after, say, one year.

-- Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

phrasing
''Removed last phrase. While it's useful to explain its role among the many NPOV templates, this observation is rather pointless and out of context when the Template is used where it's meant to be used.'' I edited with the above summary and it got reversed. I'd like to know the importance of this observation ("however, the neutrality of this article is not necessarily disputed."). Isn't this implied in the "may" in "This article may need to be reworded"? --Ekevu (talk) 12:45, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

phrasing
Joy wrote: rephrased to include the term "check" from the title

Neonumbers wrote: ''reworded, incl. remove word "check". I know the title says "check", but I reckon the message should be written for the reader, not the editor.''


 * Yes, and what does this template tell the reader, then? That something may be wrong with the article? How useless is that? It needs to be made clear that someone has an actual suspicion about it and that it will be acted upon, i.e. that it's not just some vague feeling or remark. When it says "this needs to be checked", that sentiment seems reasonably obvious to me, even if it smells of a self-reference. When it says "this may not conform to policy", I wonder about whether this policy is something that shouldn't be policy, if articles not conforming to it are merely tagged and accepted as is? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   12:55, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Because no justification is required to add the template, only a vague wording is acceptable. Otherwise, this is an authoritative message without backup that can be used to intimidate people in disputes or brand articles which you do not like.--Eloquence* 00:46, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * That aside, what do you think of the present wording? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   01:02, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template for deletion?
May not?? Is this template a joke? We can put it on any article. This is like saying - you may be guilty of something, we have no proof, but we are saying it just in case. Ouch. I say we delete this mistake, along with this category. If it is POVed, we have a right template for it. If not, then no template. There should be nothing in between. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:56, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually this is useful, something like Template:Cleanup-tone, but about bias. See my worries about the phrasing above, too. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   00:39, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

From Templates for deletion
This template is redundant as the Template:NPOV already exists. People who goto Category:NPOV disputes won't find the articles that have been tagged Template:POV check. The POV Check articles are instead sent to Category:Articles which may be biased which is much lesser known. As a result, the POV check articles generally languish there unresolved. There's no need to distinguish between NPOV disputes (Template:NPOV) and disputably NPOV disputes (Template:POV check). If someone thinks it worth disputing, they should dispute it. -- Queerudite 22:46, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Template:NPOV -- Queerudite 22:46, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect. There are enough NPOV templates already. violet/riga (t) 22:51, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The policy described at POV check is sane and works. See comments at Template talk:POV check, too. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   23:21, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Template:NPOV. --Neigel von Teighen 23:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Joy. I make use of the distinction between the two. Uncle G 00:57, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
 * Redirect as Template:NPOV is now less intrusive. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 07:47, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, I see the distinction now. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 06:53, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * keep, I find the distinction very useful. Thryduulf 16:42, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but reword. The wording needs to better explain the purpose: i.e., this article was edited for NPOV but may contain stray bits of POV. The bit on POV check is contradictory as well, saying, "an article which you feel needs to be edited for neutrality", then going on to say, "articles which you have edited to be neutral". I feel it can be useful, but you need to better define its use. – flamuraiTM 18:05, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect. &mdash; Dan | Talk 20:46, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree w/Flamurai. Vacuum c 21:53, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, useful template. The name is a bit odd though, I'd support renaming. --fvw * 22:11, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
 * Keep, very useful. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, not redundant at all. Asking for outside opinions is a far cry from a dispute. iMeowbot~Mw 14:09, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Template:NPOV notice is too strong.  I suggest revert to 06:31, 26 Dec 2004 by Kieff or 12:58, 15 Jan 2005 by Joy which is more general and can apply better (than the current version) to pages where a NPOV dispute has been resolved in the Talk but changes have not been made yet. &mdash; UTSRelativity 15:02, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - NPOV template is too strongly worded. Guettarda 20:28, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Spinboy 22:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Template:NPOV. The "POV check"/"bias" template is so weakly worded that it could be correctly applied to any page. --Carnildo 18:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to &#9999; Oven Fresh  &#9786;  19:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, maybe reword. The distinction is very useful.  &mdash; mark &#9998; 19:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with mark. I think it may need rewording but should certainly be kept. --ScottyBoy900Q &#8734;  19:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * keep I know the article is POV, but I don't yet know of anybody who disagrees with me as such. They just haven't had time / motivation to fix it.  See criticism of Islam Mozzerati 23:20, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
 * Keep. Important distinction. Further re-wording could possibly distinguish it further from the NPOV template. zoney ♣ talk 14:30, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Summary:
 * Keep: 16
 * Redirect: 6
 * Delete: 0

Oops! Can this be fixed?
Sorry, but I was trying to figure out how to remove a POV template and I removed the POV template from this page by accident. I can't figure out how to fix it.
 * Fixed. --Viriditas | Talk 3 July 2005 08:19 (UTC)