Template talk:POV

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:POV is permanently protected from editing, as it is a heavily used or visible template.

Substantial changes should be proposed here, and made by administrators if the proposal is uncontroversial, or has been discussed and is supported by consensus. Use {{editprotected}} to attract the attention of an administrator in such cases.
Any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes, categories or interwiki links.
Archive
Archives

Contents


[edit] Interwiki addition

[edit] 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)

[edit] Vandalism

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

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

[edit] +fr

Hello, would you be so kind to add:

[[fr:Modèle:Désaccord de neutralité]]
?

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)

[edit] Putting link to talk page inside an ifexist

{{editprotected}}

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 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

{{editprotected}}

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)

[edit] 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>[[WP:NPOVD#What_is_an_NPOV_dispute.3F|Please do not remove the tag until the dispute is resolved.]]</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)

[edit] 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 (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 (talk) 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)

[edit] 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 (talk) 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)

[edit] 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{t.l} 17:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

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 <p><br/></p> with this as compared to other templates. And the change would clearly have been harmless anyway, what was the point of declining it? Y Done. —Random832 04:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Controversial in docs

{{editprotected}}

{{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)

[edit] Category inclusion

{{editprotected}}

Please change the category inclusion part of the template from:

{{#if:{{{date|}}}|[[Category:NPOV disputes from {{{date}}}]]|[[Category:NPOV disputes|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}

to:

{{{category|{{#if:{{{date|}}}|[[Category:NPOV disputes from {{{date}}}]]|[[Category:NPOV disputes|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}}}

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)

[edit] Image request

{{editprotected}}

Image:Emblem-scales.svg

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{t.l} 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)

[edit] Image change

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

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