Category talk:Wikipedia neutral point of view disputes

message: Should talk pages and user pages pages be in this category? There's quite a few in here. Look under the letter U. -- Kjkolb 09:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited most of the talk pages and either "no wikied" the tag, moved it to the article's page or removed it altogether as appropriate. I removed them when there was no justification given for the tag. I moved them to the article's page when there was justification for the tag and it was recently added. I no wikied the tag when the tag itself was being discussed. I hope this isn't a problem. There are 45 user and user talk pages in the category, but I feel less sure about editing them. -- Kjkolb 08:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk pages and user pages

message: Here are some catagories which I think would help trim down this page:
* Sex and sexuality
* Human conflict
* Religion
* Politics and ideology
I was thinking along the same lines - Zarboki 11:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I came onto the Talk Page to basically propose the same thing, so in the spirit of Be Bold, I'm going to go ahead and create some subcats, please feel free to contribute Sherurcij 08:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: NOw I notice myself removing both :Category:NPOV disputes and the simply ((npov)) tags in order to replace them with the more specific...hopefully this is still moving towards making WP a little more organized by subcatting, and doesn't present serious problems...unless somebody felt like making up a nice little ((religiousNPOV)) picture for the top of articles Sherurcij 08:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That would actually be much appreciated, if somebody would do that and go through the categories then adding it where needed :) Sherurcij 10:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about adding History to the list? Also, should we create a separate set of dispute tags that add the category to various articles? Some sort of  and so on? Halibutt 20:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be no real use of this and little point.  It would be better to sort by date to get the real old ones looked at. -- Jbamb 14:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I respectfully disagree. I went through last night and cleared out about half of the religious NPOV, because it is an area of interest that I can speak to intelligently. I think people interested in sports, science, etc. might feel the same. Also, the catagories I suggested above make for easier cleanup. For example, you can go and nowiki all the discussions of npov in talk pages. PhatJew 03:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would sorting them both ways help?  I don't know if a bot can sort by topic, but if the NPOV tags are first sorted by date, people could then sort the oldest ones by topic, sort of like a hierahical system.  I'm proposing on Wikipedia talk:Maintenance that all backlog pages goto at least date sorting system.  Other types of sorting (# of incoming links, topic, etc.) could be subcategories.--Rayc 21:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Initially sorting by category would certainly allow editors like myself with familiarity in some subjects to hone in on those.  Nominated articles could then be date sorted within the subcategories. Colonel Tom 00:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree with subcats by topic area, as with stubs.  Maybe we can get a bot to maintain a list of oldest pages as well. Matchups 04:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be great. Some more ideas below Arbor 13:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed subcategories

message: There is undoubtedly a fast growing number of articles here.  The top of this page (not the talk page, but the main page) should prominently show a nice graph comparing total non-stub articles with disputed articles, over time, so that at a glance anyone can see that for every disputed article today, and at all times in the past, there are many undisputed ones, and that the count does not simply increase over time, with all former disputed articles still being disputed, but rather that "disputed" is a slice that changes and changes over time, as articles mature, debates find resolutions, and as new eyeballs and sometimes highly qualified experts join in setting a controversial article accurate, thorough, and NPOV.
Disputed article status, like good article and featured article status, and like the "stub" status in which many an outstanding article in today's wikipedia once languished, sometimes for a very long time, is a natural, proper, and unobjectionable step towards a credible and authentic encyclopedia.
I believe a graph interpreting the number of articles in this (disputed articles) category over time can be a very nice way of showing this evolution.  [Similarly, someone ambitious could add a graph in the stub category, showing, for all dates longer than one week ago, the number of then-stubs which in today's wikipedia are non-stub, good, or featured (/have been featured) articles, so that the role of stubs as vital in the development of this encyclopedia, even the shining articles in this enclopedia, can become clear at a glance.]
This is one of my first contributions to wikipedia discussion, and I welcome any feedback below (even a basic for/against).  Basically, the graphs I am suggesting, in the disputed article category, in the stubs and good articles categories, etc, would all be a visual illustration of the evolution of a wikipedia article.
Sorry my post is not wikified, as I said I am very new, I welcome a wikification of especially my references to different article categories, please feel free to edit this post.  Maybe you can think of a better title, a better way of presenting the request. I am not attached to the format or content of this post but very well welcome any replies below.  If anyone is interested, I can attach a mock-up of the kind of graph I am thinking of, although I would manually include just a few data points at random times in this history of this category's count / good article category's count and total article count.  192.80.65.246 22:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  request: precipitous rise in disputed article count to be set prominently to precipitous rise in total article count. 

message: Hi, I've noticed that there are quite a few instances of people using Template:NPOV-date which is putting articles in categories like :Category:NPOV disputes from July 2005, :Category:NPOV disputes from April 2006, and :Category:NPOV disputes from May 2006, which I'm eliminating.  Either one should delete that template or maybe these categories could be split up by month like cleanup is. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV-date template 

message: If anybody is interested in coordinating efforts, please leave me a message at my Talk page (or here). I'm currently working on the baclog. -- Steve Hart 02:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy to help; did you have anything in mind?  I'm thinking the "by month" sub-categories used in clean-up would be even more useful here, as a lot of NPOV disputes tend to "dry up" with time—thus older requests should tend to be much easier to deal with. --jwandersTalk 12:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm currently looking at putting together a group to clean it, then keeping an eye on the backlog. Based on my work so far, more than half are either drivebys or settled, or can be fixed by just removing a few loaded words. There's usually no discussion either. In other cases, dropping a few lines on the Talk page that the article is part of the backlog seems to move the discussion along nicely. By month is fine by me, however, I have yet to find such a list for NPOV tagged pages (like Cleanup by month). Currently I'm just working on pages starting with the letter "a". FWIW, there's a group at Wikipedia:Cleaning_department#Wikipedia:NPOV_disputes but it appears to be dead (two of the four who signed up have since left WP). What do you think? -- Steve Hart 17:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, we'd have to start the by month process off ourselves—I've added an optional "date" parameter to the main  tag and have started using it as I go.  It adds a date line to the tag and puts the article in a category for that month.  Basically, if I don't feel I can remove or replace the tag, I've been dating them with the approximate month the dispute started.  It's not much help now, but enventually it'll start to pay off. See the articles starting with FA for examples. --jwandersTalk 18:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A bot should be able to create a "by month" list based on the date a page was last tagged, if the server can take the load. I don't have any experience with bots though and I'm unsure where to ask. Anyway, I'll drop a message on a few talk pages tomorrow to see if anybody else is interested. -- Steve Hart 23:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A bot should only be used for the newly tagged NPOVs.  This would also be a chance to review older POV notices to see if there's any note on the talk page.  Also, people can use the Template:NPOV-date if they'd like.  That way, the parameters work  the same as the other cleanup by date templates. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I have added the date parameter to the POV-section template so that POV sections can be dated too.  I am adding date to unresolved POV articles I find. --TrevMrgn 23:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The bot User:Pearle does the dating of Cleanup and Wikify by looking for the month when the tag appeared.  It could probably do the   and  tags too. -- TrevMrgn 04:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV project 

message: I suggest that we create a subcategory for POV maps (related to :Template:POV-map). I thought of this before I saw the message about :Category:NPOV disputes becoming very large. Now, there seems to be all the more reason to make this subcategory. Any objections/suggestions? deeptrivia (talk) 16:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this. A similar category for statistics and charts could be good. The reason for splitting these up would be to encourage people who are experts in one of those areas to do the fixes without requring them to wade through the rest of the articles. Antonrojo 18:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV maps category 

message: I've always had a soft spot in my heart for orphans, so here's a comment from the category page that doesn't belong on the category page and maybe this is useful info:
"Done March and April disputes Kjhf 12:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Orphaned comment

message: Can we delete some of the old pages like the June '06 articles that have nothing on them? •Felix• T 18:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, just mark them as Speedy under criteria C1.  I'll take care of some now. Also, why not have a bot move new ones from the regular cat into the month subcat?  That way, they'll clean up over time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Old disputes

message: Can someone please review this article please. Kaeso Dio (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Woodville High School (Australia)‎