Template talk:POV

message: Hi,
I've added a reason parameter to this template in its sandbox, and tested it on the testcases page. I think it would be useful to have the option to display a reason in this template. Of course, this wouldn't be a replacement for discussing things on the talk page, but it could at least provide a short explanation of what the problem is. Does anyone have any comment on this? Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder whether having the option of using a reason parameter would discourage editors from initiating a Talk page discussion... DonIago (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Doniago: Well, if they don't initiate a talk page discussion, isn't another person allowed to remove the template? Also I just realised that it could help with that anyway, because if the reason is sufficiently descriptive, someone else who agrees with it could start the discussion rather than simply removing the template. I feel like the only way to know for sure though is to trial it by adding the parameter and seeing how it goes. What do you think? Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 08:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If the editor who adds the template is required to initiate a Talk page discussion, which appears to implicitly be the case (they're not strictly required to do so, but as you note, the tag can be removed if there isn't such a discussion), then I'm not sure whether the reason parameter will really add anything to the situation. Maybe editors who are concerned by the tag should need to read the full discussion (if any) rather than walking away with just the reason provided. I have to admit I'm a little unsympathetic to the case of editors who might apply this tag but not start the implicitly-required discussion; they don't need to start it themselves, but should coordinate with another editor at that point. Adding the parameter may also confuse editors who believe that supplying a reason obviates the need for a discussion. DonIago (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Doniago: You have fair points. I guess let's see if anyone else has any thoughts on this parameter as well. I do personally think it would be useful, and I proposed it because I have use for such a parameter at the moment, but I get what you mean. Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely! Just expressing my opinions here, and I'm happy to defer to whatever consensus may emerge, and might even rethink my own views depending on what others have to say. Thank you! DonIago (talk) 06:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

text: I agree that some users are unlikely to use DonIago. But I like the idea of giving more information. As an alternative what about  automatically creating a Talk discussion with the editor name and the comment from the publish if an NPOV is added on an article. If they give no reason, the the discussion has "no reason given. If uncertain please contact editor, or if you can't work out why remove "Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 06:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be curious to hear from other editors on this, and see test cases. If your quote is the exact wording you think should appear, then I think it needs refinement as well. DonIago (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a <code>reason</code> parameter 

message: === Edit request to complete TfD nomination ===
Template:POV has been listed at Templates for discussion (nomination), but it was protected, so it could not be tagged. Please add:

to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: * Pppery * it has begun... 23:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

text: firefly ( t · c ) 07:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD edit requests 

message: Template:POV has been listed at Templates for discussion (nomination), but it was protected, so it could not be tagged. Please add:

to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: * Pppery * it has begun... 23:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request to complete TfD nomination 

message: The discussion has ended; please remove the TfD tag (that is,  at the top). Thanks, Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: firefly ( t · c ) 07:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request to remove TfD tag