Template talk:POV/Archive 1

message: Hi.  Can we add :category:POV disputes to the boilerplate text so that these are categorised? Dunc_Harris|☺ 13:30, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Categorisation

message: Shouldn't this be at Template:POV rather than Template:NPOV - the whole point is that the denote articles /aren't/ NPOV, after all...
James F. (talk) 22:59, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Title: POV or NPOV?

message: :Category:NPOV disputes should be added to this template.  Also it should use the standard  markup.  --Eequor 11:42, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: can we get the word neutrality in the template to be a link to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view?  a new user might be curious what on earth we mean by neutrality?  can't do it myself because of template protection. Wolfman 14:57, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  neutrality link 

message: To bring this in line with other message boxes (for example template:current) I propose to change this to:

I'll do this in a few days if there are no objections. violet/riga (t) 16:17, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style change proposal 

message: This template currently says "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page." Sometimes this template is used on pages without any recent discussion, or without discussion of what parts are NPOV and how it could be fixed. I think this would be confusing to users, and I don't think the tag should be used in those cases. So I'd like to propose the following rule of thumb:
:This tag should only be used on pages where "relevant discussion on the talk page" exists. If there has been no such active discussion on the talk page in the last month, the tag should be removed.
What do you think? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 23:00, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
: I thought that was implicitly agreed upon already :) You could perhaps suggest considering Template:POV check after such a removal, because sometimes non-neutral language lingers after fixing specific instances someone explicitly complained about, and POV check is meant to address those. --Joy [shallot] 00:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is discussed at WP:NPOVD.  Gnixon 17:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When should this template be used? (Request for comments) 

message: I believe this should be editable by anybody. We can deal with vandalism just fine. Thanks. —Cantus…☎ 21:28, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
The neutrality and accuracy of this article are disputed.
This was put together in cases where Wikipedia:Template madness runs rampant, etc. Please comment on it at its talk. Thanks. -SV|t 19:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please unprotect 

message: The POV/NPOV template mentions the talk page as a source of further data when a dispute exists.  The template should also explicitly mention the article's own history as a source of insight for the content of an article under dispute.  The talk page is helpful, but the history is at least equally helpful, too.--Unfocused 14:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please reference the disputed article's history in this template, too. 

message: This template should also refer the reader to the article's history, as well as the talk page.  When there's a POV dispute, there will always be one POV on the article page, while other POVs are usually in the article's history.  Referring users to the talk page is a good idea, but not as good as referring them to both.  We remind users of the talk page, we should do the same for the article history.  That way, the development of whatever POV the article has is clearly illustrated.  Unfocused 14:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article history, not just talk 

message: I've just deleted  as being a fork of this template, but a number of users feel that the wording of  is superior to this one.  Here's the proposed template:
Current template:
See also: this discussion
I also have another unrelated idea.  I think that the talk page link should be to Template_talk:POV#POV_dispute.  Although it'll only work when the section is titled "POV dispute", there's no downside to it, and it can really help when there is a very large talk page.  Alternatively, the anchor can be [/wiki/:# #].  The title of the dispute section would have to be given in the template using the pipe syntax (eg. , but it will allow for different titles.  Again, there's no harm if they don't put anything using the pipes, it'll just link to a nonexistent anchor.  I prefer the latter method, as it allows for different section headings. -Frazzydee|✍ 17:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible change of wording 

message: I have recently created a variant of  at  on the grounds that the reason for a POV warning is often not evident to the casaul reader and this will allow a short explanatory message to be included.  It looks like this:

This was motivated by the parade of templates specialized for advertising, academic boosterism, and other POV problems that have been showing up on WP:TFD.  I would rather have a template like this than specializing for lots of different POV problems.  The down side is that someone might think it is sufficient to give a brief reason in the template without discussing at talk.  The talk page link ameliorates this as best I know how, but if anyone has a better wording feel free.  Dragons flight 20:52, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
:I think this template creates the risk that there will be disputes over the use and content of the POV warning template. See, for example, Talk:Palestinian exodus. I don't think that its current use indicates that it is serving any greatly beneficial purpose. Palmiro | Talk 17:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV-because 

message: Stop hand.png is vandalised. --Whitewalls 23:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalised image