| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the POV template. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | This template was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
 | Template:POV is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
Adding a reason parameter
edit
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)The neutrality of this article is disputed.- 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)
TfD edit requests
editEdit request to complete TfD nomination
editThis edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Template:POV has been listed at Templates for discussion (nomination), but it was protected, so it could not be tagged. Please add:
{{subst:tfm|help=off|1=POV check}}
to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Edit request to remove TfD tag
editThis edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The discussion has ended; please remove the TfD tag (that is, {{Tfm/dated|page=POV|otherpage=POV check|link=Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 November 7#Template:POV|help=off|bigbox={{#invoke:Noinclude|noinclude|text=yes}}}} at the top). Thanks, Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Done firefly ( t · c ) 07:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Placement dispute
editHi. I placed this template on the article Conspiracy theory because I believe it is not neutral. User:Beyond My Ken removed it with the rationale, "No support for NPOB tag on talk page". It is my understanding that is not a reason to remove it per this template's guidance.
I reverted indicating Beyond My Ken doesn't WP:OWN the article, but the user reverted again, with the rationale, "The tag should not represent a single editor's viewpoint, it should reflect that a significant percentage of the editors discussing the issue agree that there is a neutrality problem -- that isw most definitely NOT the case here. Do not resore unless you have that". But according to the lead of this template, "Place this template on an article when you have identified a serious issue of balance and the lack of a WP:Neutral point of view, and you wish to attract editors with different viewpoints to the article." It doesn't say I must seek consensus first to add it.
Advice is welcome. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Tags should not be used to express personal dissatisfaction with an article. Instead, clear reasons for the tag need to be provided on article talk. Documentation does not cover obvious things such as the fact that of course consensus is needed for anything in an article, including a tag. The discussion at Talk:Conspiracy theory#Lead is not neutral and article maybe is not does not support your position. By the way, some thought would show that accusing another editor of OWNING an article is not appropriate given that you seem to think you OWN the right to insert a tag. Johnuniq (talk) 07:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq I literally followed the guidance of this template, therefore i thought it was inappropriate to remove it and indicated to Beyond My Ken that they don't own the article. I tried following this template's guidance when adding the tag. Beyond My Ken in my opinion did not. Because the template guidance clearly talks in a singular you that places the tag, it doesn't indicate that I must seek consensus to add it because it is actually a tag to seek consensus. Therefore, you appear to have a circular argument. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- I have mixed feelings regarding Johnuniq's response to you, so I'll just say that while technically you aren't required to start a discussion regarding your POV concerns either before or after adding this tag, I think the instructions make it pretty clear that adding the tag without any supporting discussion at the Talk page may result in other editors removing it, similarly without discussion.
- As such, if you have legitimate concerns about the POV on that article, I would encourage you to start a discussion at the article's Talk page and then add the tag, perhaps after waiting a couple of days to see how other editors feel regarding your concerns. However, if the Talk page discussion that Johnuniq linked to already addresses the neutrality concerns that you intended to highlight, then it would seem that there's already a consensus that the neutrality is not an issue. DonIago (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with your explanation, in fact it's obviously correct. No one needs to get permission to edit an article or to add a tag. However, no one needs permission to revert an edit or remove a tag. After that, discussion and consensus is required. Johnuniq (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)