This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
POV template. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 1 year |
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. |
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)
The
neutrality of this article is
disputed. |
This
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 ( d c̄) 22:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
This
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)
Hi. 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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
POV template. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 1 year |
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. |
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)
The
neutrality of this article is
disputed. |
This
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 ( d c̄) 22:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
This
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)
Hi. 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)