Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 30
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] June 30, 2006
[edit] Template:Elk River (British Columbia)/meta/drainsinto
[edit] Template:Credit Card Cashback
[edit] Template:Belgrade neighborhoods and suburbs (urban)
[edit] Template:Title
[edit] Template:POV-because
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was to delete the template. Looking at the full discussion, the potential usefulness of this template does not outweigh its potential abuse, its inherent POV, nor the innapropriate meta-commentary-in-article space aspect. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
During the recent TfD voting on {{POV-tag}} many people have argued that this template is also a great tool for escalation of conflicts rather than solving them. As someone put it, the place for commentary on articles is on the talk page, not at the top of the article. Let's use Ockham's Razor and cut this one, it's fully replaceable with the standard {{NPOV}}. //Halibutt 01:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep pending actual evidence. This has existed for 11 months and been used on hundreds of articles since then. Many of the examples where it is presently used appear to be legitimately informative to the reader, which in my mind makes it useful. As important, I am unaware of any significant disputes being waged over the message itself. If there are examples, please show them, but I'm not in favor of deleting a year old template without actual evidence of it causing harm. Dragons flight 02:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, so the Russian architecture mentioned in the other TFD counts as one, any others? Dragons flight 02:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Capitalism is number two, actually.--Pan Gerwazy 10:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Islamophobia had a bout with this affliction. :-) Netscott 23:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- And add to these Arbella Stuart (mentioned below) and Palestinian_exodus. In the latter, one user actually suggested the creation of the very same tag that Ghirlandajo created to counteract the POV-because tag: [1] --Pan Gerwazy 23:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Freddie Message? 02:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete. The tag allows the trolls to target any article and to append their personal POV opinion at the top of the page. Whatever nonsense is given as a reason for the POV tag, it is kept in articles for months, because removing the tags placed by others are not allowed. Such was the case of Russian architecture, in which one troll (now blocked) has kept a silly tag for half a year, although dozens wikipedians wasted hours of their time trying to talk him into removing the tag. Now check the history of that article to see the amount of revert warring this silly tag led to. Keeping the tag as it is is what the trolls need. Please don't feed the trolls. Discussion of the POV should be held on talk pages, no need to place arbitrary advertisements of one's opinion in main space. --Ghirla -трёп- 06:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Russian architecture has been marked with some form of POV tag for 7 of the not quite 10 months it has existed. I don't know what is going on with this dispute, but I'd say all of you have much larger problems than dealing with a tag that has worked well elsewhere. Deleting POV templates should not been seen as a substitute for learning how to more efficiently resolve disputes. Dragons flight 07:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete. Ghirla is right: kill this with fire. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Since Ghirla's specific example is coming under attack, I'd like to emphasize my specific feelings; I feel that a template that caries out the discussion/argument/dispute on the article page itself is a Really Awful Idea. I don't actually have any feelings on the Russian architecture case. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Dragons flight. We need actual evidence, not speculation, that it causes more than a tiny number of cases of disruption. So far we have only one case of disruptive use. That doesn't warrant deleting this very useful tag. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-30 07:18 (UTC)
- I agree with A Man In Bl♟ck that we don't want a debate per se taking place at the top of a page, but I've not yet seen that happen (aside from on the Russian architecture page). The standard warning just isn't enough in most cases. Wikipedia is slowly starting to make readers more critical, which is part of what I love about it. But it has a long, long way to go. A generic warning that tells people to go to the Talk Page for details means little to most readers. "Yeah, well, of course some people think this might not be neutral! Whatever." The ability to place a concise summary of why the article is thought to be POV seems like a vital tool for us. When we see evidence of more than sporadic abuse, we can nix it. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-30 07:51 (UTC)
- "Concise summary". But that is the whole point: when is it a summary and when is it the discussion point iself. You do not want the tag itself to be POV, do you? IF you do not mind THAT, well then, you won't mind someone tagging the tag iself, RIGHT? --Pan Gerwazy 10:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with A Man In Bl♟ck that we don't want a debate per se taking place at the top of a page, but I've not yet seen that happen (aside from on the Russian architecture page). The standard warning just isn't enough in most cases. Wikipedia is slowly starting to make readers more critical, which is part of what I love about it. But it has a long, long way to go. A generic warning that tells people to go to the Talk Page for details means little to most readers. "Yeah, well, of course some people think this might not be neutral! Whatever." The ability to place a concise summary of why the article is thought to be POV seems like a vital tool for us. When we see evidence of more than sporadic abuse, we can nix it. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-30 07:51 (UTC)
- Neutral. However, by way of evidence, it has been used repeatedly over the last few days on Capitalism with various degrees of rantishness in the "because". That said, I can also imagine it being used properly to focus attention on the specific issue of concern, rather than as a generic "I don't like this article" that plain {NPOV} sometimes is. LotLE×talk 08:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Ghirla. --Tēlex 08:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for its usefulness to readers. As Cultural Freedom says, generic warning isn’t very informative. -- Vision Thing -- 08:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. 172 | Talk 09:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- 172- Could you please explain the connection between your citing of the "Don't disrupt..." principle and the matter of the {{POV-because}} tag? Thanks, --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-30 09:52 (UTC)
- Though in Russian Architecture, someone did indeed make a point and did indeed disrupt Wikipedia (the article was actually going to be nominated), I think 172's argument is really an argument in favour of the tag, because the phrase " don't disrupt ... " should encourage those that put up the tag to weigh their words carefully, so that the text put there is not horribly POV itself. However, so many people have spent so much time trying to deal with that, that I think the potential for disruption is indeeed far too great, and supersedes the benefit in other articles. I see some supporters of this tag want to have the other one deleted. I am sorry, but that is not definitely not the way to go. Either keep them both or delete them both.--Pan Gerwazy 10:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Re: I think 172's argument is really an argument in favour of the tag, because the phrase " don't disrupt ... " should encourage those that put up the tag to weigh their words carefully, so that the text put there is not horribly POV itself. If that's your reasoning, I can tell that you have not been editing Wikipedia too long! That's not how things usually work on Wikipedia. What will happen is that the very same users who cannot agree on the neutality of the article will disagree on the claim 'the neutality of article X is disputed because y' and start quarreling over the language in the "POV-because" tag itself. The "POV-because" tag opens up a new arena for conflict, and will make resolving disputes even more difficult. Hence my chracterization of the tags as 'disruptive.' 172 | Talk 23:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- You are right of course. What really happens is different from what should happen. Actually, I may be unexperienced but I found out myself in that particular case. That is why I said that the potential for disruption is too great in comparison to the benefit obtained in articles where people keep to your "Don't disrupt" rule.--Pan Gerwazy 20:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Discussion should be undertaken on talk pages, which a tag directs to in a standardized format. Tags should not be used as a form of discussion, only to highlight such a discussion (i.e. type of discussion it is: pov, refs, original research, etc.). El_C 00:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- You are right of course. What really happens is different from what should happen. Actually, I may be unexperienced but I found out myself in that particular case. That is why I said that the potential for disruption is too great in comparison to the benefit obtained in articles where people keep to your "Don't disrupt" rule.--Pan Gerwazy 20:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Re: I think 172's argument is really an argument in favour of the tag, because the phrase " don't disrupt ... " should encourage those that put up the tag to weigh their words carefully, so that the text put there is not horribly POV itself. If that's your reasoning, I can tell that you have not been editing Wikipedia too long! That's not how things usually work on Wikipedia. What will happen is that the very same users who cannot agree on the neutality of the article will disagree on the claim 'the neutality of article X is disputed because y' and start quarreling over the language in the "POV-because" tag itself. The "POV-because" tag opens up a new arena for conflict, and will make resolving disputes even more difficult. Hence my chracterization of the tags as 'disruptive.' 172 | Talk 23:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Though in Russian Architecture, someone did indeed make a point and did indeed disrupt Wikipedia (the article was actually going to be nominated), I think 172's argument is really an argument in favour of the tag, because the phrase " don't disrupt ... " should encourage those that put up the tag to weigh their words carefully, so that the text put there is not horribly POV itself. However, so many people have spent so much time trying to deal with that, that I think the potential for disruption is indeeed far too great, and supersedes the benefit in other articles. I see some supporters of this tag want to have the other one deleted. I am sorry, but that is not definitely not the way to go. Either keep them both or delete them both.--Pan Gerwazy 10:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Ghirla.
IF the tag on tag is deleted.--Pan Gerwazy 10:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)- Since that tag on tag WAS deleted, my vote is now a strong delete.--Pan Gerwazy 22:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete. As I said in the VfD for {{POV-tag}}, either we delete both or we keep both. My personal preference would be to delete both, because the article (as opposed to talk page) is not a place to put tag pushing a POV. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 11:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. It could be a useful template under some circumstances, but the potential for its abuse is just too enourmous to ignore. Russian architecture is just a sign of things to come. A generic POV-tag does it job fairly well, and, after all, there is a reason why every article has its own talk page. Use it to explain the "because" part; don't make the article itself a war field.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Folks, please think carefully about this. Most people who read Wikipedia know nothing about the talk pages (even if there are obvious links to them). They are not Wikipedians. The little warning at the top probably means nothing to many readers. And most readers don't have time to look at the Talk Page. With a sentence or two (compromise: limit number of words in warning?), the chance that a reader will come away from their reading of the page with a NPOV-based understanding of the topic covered increases. Isn't that good? As for potential for disruption: why do we need to make guesses about potential? We can just wait for hard data. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-30 12:42 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom.--Aldux 17:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep useful template. Polonium 18:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Changed to delete. Can cause edit wars, puts POV into article, discussion should be on talk page. Polonium 18:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Seems like a useful template, perhaps write some standards on the template page about what sort of length and what kind of content objections should pertain so things don't get all messy. Homestarmy 21:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep Seems very useful, and I agree with the above about standards, if they prove needed. --Justice 7 22:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I didnt mean to be a sockpuppet. (great name :-) though I'm not sure what it is.) I came here because of a real life discussion with someone who is passionate about Wiki and it seemed important so I voted. but I admit I dont know what I'm talking about, so cancelling my vote is ok by me. --Justice 7 12:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment:User still has only one edit NOT connected to this TfD. As far as I can judge, of course, since most of it is not in English. Vote should not count. --Pan Gerwazy 20:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Conditional Keep/Delete unless there can be a full rationale on how these tags are used. IMO only the admin should have the right to insert an NPOV tag. However what happened with Russian Architecture or Battle of the Lower Dnieper is exactly why the tags is questionable. Does a previously Arbcom banned user have the right to make 40 reinsertions of the tag when everybody in unison is telling him that his POV-pushing is not going to shift the neutraliry of an article?. In such a case it is extreamely disruptive and pure annoyance. --Kuban Cossack
23:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- If an article contains a dispute tag, it means that the editors cannot agree on the neturality of the article. If they cannot reach a consensus, how are they supposed to agree on why the article is unbalanced? In other words, users will inevitably disagree on a claim embedded in a dispute tag stating 'the neutrality article X is disputed because of y.' As soon as these "POV-because" tags start appearing in articles, just about anyone who has been editing Wikipedia for (say) a tenth of the time I've been on this site knows we'll start seeing frequent edit was over the language inside the tag itself. Again, this is very misguided. If editors are really interested in establishing a consensus, their efforts will be undercut by the opening up of yet another arena for conflict with these "POV-because" tags. Hence my claim that these tags constitute disruption Wikipedia to make a point. 172 | Talk 23:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I still don't get it. 1) Why do we need to speculate when we can wait a bit more for empirical evidence? (Indeed, the evidence so far is that there won't be serious problems at all.) 2) Editors don't need to agree on why the article is POV, they need merely to agree that at least some non-crazy people think that it's POV. That will be the cause of battles, and this tag won't change that cause, since it already exists, and already exists in the same place it will exist with this tag: on the Talk Page.
- POV-ness is almost always a binary matter. An article is alleged to have bias A, someone believing not-A will then put up the tag, and give some details (I'd be happy saying it should be X words or less, where X is, say, 25) about not-A. People with (alleged) bias A don't need to agree with the wording, because the point of the wording is not to be non-neutral, it's to express not-A. Oui? What's the problem? We need this tag. I honestly believe it's irresponsible not to have it. Most readers (who are not Wikipedians) don't click on a little "neutrality has been disputed" tag, esp. since there are so many of these tags!
- Take an empirical case: my use of this tag at Human rights in the United Kingdom. I think it's been extremely useful. A discussion about how to rectify the problem has commenced, and students of mine who are writing papers about how lily white the history of the UK is (especially compared to the Great Satan) will be more likely to learn something about the world with a tag like this. (Screaming "Read the Talk Pages at WP!!" doesn't work.) Isn't that good?
- In the spirit of compromise, I'd be happy to change my vote here to weak keep (and maybe even neutral or delete) if there were a way for someone, with one click, to get to the beginning of the discussion of the POVness -- this means, among other things, no archiving of the discussion, unless the link to the discussion also changes (if the tag is still up), and no "top-posting". But I still think keeping this tag is a good idea. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-01 16:04 (UTC)
- I think you mean well, but I still have little doubt that your comments are quite misguided. You've started work on Wikipedia little over three weeks ago. [3] I started work on Wikipedia more than 3 and a half years ago. I don't need to wait for "empirical evidence"; I'm already certain about what will happen. Already on the capitalism article, a user inserted a dubious "POV because" tag citing "Undue weight to Marxist POV." [4] Another editor, a PhD political theorist, described the characterization in the "POV because" tag as "more-or-less insane," as the article contained no "Marxist" commentary but only a brief section describing awarness of Marx's work. If the "POV because" template is kept, I guarantee you copy-cat users with the aim of disrupting Wikipedia will start using these tags as their personal soapboxes in short time. 172 | Talk 16:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Delete the tag allows one party to put a dubious statement in a prominent position without the other party having a chance to respond. It is very easy to abuse and seems to be already abused. The rationale for having this tag is that the exact reason for the editorial argument might not be easy to find on a very long talk page. I propose to have an additional named parameter because to the standard POV template that will show the exact section of the talk there the issue is discussed. That way it would be easy to translate the POVbecause tag into the standard POV without loss of content abakharev 23:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Good post. Re: I propose to have an additional named parameter because to the standard POV template that will show the exact section of the talk there the issue is discussed. FYI we already have POV-section tags, if that's what you mean. 172 | Talk 23:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- You are right, you could use {{POV|section_of_the_talk}} to show exactly where the relevant discussion is. Nice functionality abakharev 07:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Good post. Re: I propose to have an additional named parameter because to the standard POV template that will show the exact section of the talk there the issue is discussed. FYI we already have POV-section tags, if that's what you mean. 172 | Talk 23:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, unnecessary fork of {{POV}}. User:Angr 11:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I listed this here, but didn't want to vote initially. However, the comments by 172 and Yozhik made me make my mind. //Halibutt 15:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete In a POV dispute, the "because" part is what is in dispute. It is unfair to put one side of the dispute on the article tag. That makes the NPOV tag POV. Kevin Baastalk 16:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- No, it's the article and the tag that are in dispute. Article gets one side, tag gets (a really, really short version of) the other side, thereby achieving a good balance for those (many, many, many) readers who will never click on the link to the discussion about POVness. We're trying to educate people, right? --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-01 16:24 (UTC)
- Re: Article gets one side, tag gets (a really, really short version of) the other side I recommend that you gain more than 3 weeks of experience editing Wikipedia before you weigh into similar template deletion debates. Often neutrality disputes are completely dubious. Often committed partisans succeed in pushing an article mildly toward their POV, but insert on flagging the article as POV under the article has been virulently pushed toward their POV. I hate to break it to you-- not every user who inserts these tags is reasonable. 172 | Talk 16:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- For the record, I participated in WP in the past under a different name, but only a bit -- so, yes, I'm much less experienced here than you are. I'll be quiet on this matter, and let others weigh in. I really am troubled, though, by how my students are using Wikipedia (these are college students at an excellent university...). This tag just seemed like a good way to get them to wake up; the non-because version wasn't working). Best, Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-01 16:46 (UTC)
- The existing "POV," "totally disputed," "cleanup," "unbalanced," etc. tags already should be sufficient to wake them up. My fear, as mentioned, is disruptive editors will insert mischaracterizations in the "POV because" boxes, thus adding an unnecessary new layer of dubiousness to articles... Your comment on college students is interesting. Though not related to the discussion here, I cannot resist commenting on it. I left Wikipedia in mid-2005. The main factor that led me to return was the discovery that my students had been using Wikipedia. By coincidence, I saw a MS Word document on the desktop of a computer at a university computer lab with a title suggesting it was a student-made study guide for one of my quizzes. I opened it up, and indeed it was. It was not based on lecture notes, but (bad) Wikipedia entries. Since then, I came back to Wikipedia, aiming to rewrite the problem entries on Wikipedia that appeared on that study guide little by little. 172 | Talk 17:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Your response -- coming back to WP, in order to rewrite problem entries -- is a good one. My response is: I, too, shall come back to WP in order to try to fix some of these grossly inaccurate entries, yet I also want a way to make sure stronger warnings are issued, for the very reason that work on shaky articles can only take place "little by little." The POV-because tag might not be the best solution, but, please, can we ensure that there is a way for someone to click on a warning and go directly to the discussion about the potential POV-ness of the article (that is, not have to sift through various other threads in the Talk page)? --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-02 09:50 (UTC)
- The existing "POV," "totally disputed," "cleanup," "unbalanced," etc. tags already should be sufficient to wake them up. My fear, as mentioned, is disruptive editors will insert mischaracterizations in the "POV because" boxes, thus adding an unnecessary new layer of dubiousness to articles... Your comment on college students is interesting. Though not related to the discussion here, I cannot resist commenting on it. I left Wikipedia in mid-2005. The main factor that led me to return was the discovery that my students had been using Wikipedia. By coincidence, I saw a MS Word document on the desktop of a computer at a university computer lab with a title suggesting it was a student-made study guide for one of my quizzes. I opened it up, and indeed it was. It was not based on lecture notes, but (bad) Wikipedia entries. Since then, I came back to Wikipedia, aiming to rewrite the problem entries on Wikipedia that appeared on that study guide little by little. 172 | Talk 17:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- For the record, I participated in WP in the past under a different name, but only a bit -- so, yes, I'm much less experienced here than you are. I'll be quiet on this matter, and let others weigh in. I really am troubled, though, by how my students are using Wikipedia (these are college students at an excellent university...). This tag just seemed like a good way to get them to wake up; the non-because version wasn't working). Best, Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-01 16:46 (UTC)
- Re: Article gets one side, tag gets (a really, really short version of) the other side I recommend that you gain more than 3 weeks of experience editing Wikipedia before you weigh into similar template deletion debates. Often neutrality disputes are completely dubious. Often committed partisans succeed in pushing an article mildly toward their POV, but insert on flagging the article as POV under the article has been virulently pushed toward their POV. I hate to break it to you-- not every user who inserts these tags is reasonable. 172 | Talk 16:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Dragons flight. --TonyM ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!! 16:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Dragons flight was incorrect in asserting that there have been no examples of disruption attributed to this template. Capitalism is a prime example. Yes, the tag has not been disruptive in some cases. But in those cases, the tag did not contain a contested characterization of the POV itself but was used to direct users to a particular part of the article. But that's unnecessary; we already have POV-section tags for that purpose. [5] The new "POV-because" tag contributes nothing, while creating new opportunities for problem editors to cause disruption. 172 | Talk 17:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete. Will cause endless disruption. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the charge of POV is often used erroneously in order to, well, defend a POV. Debate belongs on the talk page, not in article tags. Homey 17:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - will clearly improve WP's image, and save countless debates, to simply link to Talk page. Crum375 17:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This is much more useful than the generic POV message. If someone puts a opinionated because argument, the solution is to put up a neutral one in its place. I also agree with DragonsFlight.--M@rēino 19:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Re:If someone puts a opinionated because argument, the solution is to put up a neutral one in its place. Then the person who inserted the "opinionated because argument" will revert back to his/her language ad nauseum. Thus, we have yet another arena for edit warring. Ironically, the keep vote above alludes to the reason this tag is so disruptive. 172 | Talk 21:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Many people do not read the talk pages and it may be difficult to find what the dispute is about. This template gives the reader more information quickly about what the dispute is about.Ultramarine 21:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Any talk belongs to talk pages. The template is inherently wrong: it gives an undue preference to someone's opinion (we don't want it to be ugly long to accomodate an opposing opinion, do we?). If someone thinks POV disputes are not visible in talk pages, let them use bright colors and big letters for prominent header notices there, like al these peacock signatures. `'mikka (t) 22:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral. Logic and ethics tell me "delete per Halibutt", but the outrageous practice says: "what the hell, let's use every tool against Russian propagocensorers".AlexPU 23:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Disgusting personal attack in the vote page. Look like the user wants a longer block time to learn how to watch his tongue. An ironical thing is that it was a Russian admin who unblocked him ahead or time. `'mikka (t) 23:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Encourages insertion of editorialization in article space, which is bad. Editorialization belongs on the talk page. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per Kelly. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. We use Template:Spoiler to warn our readers not to read further. We have to user Template:POV-because to warn our readers better not to start reading at all, because worthless, self-promotional rubbish has become undeletable on en.wikipedia. See e.g. Florentin Smarandache and Tom Van Flandern. --Pjacobi 23:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Rebecca 00:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete twice. People will be revert warring over the insertion of editorial POV contents to the tag itself, in the article space. Totally absurd. El_C 00:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Reluctant delete - It is beneficial to have an explanation for what the problem is with an article. This particular template, however, leaves too much scope to allow the debate spill over onto the article page rather than where it should be, on the talk page. FearÉIREANN
\(caint) 02:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC) - Strong Delete-because the article isn't the place to discuss disputed content, and the template is redundant to {{POV}}. It was actually created and discussed on thePOV template's talk page. The issue regarding long talk pages is already catered for in the POV template's optional field:
-
To specify the section of the talk page, use {{POV|talk page section name}} at the top of the disputed article.
TheJC TalkContributions 09:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. We have no control over what the "because" states, which is the first words a reader encounters. Has the odd effect of giving undue weight to one person's reasons for disputation. Marskell 10:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The "because" goes on the Talk page; not on the article. Eugène van der Pijll 14:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and salt the earth. Specifying a "reason" that an article is believed to be POV just makes it more so. — Jul. 2, '06 [18:55] <freak|talk>
- Delete per various statements above.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete See [[6]] for an example of this tag being badly misused to put a long argument forward. The standard tag directs to the talk page, the place this sort of comment belongs Kaid100 22:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete', the extra comment belongs on the talk page, not on the article itself. Garion96 (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Ghirla - FrancisTyers · 07:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Instead of removing the tag, let's develop a policy about proper using it. Please do not treat scurf with guillotine.--AndriyK 08:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete per Ghirla and nom. -- tasc wordsdeeds 08:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. per TheJC, Marskell and others. Shanes 15:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete; article discussion belongs on Talk page. -- Steven Fisher 16:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep excellent template, to bad i saw it first now. Problems can be solved with policies. --Striver 17:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and never recreate - as per nom, 172, Kelly Martin et al. - Introvert • ~ 20:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as it merely allows to trollishly tag the article pretending the objections are explained while in all the spirit objections belong to the talk page where the tagger is required to elaborate in good faith. If the tagger refuses to elaborate his objections at talk, the POV-tag is illegitimate. This tl is just an attempt to circumvent the rule. --Irpen 21:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - The specifics of the dispute should be on the talk page - not arbitrarily summarized in a sentence on the top of the article. -- Loudsox 22:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete for reasons often and adequately stated by several other editors above. --Christofurio 23:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Stong Delete I've "tangled" personally with a fellow editor via this thing and while it was a bit entertaining, for all intents and purposes... it was disruptive... I agree with the Talk pagers. Netscott 23:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. In my experience it is used to create further dissension, rather than solve problems. Jayjg (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, a similar template, also nominated for deletion, can be found here. — Jul. 4, '06 [10:48] <freak|talk>
- Delete—"La perfection est atteinte, non pas lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à ajouter, mais lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à retirer." Antoine de Saint-Exupery (1900 - 1944). Williamborg 00:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Dragons flight. --Yakudza 11:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Dragons flight. --tufkaa 14:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete {{POV|talk page section name}} accomplishes the goal of this template, while keeping the actual discussion off the article page and not displaying one POV prominently. ---DrLeebot 19:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Apparently, the use of the section name wasn't working properly; this should be fixed now. ---DrLeebot 15:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The {{POV}} tag is more than sufficient (and look at this example: Concerto). --Usgnus 19:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Regardless of the outcome of this TfD, that's unquestionably the wrong way to use it. I've gone and removed the tag from that page as it's at best a personal attack. ---DrLeebot 15:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep.--Mbuk 22:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per DrLeebot; use of this template gives the editor claiming POV an unfair head start.--Brownlee 12:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —mercuryboardtalk 14:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep because when nonneutral bias is alleged, readers ought to be able to read a summary before they start in on the article, as most will probably not bother with the discussion page and thus might not ever know in which direction the bias is alleged. This makes it more fair to the readers. LossIsNotMore 19:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC) User's first edit on 5 July. [7] 172 | Talk 19:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Most of this user's later contributions are on Battery electric vehicle. He does seem to have become a regular contributor, so if brand new users are allowed to vote on this TfD, I would now be in favour of counting this vote. Does NOT apply to the next case, by the way.--Pan Gerwazy 19:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete. Presenting a one-sided criticism of an article, as this template encourages, is even worse than a biased or one-sided article. Informing readers that there is a dispute is the right thing, criticizing the text is a bad idea. Mangojuicetalk 20:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The "because" statement belongs on Talk pages, not on the article itself. Plus the tag essentially allows trolls to stick their own POVs on top of the article itself. --- Hong Qi Gong 22:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - disruptive, not needed. Tom Harrison Talk 12:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep While there may be problems with trolls using this to escalate conflicts, most editors discussing this to not appear to be aware of its important use in pseudoscientific and nonsensical articles. In these cases, editors from WikiProject Pseudoscience and elsewhere need a way to show normal readers, who will not check the talk page, that the information contained in the article does not follow NPOV and is highly disputed. It is often added while an article is undergoing an AfD, or some other action is being taken to remove the offending material. It is extremely important that readers to not consider these articles as being illustrative of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. --Philosophus T 17:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- The tag does not serve any new function. We already have tags illustrative of content problems without the potential for abuse of the POV-because template. In addition to the standard NPOV tag, we also have the following: "totally disputed" (factual accuracy and neutrality), original research, verification, NPOV-section, 'this article does not cite its sources,' and 'cleanup.' 172 | Talk 05:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Even if the neutrality dispute wasn't an issue, this tag is redundant. The rationale for POV ought to be placed on the talk page, using the old template. The fact that many people are disputing this template's neutrality in itself using perfectly rational arguments, is yet another reason to remove it. Joffeloff 11:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep - A proper summary of the arguments can't hurt, and if someone tries polluting an article with this template, it can be removed and explained on the talk page. Why make people click through and read a flamewar on neutrality when it can be summarized in one place for those people who are looking for an overview or for information quickly? Sachmet 15:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Possible sockpuppet, user has well under 50 edits. [8] 172 | Talk 08:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment And until now, it was his last edit. Clear case.--Pan Gerwazy 19:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Could you point me to the appropriate WP policy/guideline page that says that it's acceptable (or perhaps mandated!) that a user account with fewer than X votes (whatever X be) can be accused of possibly being a sockpuppet account, when the account is used for voting, and its vote deleted? I'm not trying to be difficult! I honestly want to know more about why Wikipedia would have a policy that would disallow new users from voting on matters like this. Thanks. --Cultural Freedom "talk" 2006-07-15 08:17 (UTC)
- If there is not a specific policy, it ought to be called 'use common sense.' It would be highly unlikely that someone who had really made less than 50 edits, or who had just started to edit a day or two ago, would be familiar enough with the organization of this website to find his/her way to a TfD debate. 172 | Talk 21:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Don't get me wrong! I'm not saying I disagree with your surmise that this very likely is a sockpuppet. I'm saying, rather: you don't know it's a sockpuppet, yet you're erasing the person's vote nonetheless. Seems not a Good, in my view, to silence someone on the basis of a suspicon. That it's a very strong suspicion doesn't make it right. That's why I was wondering about policy with regards to this matter. If there were a policy that people can't vote on questions like these unless they've made more than (say) 50 edits, fine. If there is not such a policy, then anyone, even newcomers, should be able to vote. If there's a suspicion that a newcomer is a sockpuppet, it should be investigated. Until a newcomer is proved to be a sockpuppet (and there isn't a >50 edits rule), his/her vote should stand. --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-17 19:11 (UTC)
- To Cultural Freedom: it looks like this is a second account of someone who does not want his other name to be associated with these edits. That is not illegal in se, but it does put the status of his vote in great doubt: for all we know, he might have voted already!--Pan Gerwazy 19:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, but I know very well how he came here: Wonder_Lake_(CDP),_Illinois. Another prime example of abuse of the template, if I may say so. He's been the only one editing the page since April. The flag is there since May 1st, but though nobody bothers him, he seems unable to correct what he thinks is POV. As for the technical side (should the vote count?) this person is much older than me in Wikipedia but has only 23 edits and nothing on his talk page. Strange. By the way, this discussion is now 39 Kb - some kind of record? --Pan Gerwazy 22:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- The discussion is long. The template should have been deleted a while ago. No one has bothered to take the time to close the discussion and delete the tag. 172 | Talk 08:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Reading the discussion page there, someone with three contributions in Wikipedia, GnomeTempBravo went on to write that this template is used on 50 pages, so he does not know how to interpret the vote. Now that is crazy: are we really to count the guys who put in the tags as well? That would mean they would get 2-3-4-... votes on this AfD.--Pan Gerwazy 19:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- The discussion is long. The template should have been deleted a while ago. No one has bothered to take the time to close the discussion and delete the tag. 172 | Talk 08:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, but I know very well how he came here: Wonder_Lake_(CDP),_Illinois. Another prime example of abuse of the template, if I may say so. He's been the only one editing the page since April. The flag is there since May 1st, but though nobody bothers him, he seems unable to correct what he thinks is POV. As for the technical side (should the vote count?) this person is much older than me in Wikipedia but has only 23 edits and nothing on his talk page. Strange. By the way, this discussion is now 39 Kb - some kind of record? --Pan Gerwazy 22:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- To Cultural Freedom: it looks like this is a second account of someone who does not want his other name to be associated with these edits. That is not illegal in se, but it does put the status of his vote in great doubt: for all we know, he might have voted already!--Pan Gerwazy 19:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - useful in identifying main issue - especially where the NPOV dispute is focused - in appropriate use is grounds for blocking the offender not for getting rid of a useful tool. --Trödel 17:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Note that after putting the template at Martin Luther, and before voting here, Trödel deleted the mention at the template page that the flag was up for deletion. --Pan Gerwazy 19:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: ... and??? This has been on TfD for over 2 weeks - notice is sufficient. --Trödel 20:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Note that after putting the template at Martin Luther, and before voting here, Trödel deleted the mention at the template page that the flag was up for deletion. --Pan Gerwazy 19:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Trodel. This template was used very effectively just today in the Martin Luther article.--Mantanmoreland 17:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- "Very effectively indeed: I had to read the entire talk there to find out what it is about. Well, because some of the text is claimed to have been taken verbatim from an encyclopedia that is now in the public doemain, it is claimed they have to re-write a part of it, and that makes Mantanmoreland very happy, because he has been complaining that the text is too reverential to Luther. [9] If you read it, you will understand why he could not put the NPOV flag himself. Evidence that the NPOV flag is disruptive and falls under WP:POINT is both on the talk page of the article and on Trödel. My comment on Martin Luther: a good example where, if POV is involved, the section version of the normal NPOV flag should be used (since only part of the article is claimed to be plagiarism).--Pan Gerwazy 19:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Clarification: there was no plagiarism involved. The source template to the encyclopedia have been used on the page for a long time indicating it was a source. An accidental edit removed the source template tag. Accusations of plagiarism were made in violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:GF. The use of the NPOV-because tag only added fuel to the situation, and the person placing the tag has still not explained its use on the talk page, as is expected.Ptmccain 21:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Actually it is a very good usage - the results are just not in yet. There is dispute there, obviously it is over POV. I was informed of the dispute on template messages where I have been working on the generic cite templates. Knowing very litte other than basic history about Martin Luther, I thought I could help. I identified a NPOV dispute that was spilling over into notice about an encyclopedia - introduced policy re the sources should go at the end and labeled the NPOV dispute - hopefully that will buy some time to review the discussion, identify if section NPOV notices will wokr, and then try to help mediate it where I can.
- Perhaps, since you had time already this afternoon to read the discussion, you can remove the {{POV-because}} and insert the proper ones on the disputed sections - as that would have been my next step. --Trödel 21:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
-
DELETEIt is better to use the discussion pages to talk about why the POV tag is use. Troedel put the POV tag on an article for using an encyclopedia recognized as a legitimate source by Wikipedia. That doesn't make any sense. People using POV tags should immediately justify and explain why they are using them, as I've learned. This has not been done at Martin Luther and the use of a POV tag with a built in reason is not helpful. Better simply to discuss it on the talk pages after putting the POV tag up. My vote is for delete.Ptmccain 21:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep. It's worse to have a simplistic "POV" template, at least with the because we can have an explanation and (hopefully) a relevant discussion on the topic. Anthony Hit me up... 13:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: quite simply, the explanation belongs on the talk page. The "because" item not only gives one party an undue advantage, but in many cases ensures that the discussion will not be relevant. We have had enough cases quoted here where either or both were the case. See Martin Luther. --Pan Gerwazy 14:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the whole point of the POV tag is to reduce POV on pages - the last thing IMHO that a page needs is a self-referential summary of what a dispute is about that is likely to fall into POV problems itself! People should go to the talk page to see the real reasons why it is there. In thoery I see the need for a summary, but again that is the whole point of talk pages. RN 16:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
[edit] Template:PokemonHoenn
[edit] Template:Serbia and Montenegro topics
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete
This kind of template is used for current countries, and this one doesn't exist anymore. --Joy [shallot] 23:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. We now have {{Montenegro topics}} and {{Serbia topics}}. Someone can preserve it for posterity if they'd like... Grandmasterka 05:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree with everything above. Most of the articles featured on this template will never expand again, and most of the material will be incorporated into the Serbian and Montenegrin topics templates. Helmandsare 08:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC).
- Delete. Agree with nominator and Grandmasterka. A lot of the articles featured on this template will never expand again, and most of the material will be incorporated into the Serbian and Montenegrin topics templates. Crna Gora 20:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete from usage but preserve in archives. In years to come historians will want to understand how WP covered constantly evolving topics. This template shows the flexibility of WP, in so far as it shows how we can cover a state and then move on to its break-up replacements. Speaking as a historian, it would be useful to the existence of this template recorded so that future historians will know it existed when writing about us. On my proposal, we now preserve delete debates rather than deleting them, to enable records to exist for the future. Maybe we need a page for categories and templates of since abolished topics or something similar. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to userfy it for you, along with a list of the contents of Special:Whatlinkshere. Other than that, there's really no way to do what you're proposing be done here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Then we'll have to find a way to do it. Historians are going to need to access templates like this in the future in describing how WP covered evolving relationships between states and the abolition of states. If we simply bin things without thinking we will be cutting off our own nose to spite our face, because we will be the losers if historians cannot write a history of WP because WP, unthinkingly, has been dumping the information they will need to access. All organisations need to keep archives of old papers and documents for that reason. WP doesn't seem to grasp that fact yet (except for a few occasions, usually pushed heavily by historians here). In the past, some historian admins have had to continually undelete things that were deleted through votes to force proper archival standards and ensure proper records were kept. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, all you'd need to do is search the old versions of articles for use of this template. You could do that with a database dump, I imagine. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Then we'll have to find a way to do it. Historians are going to need to access templates like this in the future in describing how WP covered evolving relationships between states and the abolition of states. If we simply bin things without thinking we will be cutting off our own nose to spite our face, because we will be the losers if historians cannot write a history of WP because WP, unthinkingly, has been dumping the information they will need to access. All organisations need to keep archives of old papers and documents for that reason. WP doesn't seem to grasp that fact yet (except for a few occasions, usually pushed heavily by historians here). In the past, some historian admins have had to continually undelete things that were deleted through votes to force proper archival standards and ensure proper records were kept. FearÉIREANN
- I'd be happy to userfy it for you, along with a list of the contents of Special:Whatlinkshere. Other than that, there's really no way to do what you're proposing be done here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Duja 17:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Jtdirl. I also like his idea of preserving the page in archives. 172 | Talk 01:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - archive if possible.--Brownlee 12:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Userfy Per Jtdirl. - Kookykman|(t)e 15:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
