Template talk:POV

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Protected Template:POV has been protected indefinitely. Use {{editprotected}} on this page to request an edit.

Contents

[edit] Rephrasing suggestion

Someone made a suggestion at MediaWiki:NPOV_dispute:

A suggested alternative NPOV boilerplate: The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please help Wikipedians restore neutrality by cut-and-pasting disputed phrases into Talk:Article SuchandSo, so that issues of neutrality can be solved and this notice eventually deleted.
This alternative phrase gives the reader a hint of how to proceed with the kind of fruitful discussion that eventually eliminates the need for the notice. This is a suggestion placed here for comment.

Could an administrator please update the boiler plate accordingly? Chitu 17:48, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Here is my idea:

The neutrality of his article is disputed. Please help Wikipedians restore neutrality by copying disputed phrases into the discussion page so issues of neutrality can be solved and this notice eventually removed.
It's the same idea, but shorter. Victor

[edit] Categorisation

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

[edit] Title: POV or NPOV?

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)

[edit] Categories

Category:NPOV disputes should be added to this template. Also it should use the standard <div class="boilerplate" id="npov"> markup. --Eequor 11:42, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Icon

The icon is too much of a distraction. Granted, this is supposed to be a transient header, but it often isn't, and the talk pages tend to be disorganized, so drawing more attention than necessary isn't exactly the best thing to do... --Joy [shallot] 11:00, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I actually find the icons to be very attractive and bring to point the dispute. I feel this icon (or similar ones) should be used on all notice templates (factual/neutral disputes) to make sure that the reader is warned and aware of the problem.--BakerQ 20:05, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

The icon is an unnecessary distraction. The text is already in italics, and stands out plenty. It makes Wikipedia look unprofessional. --Yath 01:58, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Come on, we've gone over this already. No silly pictures on templates. I'll remove in a few days if there's no objection to doing so. Dysprosia 05:30, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I object. I happen to like it. I would also like to know on what basis the word unprofessional is being applied here: no-one pays me to edit Wikipedia; I have no special qualifications; this word is too often used as a psuedo-synonym for "not to my personal taste". --Phil | Talk 08:21, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
There are semantic issues with images that becomes undesirable. A stop sign and hand is a clear dissuasion to edit - contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia and as stated before becomes a distraction. We want to draw attention to our articles, not minor messages that will mean absolutely nothing to the casual reader. Dysprosia 11:05, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Could it be replaced by one with the usual number of fingers? —Ashley Y 10:19, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)
Fine, Phil. The icon is not to my taste, and I think it looks tacky and amatuerish. If it's not going to be removed, could someone with The Power please wrap the image in <span id='npov_icon'></span> so that it can be removed using my user CSS? —[[User:MikeX|MikeX (Talk)]] 07:12, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
Unfortunately we can't use <span> altogether, and using a <div id="stop_icon"> causes a line break after the icon. :( --Joy [shallot] 11:29, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The current icon is over-large. Could its size be reduced to 16px or so? ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 04:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

Why is this template protected? —Ashley Y 00:59, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Cf. Wikipedia talk:Template messages#Unlock_the_templates --Joy [shallot]

[edit] Wording (moved from Template talk:DoubleDisputed)

Present NPOV wording on an article looks to a reader like it implies "this article is suspect and probably unreliable" FT2

Maybe the NPOV tag should be revised. What do you think about:
Stop! Our editors have not yet managed to bring this article to conform with Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Please help at its talk page.

(I removed [[Category:NPOV disputes]] to avoid POV-ing this page...) Gady 00:07, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Thats not a bad idea, you know. Or:

Stop! There is uncertainty between editors whether this article describes all points of view neutrally. Please evaluate statements carefully, paying attention to the quality of sources and conclusions until the article is refined. Please help at its talk page.

What I prefer about that one is it actually explains what NPOV means, for the reader, which current NPOV templates don't. That means they know how to interpret it more acurately, not "is it neutral" but "does it describe all points of view neutrally". It also explains what the implication is - not "dont trust it" but "evaluate it more carefully". FT2 02:43, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

I think it should stress more the temporariness. How about

The best way to represent this article in confromance with Wikipedia's neturality policy is a matter of debate at this time. Please help at the talk page

? Gady 04:39, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I see what you're trying, but I'm not sure its as effective in practice when you read it as a wiki user. Its not strong enough, that phrase "the best way to represent" it swings the other way and sounds a bit like "we arent sure of a few tweaks" where the issue may be out-and-out one sided POV. The 2nd wording above can capture both aspects without committing to either, and the temporariness, by describing it as "There is uncertainty between editors whether this article describes all points of view neutrally at this time". It then explains how the reader should handle that situation, by evaluating more carefully.. FT2 15:34, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, maybe it was too soft. I think the proof of the pudding is the eating: if a new formulation will reduce "tag fights", its a good one. Otherwise, it isn't. Perhaps it will be enough to just add "at this time" to the current formulation, i.e

The neutrality of this article is disputed at this time. Please see its talk page.

(or help instead of see). Gady 17:12, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm all for explaining not just describing, if it can be done sensibly - it reduces potential for misuse, whilst also firming up and clarifying the state of the article for readers who (realistically) wont usually read WP:NPOV to find what the tag means in detail. But yeah, you got the test right, all right. FT2 01:27, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Self-referential link

Why does the period at the end link back to the template? It looks very odd (pticly if the Talk: link is red and the period is blue) and is pretty inaccessible, imho. Given the template is protected, I can't see much reason for linking to it; if we want to link back, surely some rewording of "edit this template" would be better? — OwenBlacker 00:18, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] neutrality link

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)

[edit] Style change proposal

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

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see its talk page.
See the Neutral Point of View article for general guidelines

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

  • I think that the category should say: [[Category:NPOV disputes|{{PAGENAME}}]] 132.205.45.110 21:06, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


In order to avoid problems listed at Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered harmful, please "subst:" this template so that it no longer directly depends on Template:Message box. -- Netoholic @ 08:09, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

[edit] When should this template be used? (Request for comments)

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)
This is discussed at WP:NPOVD. Gnixon 17:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please unprotect

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)

[edit] Please reference the disputed article's history in this template, too.

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)

[edit] Article history, not just talk

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)

[edit] Possible change of wording

I've just deleted {{Long_NPOV}} as being a fork of this template, but a number of users feel that the wording of {{Long_NPOV}} is superior to this one. Here's the proposed template:

The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please help by reporting disputed passages and terms on the talk page.

Current template:

The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see discussion on the talk page.

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 talk:POV#{{{1}}} #{{{1}}}. The title of the dispute section would have to be given in the template using the pipe syntax (eg. {{POV|POV_dispute}}, 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)

[edit] POV-because

I have recently created a variant of {{POV}} at {{POV-because|reason}} 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:

{{POV-because|Some reason goes here.}}

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)


I agree. The user is directed to the talk page for a reason.

Lapsed Pacifist 19:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it seriously expected that anyone would read through the huge amounts of material on the talk page to find out the reason for the dispute? I think POV-because is not only usefull, but absolutely necessary. It could possibly improved by referencing to a specific section of the talk page, where the nature of the dispute would be explained in depth. -- Heptor talk 02:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV-date

How about adding a date so that it says something like this:

The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see discussion on the talk page.
This article has been tagged since December 2005

.

[edit] Vandalised image

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

[edit] Wording

To make it more obvious that the talk page is the place to discuss, the template should read "The neutrality of this article is disputed, as outlined on the discuss page". That would avoid people adding the template without writing on the talk page.

Fred-Chess 23:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change image?

The image of this template should be changed to Image:Nuvola apps important.svg. This template is a warning and not "a stop". --Off! 11:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it, the stop hand is a better image - like a warning! --Sunfazer (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I reverted it again as well. I prefer the current image. Further, this image is used on all of the other dispute/warning templates, so if we're going to change it here, we need to change it in all the other templates as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Size and color

Codemonkey, the current version is very ugly on pages. Bad color, bad size. I'd like to change it back to the version I had up earlier. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Style fixing

I changed the width style value to be the same as Template:current as it fixes a rendering problem with Safari (browser).—Tokek 12:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV maps

I've created a new template: Template:POV-map to deal with maps that do not conform to POV. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scales or Stop

JA: In the interests of political neutrality, I think that the scales should be arranged to tip in opposite directions on alternate days, though of course an animated icon would be even better. 02:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL! I like it. It's a lot better than the hand. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Hear, hear! Much better! 71.132.128.168 21:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks a lot nicer, good work! --H2g2bob 22:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Yep, looks a lot better and more professional. --Snakemike 12:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The person who doesn't like it. If that isn't a stamp of approval, then what is? Publicola 05:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Other users have opposed the scales as well. The scales are fine but it needs to better indicate a content dispute. RevolverOcelotX
That was really a great idea, much better than the scary hand. Pecher Talk 13:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This has been changed back and forth a little, would it be worth opening this up to an opinion poll for more comment (as it does affect a lot of wikipedia pages)? Or would all the people who take part in the polls find this page anyway if they wanted to comment? Actually, I suppose what we really need is a POV tag at the top of this template ;) --h2g2bob 19:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the scales, because I believe this template needs to attract attention. Wikipedia's reputation has grown to such an extent that people expect accurate, neutral information from us - and there should be a big warning in place on articles that propagate either biased or false information.
In any case, this issue affects numerous articles, and a community-wide poll is absolutely necessary before we make any changes to long-standing consensus. -- Nikodemos 21:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I have always been a fan of including visual images on templates. I have long preferred using the hand, but in this case I think the scales are better. They communicate the meaning of the template visually. Please use the scales. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, I believe a community-wide poll needs to be held in matters that affect this extremely widespread template. -- Nikodemos 00:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You can put me down for scales. Dragons flight 02:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the scales too. They are patient but effective and do not scream "this article is crap." GilliamJF 03:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Why not use both images—the "stop hand" on the left and the "scales" on the right, like this?
 The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.
Yeah, I know it's overkill, but it just might satisfy both image arguments. Denelson83  04:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Ummmm, I thought the point was to be less imposing, not more imposing. Just the scales, please. Dragons flight 05:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I like the scales. Good edit. Jkelly 21:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I also like the scales. The scales describe the content. Good idea, whoever thought of it.
Me too! - Merzbow 00:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

--Domthedude001

The scale is not cautious enough to get attention. Janviermichelle 08:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The scales are ultimately a better idea, but they could be made more vivid by putting a spark of fire on each side, so that it's apparent that this is a burning issue. --Joy [shallot] 09:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop hand.svg is far better. It's a warning template, after all --Sunholm(talk) 15:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not a warning template. It's an indication of a dispute. It's not like it's warning people not to do things. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 19:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not a warning template, Sunholm. It is, as Lefty explained, an indication of a content dispute. As such the scales are infinitely superior. The hand indicates stop. We aren't telling people to stop. We are simply indicating that the article may lack balance. The scales make that clear in a non-confrontational manner and are a perfect image for such a template, far far superior to a quite literally heavy handed hand image. I simply don't understand what the fuss is about, and cannot for the life of me understand why someone people want to use an image that communicates the wrong message in preference to an image that communicates the right one with 100% accuracy. IMHO trying to insert the wrong image is so ludicrous that it qualifies for the BJAON page. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


Change it so it looks like {{WoW}} and {{WiC}}. Apologies for edit warring. --Sunholm(talk) 20:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change "article" to "{{{type|article}}}"?

Following on from the POV-map template discussion, would it be a good idea to change "The neutrality of this article is disputed." to "The neutrality of this {{{type|article}}} is disputed." This keeps all current uses exactly the same (default word is article), while allowing for other wording like "The neutrality of this map is disputed." (see above the creation of the POV-map template). Usage would be {{POV|type=map}}, {{POV|type=template}} or whatever. "Type" is probably the wrong word to use, any ideas or suggestions on any of this? --h2g2bob 19:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Frequently changing and increasingly complex templates are becoming a problem on Wikipedia. I'd certainly appreciate it being left as it is. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war

Sunholm and Dragons flight, stop it. You have both violated the three-revert rule. If it continues any longer, I will report you both to the 3RR violations board. I'm being very lenient. Let's decide on an icon here, shall we? --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 22:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

We're trying to stop Sunholm from "edit warring" multiple pages as well. Dragons flight blocked him for 3 hours earlier. Just report Sunholm to WP:AN/3RR if he continues doing again. -- ADNghiem501 01:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking on yesterday's edits it seems that Sunholm breached 3RR. I don't think DF did so. Sunholm has been blocked by another user for 24 hours. As his last edit clearly breached 3RR I have reverted it to the previous version. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, you're right. Dragons flight didn't violate 3RR. Whoops. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 19:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adaption

I've adapted the template slightly to enable it to be used to indicate more specific problems than simply a whole article. By using it in the form {{neutrality|alternative text}} the alternative text will replace the word article, allowing it to be used to refer to a specific problem such as a biased set of links, a biased list of sources, a biased paragraph, etc. However if no alternative text is specified, the word article is shown as default. The change doesn't in any way affect the normal usage of the template, merely gives it the potential to be used in a more specific manner when needed.

For example, {{neutrality|article's external links}} produces
The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.

FearÉIREANN\(caint) 14:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] this could work

Image:Hand with thumbs up.jpg
 The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.

McKzzFizzer 16:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What are the rules for removing this template and others?

I'm concerned about John E. Sarno and Tension myositis syndrome which is a diagnosis Dr. Sarno invented. I flagged Sarno as POV-because the article didn't mention that his views (mainly on TMS which he invented as a diagnosis) are controversial. The Sarno page now basically says that some consider Sarno controversial, but that he is "still curing patients" with no citation. Is there some policy on not removing a POV flag until some resolution is reached? I'm probably going to flag the TMS page for POV or sources and I'd like to know in advance what to do it it's taken down. --Howdybob 05:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: Template:POV-body

 The neutrality of the body of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.

Article headers can often be NPOVed comparatively easily, while it can sometimes take months to NPOV an entire article. When agreement on the header does occur, it seems to have utility for readers to know the header is not disputed. Any thoughts on Template:POV-body being placed after introductions, above articles' table of contents (meaning it still must be read before readers can reach the TOC)? --Nectar 08:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a section template might be good, but if almost the whole article is under dispute, I would think that people might also be prone to make edits to the headers, so it might be safer to just let readers know at the top that the article is disputed. --Howdybob 06:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too long?

Could we make this shorter? It creates a lot of whitespace. OneWeirdDude 16:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV-because undeletion

{{POV-because}} was deleted a while ago, for dubious reasons (if people are abusing something, ban them; don't destroy functionality just because it might be abused), and I was going to put it up for undeletion review. Instead, I'd like to change the usage of this template a little to achieve the same effect. I propose that it be mandatory to provide a concise reason for the template, and that it be placed at the top of the section on the talk page which is linked from the template, set apart from the text in a box or bold or something or other, and have the template changed a little to signify to newcomers where they might find that concise summary. I know that some people may abuse it to insert their POV or "get a headstart" or whatever. So what? Discipline the people who are causing the problem. Our readers need to know why an article is disputed, in a concise way, without reading through tons of crap on the talk page, and without dismissing the entire article because of a tag at the top that only refers to one specific point. — Omegatron 03:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I added such a box to Talk:Renewable_energy#What_happened_to_nuclear.3F, as an example of what I am thinking of. — Omegatron 04:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PermProtect

Why was permprotect applied? Gnixon 15:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism [1]. High visibility. The template is seldom edited. Just note on the talk page here if you have a legitimate need to change the template (also admins should propose changes on the talk page first). Mark your request with {{editprotected}} and an admin will make the edit. The documentation is not protected and can be freely edited (for example, interwikis can be added there). I hope this is acceptable for you. --Ligulem 18:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds reasonable. Thanks. Gnixon 01:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed change - dated categories

I suggest that the following change is made so that articles are put in Category:NPOV disputes or Category:NPOV disputes from date not both as per guidelines. This could reduce duplication of effort − Just add the date to unresolved POV tags when checking the alphabetical list to move them to the dated lists. It also reduces category bloat in articles.

[edit] change

[[Category:NPOV disputes|{{PAGENAME}}]]
{{#if:{{{date|}}}|[[Category:NPOV disputes from {{{date}}}]]}}

[edit] to

{{#if:{{{date|}}}|[[Category:NPOV disputes from {{{date}}}]]|[[Category:NPOV disputes|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}

Any comments before I apply {{editprotected}}? -- TrevMrgn 02:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's try it -- TrevMrgn 20:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Done. NCurse work 19:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Or section

Could an admin please add "or section" after "article"?--Rouge Rosado Oui? 23:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

+ {{editprotected}} --h2g2bob 23:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I've made it changeable; typing {{POV|section}} should give you what you want. JDtalk 16:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Please revert this - parameter 1 is for the talk page section
{{POV-section}} says 'section' instead of 'article' -- TrevMrgn 20:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Ah, sorry, I didn't notice that. Will do. JDtalk 19:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Better centering


{| class="messagebox" style="max-width: 28em; background: #FFF0D9;"
|-
|width="20%"|[[Image:Unbalanced scales.svg|none|40px]]
|style="text-align: center"|'''The [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutrality]] of this article is [[Wikipedia:NPOV dispute|disputed]].''' <br><small> Please see the discussion on the [[:{{NAMESPACE}} talk:{{PAGENAME}}#{{{1|}}}|talk page]].</small>{{#if:{{{date|}}}|<br><small>This article has been tagged since {{{date}}}.</small>}}<includeonly>
{{#if:{{{date|}}}|[[:Category:NPOV disputes from {{{date}}}]]|[[:Category:NPOV disputes|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}</includeonly>
|width="20%"|  
|}

I noticed that on wide screens this template's text doesn't center properly. Please adjust the code for the template as noted above to correct this. Thanks. (→Netscott) 01:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I tested your code on a subpage of mine, User:AnonEMouse/TemplateTest2 and it created an ugly &#160; mark on the side of the template. I can't play more, because, frankly, the current template centers fine for me. Can you please test your proposed change a bit, and come back (and restore the {{editprotected}}) only when you're absolutely sure of it? If you also include a screenshot of just how badly centered the thing looks in your browser that might help, since, as I wrote, it looks fine to me in Firefox on Windows XP. Thanks. AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
If you copied from the code from the edit space that would happen. To make the code display right in talk space I added an & symbol. I'll adjust that... and then there'll be no problems (it just won't show up on the talk page). (→Netscott) 22:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Fast response! Anyway, now the template on my test page is 4 lines no matter how wide I resize my browser, while the original one is 4 lines with a narrow browser and 4 2 with a wide one (my screen settings are now 1280x1024). I prefer the original, I'm afraid. AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
4=4=4 no?, where's the difference? You've said that they are all four lines... ??? (→Netscott) 23:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's what I'm seeing on both Safari and Firefox. (→Netscott) 23:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, meant 2 when my screen was wide enough. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing functionality

Can we please have a way to add in information on why we think a page is POV? A one-sentence comment is often far more helpful at explaining a view than merely saying it has problems. Adam Cuerden talk 22:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

There was a template like that called "POV-because" but it was deleted (thankfully so imho). (→Netscott) 22:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Not done per above. --WinHunter (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the template useage: "Place POV at the top of the disputed article, then explain your reasons on the talk page of the disputed article." In my experience, the NPOV template is often added as a drive-by edit and no reasoning is ever added to the talk page (I'm working two articles at the moment with this issue). This results in the tag remaining for some time because no editor can see a problem. If anything, I would wish for this to automagically open the talk page and start a section titled "NPOV check" or some such. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Edit

<div class="messagebox disputed metadata">
{|style="width:100%;background:#FFF0D9;text-align:center"
|width=60px|[[Image:Unbalanced scales.svg|none|40px]]
|'''The [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutrality]] of this article is [[Wikipedia:NPOV dispute|disputed]].'''<br /><small>Please see the discussion on the [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}#{{{1|}}}|talk page]].{{#if:{{{date|}}}|<br />This article has been tagged since {{{date}}}.}}</small>
|}</div><includeonly>{{#if:{{{date|}}}|[[Category:NPOV disputes from {{{date}}}]]|[[Category:NPOV disputes|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}</includeonly><noinclude>
----
{{/doc}}
</noinclude>

Which would look like:

 The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.

Template talk:POV/doc

The CSS is a hack. The width, background and alignment should be in the "disputed" and "messagebox" css classes. At least this is one step in the right direction (toward orthogonality, that is). -- PatrickFisher 05:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

So basically you're suggesting making the box wider? It seems to me to be fine at its current size – these messages distract readers from the article itself quite enough already without making them more prominent – Gurch 14:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see a need for the box to be wider. Denying this request. ZsinjTalk 19:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I came here to suggest a similar change, and glad it's been done already. However, the admins reviewing this change didn't understand the matter at hand. That code above was cleaned from invalid/deprecated HTML with perfect CSS to boot. The onl thing wrong is the size, which was set to 100%. Just use the original size in pixels, and the problem should be pretty much solved. Don't allow the present bad coding to be available in so many pages of Wikipedia where this template is used.--Saoshyant talk / contribs (I don't like Wikipedophiles) 16:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please add [[hsb:Předłoha:Neutralita]]. Thanks. - Gilliam 03:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki addition

[[fi:Malline:Neutraalius]] —Ppntori 19:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restore POV-because or a similar template for talk pages?

Hi.

I was thinking, perhaps maybe the now-unused {{POV-because}} template could be restored, and turned into a talk page-only template? Perhaps maybe something like "{{NPOVD-summary}}" which could be used to give a brief summary of an ongoing NPOV dispute? Most of the objections to the use of {{POV-because}} seemed to involve problems with putting it on the main page, because someone might use it to push a point of view, and NPOV discussions should stay on the talk page. There does not seem to be any reason to object, therefore, to putting it on a talk page. It would prevent the need for spending hours and hours digging through hundreds (or thousands, if it's a very long and ongoing NPOV dispute, such as that on the article "Armenian genocide") of posts just to figure out some idea of what is the big bone of contention. mike4ty4 07:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Please remove this comment, "u suck", under Minor POV. — zero » 05:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Done - Harryboyles 06:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/o/v/Template_talk%7EPOV_4249.html"