Template talk:POV-because

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have created this template to provide a means of notifying the reader about the nature of the dispute without them necessarily having to dig through the talk page. Discussion and explanation of the issue in dispute should still always appear on the talk page whenever this template is added. Dragons flight 20:57, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Not a good idea; it gives the person claiming POV an unfair head start.--Brownlee 12:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
What happens if you want to find out what the debate is about without spending hours and hours digging and digging through talk archives, vague hints, etc.?! Why not post clear summaries on the tops of talk pages?! That is a good idea indeed. 70.101.147.224 21:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
PS. I just listed this one on Deletion review with these arguments. 70.101.147.224 21:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:POV-because

Template:POV-because has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. //Halibutt 01:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is no longer on the main TFD page, but on the daily archive page. Has the discussion closed? Slambo (Speak) 10:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I get 15 keep, 44 delete as of a few minutes ago, but it is apparently used on at least 50 pages, so I'm not sure how to count this one. GnomeTempBravo 07:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD Notice

The last vote before mine was on the 15th of July - and this has been on TfD since 30 June - there is no reason to keep the notice on any longer. --Trödel 20:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is. The votes have still not been counted for some reason, so the voting is still going on. As long as it's not closed, we need the notice in the template, just to let people know they can still go there and state their view. Besides, the delete option so far wins by a huge margin of some 32 votes or so, which makes our dispute fruitless anyway, as this template is most likely to be deleted soon. //Halibutt 04:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed - I hadn't bothered to count things up - but of course the closing admin always has the option to review the discussion and do something else - BTW did you know you can use #901 rather than #990011 to get the same font? --Trödel 12:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
No, I didn't. As a matter of fact I don't even know why did I add those red signs there, I don't remember. But thanks for the info. //Halibutt 14:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Result

The result of the debate was to delete the template. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I miss POV-because

Was any attempt made to move the summaries of the dispute to the tops of the talk pages or something for the pages which used this template? Sigh. I think deletion was a mistake. I guess with the redirect to the {{POV}} the summary still comes up if you mouseover or click on the "talk page" link. Albeit in the URL fields at the bottom and top of the browser window, respectivly. Starcare 10:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Why was this deleted? Sometimes you need to be able to clarify the nature of the dispute. How was this deleted but {{POV-section-because}} was not? — Omegatron 21:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
"That's not fair. I need to know which information is disputed." - My non-Wikipedian friend upon seeing the article about Anarchism for the first time. — Omegatron 01:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
So why not state clearly and plainly on the talk page exactly what is being disputed! He made a very good point, IMO. 74.38.33.15 08:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: NavFrame extension with reason?

How about we make it look just like {{POV}} but we add one of those javascript [more] links to drop-down the reason? Like this:
The neutrality of this article is disputed,
because:
{{{1}}}.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.

Hm. Anyone know how to get it to default to closed instead of open? Starcare 10:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bringing this back up

Hi.

I'm bringing this back up for discussion again. I think the tag should be restored, because it may not be (correction -- is often not) clear what exactly is of questionable neutrality from the talk page and one has to dig alot. If used properly, this tag could say exactly what is in dispute. This does not push a particular point of view, it simply says what the item is that is being disputed. It is possible to abuse the tag to push a point of view, but it is also useful, and the usefulness is what matters -- the abuse has to be combatted like all abuse, but such combat should not get rid of useful items. 74.38.33.15 08:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Any Response???? In addition to wanting a response, I'd also like to say as another possibility: that maybe instead of using this, a clear summary of the NPOV dispute should placed on the talk page so one doesn't have to dig and wrack their brain trying to figure out what the heck is disputed! I think that would go a lot better with the Wikipedia community. Do you agree? 70.101.147.224 21:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)