Template talk:POV/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Badge of shame

On multiple occasions I've seen editors argue for the removal of a POV tag because it shouldn't be used as "badge of shame." I'd simply like some help understanding what this means. In addition I think some clarification in the template is due. There's no reference to the term in WP:NPV. Based on discussion on this page and in my own experience, it seems to me it's ambiguous at the moment and can be used to justify the removal of a legitimate tag. Moreover, it's difficult for a legitimate tagger to respond when they are accused of using a tag as a badge of shame, when the accusation is ambiguous. (Full disclosure: I'm in a "badge of shame" dispute at the moment. This is a good-faith attempt to understand, not to forum shop.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

In this context, seems to me that

"Badge of shame" is synonymous with "Drive-by tagging"

and both refer to editors tagging the article but refusing to make substantive comment on the talk page. When an ed points at specific turns of phrase or sources and makes cogent argument for why it is not neutral, these terms would not apply. In contrast, in "badge of shame" cases the tagging ed never appears at article talk, or if they they do appear at article talk they skip over the specific reasons for the tag, and instead say only (and sometimes verbosely) that the tag is obviously necessary to "warn the reader", or words to that effect. See WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. You can ask a few times for specifics, and if they keep ignoring that request some would say that is disruptive (see WP:DISRUPTSIGNS). Awhile back I proposed that before using this tag an editor should be required to initiate a talk page thread, but the proposal was shot down. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Some users use the "badge of shame" argument to remove tags for which substantive arguments and legitimate concerns about neutrality have been voiced at the talkpage. That procedure is not sanctioned by the policy. If an editor presents legitimate substantial and concrete arguments or concerns about neutrality then the tag should stay in place untill there is a consensus that the page is sufficiently neutral. It doesnt matte i POV tags have been in place for a long time, if the concerns have not been discussed or addressed - as long as the editor who originally placed it there presented enough of an argument for the concerns could be acted upon by others. An editor who places the tag has no responsibility for actually fixing the article, but does have a responsibility to make their concerns sufficiently concrete so that others can fix the neutrality concerns, or to engage in dialogue with editors who disagree with the concerns in order to build consensus. POV tags are warnings to readers, alerting them to the fact that an editor has expressed concern, and they cannot be removed untill there is a talkpage consensus that the concern is not warranted by the article. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly where I stand and I think something to this effect should be included in the template description. I'm also puzzled by the usage notes saying the tag shouldn't be used to warn readers about the article, as that has always struck me as one of the benefits of legitimate tagging. This purpose is also sanctioned by WP:TAGGING. But, enough of my views, I'd like to hear more from the anti-tagging crowd. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I also agree with Manus, except that readers should be informed, not warned. The tag should only be used to solicit article improvements, and should never be used to "warn readers". The former emphasizes the need to articulate problems that can potentially be repaired, and the latter invites disruptive back-and-forth culture war tagging/untagging. If anyone's neutral knowledge of the RSs is enough to get in a tizzy about warning readers, they should rather take a few minutes to inform the readers by fixing the perceived problems. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

In practical terms what is the difference between being informed of something bad and being warned about it? I know the policy says what yuo say, but I consider it to be a question of semantics. And I also believe it is essentially incorrect to consider the template to be basically meant to inform editors and not readers - of that were the case we could use a category instead.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Flawed reasoning.... you're assuming every ed interested in an article makes use of cats. Many, like me, never even look at them, with the result that I wouldn't even know about a cat entry, much less care. Since the two-part goal is to make sure interested editors know and nudge them to care, plastering the template in plain sight for everyone who stops by the article is waaaaaaay more effective.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup tags are meant exclusively for editors. The aim is to draw readers into fixing problems. They are not intended to be some sort of scoring system. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I've been linked to this discussion for being an early user of the "badge of shame" phrase when referring to this tag. I should point out that I'm actually a firm proponent of "drive-by tagging", and in general I support the inclusion of cleanup tags where they are necessary. But I draw a clear distinction between "cleanup tags", where there is an obvious problem with an article that requires no discussion, and "dispute tags" which are used to alert editors to ongoing talk page action. In the latter case I believe tagging should be strictly limited to the duration of an active discussion, and where a discussion has become stale the tag should be removed. {{POV}} is a dispute tag rather than a cleanup tag; as such, any use should be accompanied by an open talk page discussion, and the absence of the latter should permit the removal of the former. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! So what does "badge of shame" mean to you? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't really thought about cleanup vs dispute tags, though I've been here quite awhile now. I wonder how many other eds are aware of the distinction? Anyway, thanks for a good pithy statement. I agree completely, Thumper. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I dont believe that distinction makes sense at all - NPOV is also a cleanup tag. It is also false that a NPOV tag necessarily involves a dispute, sometimes every active editor agrees that the article is biased, they just dont do anything about it, and untill they do the article should remain tagged.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. There are also many low-traffic articles with real NPV problems. These can and probably should be tagged to recruit editors to resolve the issues. The tagger leaves the explanation on the talk page and there is no response, until perhaps a year later someone notices the tag and takes up the task to fix the problem. This is exactly how tagging should work. I see no reason for the tag to be removed after some unspecified period due to lack of dispute or fix. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Maunus, if there is consensus that its biased, there's no reason to remove the tag. Where there is at least one active editor who thinks otherwise, that person has every right to remove the tag if none of the others make a tangible statement of the problem. So for POV tag to remain there should be either (A) consensus that there is bias, or (B) an active dispute based on the tagging ed's tangible and actionable statement of the problem. Lacking either a consensus or this sort of reasoning-based dispute, the tag should be struck. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

There is also an option 3. namely that the original tagger left a concrete rationale for the tag on the talkpage, which noone then ever responded to. This is not a dispute, but it does provide a rationale that is sufficient that noone should remove the tag without either fixng the concerns or stating why they disagree with the tag's validity.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer evidence that this is actually a thing before any action is taken on it. Anecdotally, pretty much every time I've seen a stale dispute tag the issue has either been quietly resolved without further discussion or the original complaint didn't really warrant a tag in the first place. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Quite. The argument here appears to be that we're suffering because of people summarily removing this tag when it's still applicable. I'd prefer to see evidence of this being commonplace before we start changing our documentation. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure that many people do it, but many people use the "badge of shame" argument in this way in discussions - which is of course a misapplication of the policy wording.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Given that cleanup templates don't actually have any feelings, I'm not sure why it matters how editors refer to them so long as they're following our usage guidelines. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. When editors use the "badge of shame" wording as an argument for removing a POV template because it is stale or because they personally disagree with the rationale that is a misapplication of the policy. The problem is that the current policy wording does suggest that POV templates should not be on the article for a extended periods and that they can be removed without consensus or fixing the problems because they shouldnt be "badges of shame". ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that can be fixed with minor rewording. The sentence as a whole certainly implies a more nuanced meaning, basically "don't just use this as a badge of shame". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

(But rather than getting into a far ranging discussion about the proper use of tags, I'd still like to get Chris's view on what "badge of shame" means, and perhaps whether/how it might be clarified.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The phrase is linked to an article which explains the general meaning of the term. I'm not sure what more clarification you require here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward), why are you "a firm proponent" of drive-by tagging, given that such tagging often has no validity? How are editors to know what is non-WP:Neutral about the article if the matter is not stated on the article talk page? That is, unless the non-WP:Neutral factor is blatantly obvious. After all, there is the fact that people commonly misunderstand the WP:Neutral policy. Flyer22 (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

{{linkrot}}, {{tooshort}}, {{external links}}, {{too many see alsos}} are either blatantly self-explanatory or link to clear documentation which explains exactly how to fix the underlying problem. Only the most virulent anti-taggers consider removing such templates merely because there were no talk page thread when the problems are still present to be acceptable. In contrast, the long-standing consensus is that discussion is mandatory for dispute tags, because the problem is rarely clean-cut and may require far more significant work on the article than with a mere cleanup tag. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You can also do drive-by untagging, so it balances out a bit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward), thanks for explaining. I don't object to drive-by tagging when the problem is blatantly obvious, which is why I stated above "unless the non-WP:Neutral factor is blatantly obvious." I was also focusing on the non-WP:Neutral (POV) tag. Generally, I am against drive-by tagging in the case of that tag. And its template obviously states not to do drive-by tagging with that tag. Flyer22 (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Quite. So given that the documentation is already in line with our expectations on usage, what's the problem here? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

A badge of shame, as the article says, is a label whose main purpose is to communicate severe disapproval. If Alice disagrees with the content of Example, and consensus is that the content is fine, then Alice doesn't get to add this tag after the discussion, as a form of communicating her disagreement with the consensus to readers. (Yes, I've seen people do that.)

Drive-by tagging is a completely different thing. (Both behaviors are discouraged for this particular tag.) I don't object to drive-by tagging in principle. However, I understand why the community finds it so frustrating, especially when people are wielding "big deal" tags like this one on pages that don't seem to have problems. However, in other cases, the problem is so obvious that no discussion is really necessary (although a quick trip to the page history might be). Although the problem of stale tags is a wiki-wide scourge, I personally will not remove an NPOV tag, no matter how old or how un-discussed, if the problem is truly obvious. If it's not obvious, and the tag is old, then I assume that the problem has since been resolved (or that the tag was placed as a mistake), and I usually pull it.

I believe that the underlying theme is that this tag should be added when your intention is attracting problem-solving attention from other editors. It should not be intended to be permanent. It should not be added if there is a consensus that no problem exists. It should not be added if the problem isn't significant enough for you to leave a quick message on the talk page, or at least if you're not willing to explain why you added it upon request. It should not be added if you are actively obstructing solutions (I wouldn't expect that of anyone here, but I have seen that in a few highly contentious subjects). It should be used as part of the solution, not as a way to concede failure. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, well said. Flyer22 (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@What, why tolerate POV tagging with no explanation unless requested? That amounts to delay and needless procedural folderol, compared to the simplicity and aide bestowed on everyone else if the tagger just explains right up front at the time of tagging. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

In some cases, the problem is (IMO) so severe that I might think that any explanation is redundant. I might therefore think that posting even a quick message about it is pointless bureaucracy and a waste of time. But perhaps you don't see the problem that is so obvious to me. In that case, you might ask me for an explanation (optional on your part), which I should be willing to give you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I like your take a lot, except that I'm a bit confused by your take on the term "badge of shame." Our Badge of shame article doesn't describe the term as you say, and it suggests the term only applies to people or groups of people. In addition it doesn't seem like the desire to "communicate severe disapproval" is a bad thing. Any legitimate POV tagging could be described as a communication of severe disapproval. Reading the remainder of your comment, it strikes me that maybe you mean "badge of shame" to apply to taggings that aren't made in a collaborative spirit or with the intention of improving the article. Am I close? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The authors of the articles often take these tags very personally, and this tag has been abused in attempts to shame Wikipedia-the-project (people).

Communicating your personal severe disapproval of the editors' consensus is not permitted in mainspace at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I broadly agree with all of what WhatamIdoing has said, though again my primary concern here is that for all this discussion nobody seems to have articulated an actual problem with the present documentation, such that it's acting to the detriment of the project. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

My primary goal in starting this discussion wasn't to fix a problem, but to educate myself. But I did actually articular an actual problem, in that the reference to "badge of shame" is ambiguous, leading to it sometimes being used to justify the removal of legitimate tags, and that it is difficult to have discussions about whether a tag is being used as badge of shame when the tag description doesn't make it clear what that means. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove "badge of shame wording"

I suggest we remove the entire paragrap h stating "This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.". The reason is that I think the template should be used both as a warning for readers and editors, and as a badge of shame, in the sense that it should make us as editors feel that the article is inadequate and move us to fix the problems. Suggesting that the template is only used to attract editors to the article does not reflect the actual way that templates are used, and also they ignore the fact that templates like these are a help for readers who are better able to take a critical stance when they read an article with this tag on top. I don't think we need this eording at all.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Basically, I disagree with everything you say here. Self-references should not be aimed at readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

In wikipedia readers and editors are the supposed to be the same, any reader is a potential future editor. So first of all the distinction between readers and editors as audience is impossible - it will necessarily be seen and noticed by both groups. Secondly, there are very good reasons to think of certain kinds of templates as being a service to readers who do not yet consider themselves editors, this is particularly the case those templates that draw attention to potentially erroneous or otherwise problematic content. So the notion that templates can be aimed only at editors is both impossible and undesirable.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I firmly disagree with all of that. As far as I'm concerned, it's settled consensus that tags are aimed solely at editors. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You can aim at editors all you like, but readers read them too.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Essentially, Maunus is proposing that the encyclopedia tell the reader that the peomple working on the encyclopedia cannot edit neutrally. The product will inform the reader that the product is flawed. I cannot accept this admission of defeat. We must work to make the encyclopedia as good as possible, and represent the results as best as possible. Binksternet (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

  That is a nonsense argument, or at the very least a gross misrepresentation/misunderstanding of my argument. It is a fact that wikipedia editors sometimes cannot edit neutrally. It is a reasonable thing to do to let reader know when that is the case. It is not an admission of defeat it is a sign that the work is still in progress and that improvements can be expected. Just like we put a star on our best articles, it makes sense to let the readers know which articles are still not up to scratch. Wikipedia, unlike paper encyclopedias, is a work in progress the the fact that we know which articles need work should inspire confidence in the reader. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

  It is equally a fact that some editors cannot tag neutrally, and when someone adds a tag for the primary purpose of "warning readers" that said editor disagrees with the community's consensus, then that tag should not be permitted (especially since most non-editing users believe that those tags are added only by admins or moderators, and not by any old POV pusher who happens to come by). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

  The template already states explicitly that a tag can be removed when there is consensus to do so. Changing the policy on warning is not going to change that, the teplate would and should be usd when there is a consensus that a page is not neutral.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

  No: when there is a consensus that the page is not neutral, then the page should get fixed, not tagged. Tags exist to attract attention to a discussion about whether there is a problem and how to address it. You don't need a consensus to add this tag and/or start a discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

  Does this mean we should do away with POV tags altogether? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

  I don't think so. While this tag has been abused, it has also been put to really effective use. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I haven't studied the above—is there an indication of the underlying problem? Normally when people discuss something like this they are actually thinking of a case where user A wanted to tag an article and B said they were just using it as a badge of shame. In my experience, B is almost always correct. If A wants a tag to tell the world about their dissatisfaction, let them give a detailed account on talk which clearly demonstrates a problem (in which case B's claims can be ignored and the proposed change to the documentation is not relevant). Johnuniq (talk) 01:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
• oppose. while badge of shame is a catchy phrase it is not really defined, and I could live without it. however the proposal also seeks deletion of the "warn the reader" language, which I view as an entirely different question, and I am opposed to removing that because doing so would encourage even more POV tags that are not supported with a reason on the talk page.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

  The template would still state explicitly that no tag can be placed without discussion and that it cannot remain if there is consensus to remove it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

  No, it won't, because it doesn't say that now. You can place it without discussion. However, if you don't start a discussion, any other editor may (optionally, entirely at his or her discretion) remove it. See RFC 2119 for the definitions: You "should" discuss your concerns. "Should" does not mean "must". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

  "warning readers" is cited as the reason for tags on articles in my watch list at least 3x/ year and usually with prolonged FORUM gishgallop unactionable nonsense So it does not hurt to keep that if your implication of redundancy is correct, and it helps to be able to point to that bit of usage instruction in situations like I described. retention has no cost but generates project improvement. Still opposed to removing "do not use POV tag towarn the reader"NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• As fond as I am of the tagging system, I'm firmly of the belief that dispute tags should be used exclusively to highlight an ongoing discussion. They occupy a space somewhere between AfD / page move tags (which are strictly time-limited) and cleanup tags (which stay until the problem is fixed) but cannot be neatly aligned with either. Accordingly, we need to impress upon editors both that they are not intended as permanent fixtures (a stalemate or an abandonment of discussion on talk should necessitate the removal of the tag) and also that they should not be summarily removed while there is a discussion. I think the current wording does that rather well, and I don't think it requires anything more than minor wording adjustments. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

amen to that!NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Alternate proposal: replace "badge of shame" with clearer language

It's evident we're not going to reach a consensus anytime soon on proper tagging procedures. This discussion has strayed far beyond its intended scope. All I want is clarification on what "badge of shame" means in the context of POV tagging. The only explanation given in this discussion was by WhatAmIDoing, who says "badge of shame" means when a tag is used to signal disapproval of an existing NPV consensus. Does anyone disagree with this understanding? If yes, please explain your own understanding of the term. Otherwise, I propose the following language in the usage notes: "The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used to disapprove of a consensus the tagging editor disagrees with, or to "warn" readers about the article." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see that replacing a metaphor which seems to be broadly understood with a much wordier explanation is productive. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that the metaphor is broadly understood. Let's start with you, do you agree with WhatAmIDoing's interpretation? (I don't know why this has to be so adversarial; we can always benefit from a little clarity, especially on contentious issues such as POV tagging. Some people such as yourself claim to understand what "badge of shame" means and some claim not to understand. Why not educate us?) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

To aid in a direct comparison, here are the two versions, the current instructions first, the proposed change second:

• The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.
• The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used to disapprove of a consensus the tagging editor disagrees with, or to "warn" readers about the article.

To me, the "badge of shame" concept is very simple and clear. The proposed "disapprove of a consensus the tagging editor disagrees with" is not as widely applicable, as a consensus may not exist at the article talk page. Binksternet (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

If the concept is so simple and clear to you, then please explain it to the rest of us. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that, at this point, you already understand it.

I often find in writing policies and guidelines that a little "unnecessary" wordiness, and especially explaining the same concept using in three or four different sets of words, helps more people understand the ideas. You might understand the first explanation, and the next person might understand the next one. (Some arrive at the page already understanding everything, so whatever it says automatically makes sense to them.)

Consequently, I'm not opposed to adding other descriptions. If you're worried about the volume, then one less obtrusive way to do that is with footnotes. However, I also find that what you might call a catchy phrase helps some people remember the concepts. This particular phrase has been quoted a couple hundred times since it was posted here, which I believe indicates that some editors are finding it to be helpful.

Your proposed wording is a bit awkward. Something more like "Do not add this template when there is a consensus that the article is neutral, even if you disagree with the consensus" would be simpler. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

POV title

Is there a specific way to tag a title as POV, eg Piggate. I'd like to tag the title as not being neutral. Can I do so? If not, why? ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 00:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

See {{POV-title}}, which is the appropriate tag, for instructions. Debresser (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 November 2015

Please change the phrasing "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." to "Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met." with a hyperlink to those conditions at Template:POV#When_to_remove

Resolution is only one of three applicable conditions, which has led to edit warring over the banner when it is eligible to remove by one of the other conditions instead. Rhoark (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC) Rhoark (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. Johnuniq (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

The phrase "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." seems to repeatedly make editors feel enabled to use or defend the tag in ways that the more detailed instructions at Template:POV specifically recommend against. A less absolute statement might be better. Rhoark (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe "until there is a consensus that the dispute is resolved".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Won't work. Because a discussion can also become stale, without being resolved. Removing this should be fine. After all, other maintenance templates don't add such a warning. If somebody would remove it, it will simply be restored. Thee are clear instructions when to remove this template on the documentation Template:POV#When_to_remove. Debresser (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I go by the "Template usage notes" at the top of the template for when to remove. Commonly, based on those usage notes, the tag doesn't even belong. As has been stated at this talk page before, so many editors do not understand the WP:Neutral policy; they think being neutral on Wikipedia means what being neutral means in common discourse. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Those notes are ultimately what should be used. I've tried to think of a concise way to summarize the conditions within the tag, but it inevitably would leave out an important clause. Perhaps the banner should just link to the instructions on removal rather than summarizing them? Rhoark (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

A link should be fine, I would think. DreamGuy (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

(Oops. I see below I was late to the game.) DreamGuy (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Question

I put a POV tag on the Christian Gospel section of the Jesus page, and two editors have removed it at their own discretion. The template says one can remove it if "It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given." Certain editors see the section as neutral, and they are not satisfied with my explanation for why it's POV. Since they don't find my answer satisfactory, can they remove the tag? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. If there is consensus that a certain issue is not an issue, then yes. Debresser (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Once there's a consensus, of course the POV tag can go away, but what about if the issue is under discussion and no consensus has been met? I'd love to get another set of eyes on the Jesus page. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Use an alternative mechanism, such as RFC. William Avery (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Rfc is likely to be overkill. Active discussion on the talkpage, combined if necessary with a notification on a related WikiProjects to draw more opinions, should in most cases be enough. Debresser (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

Can you add "or at the NPOV noticeboard" after "Revelnent disscusion can found on the talk page" because some disscusions on the NPOV noticeboard rather on the article's talk page. KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 20:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

CitiesGamer66, unfortunately, given the way the template is currently structured, this is impossible. Specifically, the Lua module that makes the text can only say "Relevant discussion may be found on" and then either a talk page or a section of the current page. This issue should probably be raised on Module talk:Message box, although I'm not sure if that's the right venue. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 00:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: I know that some users that may be confused with it nor I'd not did by drive-by tagging by mistake. Can you make and edit request to fix it? KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 01:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Dormancy

Would it be helpful to anyone if we added a general description of what "dormant" means? I usually take it to mean no comments for over a month, and I thought we could add "...if the discussion has become dormant (usually, this means no comments for about a month)".

I don't want to add it if it just seems like WP:Instruction creep (and I think it might be). On the other hand, I don't want anyone to think that we require a year or anything absurd like that. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd leave it undefined, to accomodate editor judgment when viewing articles with 50,000 hits a day versus those with only 50. Seems reasonable for the latter to retain the tag longer, since the purpose is to attract editors and there aren't all that many looking. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree with leaving as is per both editors above, especially NewsAndEventsGuy. Debresser (talk) 09:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a problematic policy in practice. There are some articles that have had POV problems for a long time, such as History of North Korea, which was first tagged in 2011. I removed the tag recently after working to improve the article. I don't think that POV issues go away just because discussions cease, any more than a lack of references is improved without work being done. Recently, another editor removed my tag on List of Americans detained by North Korea because the discussion was "dormant". In fact, no one had responded to my comments. Does this mean that editors who support the POV of the article can simply refuse to engage with any criticism and then remove the tag after a month or so? I have come across a similar issue with Era of Stagnation where the tag was removed in 2013, even though there are still obviously POV issues with the article. These are just some examples.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with the above; "dormancy" doesn't seem like it should land on the side of removing the tag; if anything, I would think it should favor retaining the tag. DonIago (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I raised this issue at the Village Pump and the discussion was inconclusive:[1].--Jack Upland (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Consensus to add tag?

I have repeatedly seen users remove this tag from controversial subjects, claiming that the editor who added the NPOV tag acted improperly by doing so without first achieving consensus on the necessity of the tag. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the NPOV is that it is intended to attract uninvolved editors with different viewpoints to an article, in situations where the neutrality is disputed. Now, perhaps I simply lack imagination, but I cannot concieve of a situation in which A, an NPOV tag is warranted (i.e. there is are concerns about bias in the edits and editors of an article), B, a consensus is achieved that such a tag is warranted (i.e. the editors, necessarily including any biased editors, agree that the article is biased and those biases should be rectified), and C, it is still necessary uninvolved editors to step in and help resolve the issue (despite consensus having already been reached). Firstly, condition B by itself seems a logical impossibility to me, as I will explain: Logically, there are only three types of biased editors possible: 1. Biased editors who are unaware of their bias 2. Biased editors who are aware of their bias, but continue editing in bad faith 3. Biased editors who are aware of their bias, and rightfully remove themselves from the discussion. As category 3 is irrelevant, and the first two act similarly enough that attempting to distinguish between the two is both difficult and unnecessary (in addition to being poor form), for all practical purposes, it can be assumed that there is only one type of biased editor: That which will insist they, and the edits they make, are unbiased. Secondly, condition B and C seem to be mutually exclusive in nearly every if not all possible situations .Thirdly, the necessity of consensus is unsupported by the template guidelines. Said guidlines refer to an individual adding the tag while stating his/her case with no mention of consensus, while later specifically stating consensus as a condition for removal. Why would consensus be implicitly required in one instance, but not in another? In short, I argue that not only is consensus not required for the addition of an NPOV, a lack of consensus is the only situation in which the NPOV tag can possibly be used correctly. Am I wrong in this? It just seems bizarre that consensus is required for the addition of a tag which documents a lack of consensus. Monkeyfoetus (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I assume this question relates to the edit warring at Gamergate controversy (an article under discretionary sanctions). That fuss is a perfect illustration of what the purpose of a tag is not. There are two warring camps, and the side which has been losing for the last two years has decided to decorate the article for Christmas with some helpful tags—as if the Arbcom discretionary notice on the talk page wasn't enough indication that some people are really upset. To more directly answer the question, a tag is not a weapon to express frustration or to punish opponents. There is no chance that anyone who might substantively edit that article would be unaware of the fact that some people are pro and some are anti gamergate, and they don't need a tag to tell them that one of the sides doesn't like the current state of the article. A tag might be useful if an editor notices a problem on some more obscure page. Perhaps the editor does not have the time or resources to research and fix the problem, so they tag the article in the hope that a passing angel will do the job. To put it another way, how helpful would it be if any passing contributor could slap a tag on an article and insist that it stay? Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

comment - the tags are not "just" for editors; they are also instructive to readers/"end-users", that the contents of an article are not of "perfect quality".

AND when you use such ao arguement to remove a POV tag, you are in fact taking sides in the dispute. inherently. Lx 121 (talk) 23:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Template instruction & WP

same of the instructions/advice in the template do not reflect anything in current WP. esp. re: "drive by tagging" & other users removing a POV tag w/o discussion. there is no wp to support this action, & the only relevant "advice" page is both an ESSAY, & in fact, a failed proposal Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems. so, clearly, that should NOT be cited as "policy" to support the template instructions. Lx 121 (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

What is the problem? Exactly what text on the template page is a problem? Why? See also: ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The issue is Lx 121 misusing the template. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

This evidently originated in a dispute over placing the tag on two articles; see Talk:Reverse discrimination § NNPOV and Talk:Reverse racism § NNPOV. The relevant guidance is at WP:CLEANUPTAG: "Cleanup tags are meant to be temporary notices that lead to an effort to fix the problem, not a permanent badge of shame to show that you disagree with an article, or a method of warning readers about an article [...] Avoid "drive-by" tagging. Tags should be accompanied by a comment on the article's talk page explaining the problem and beginning a discussion on how to fix it" (italics mine). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 December 2018

Rev. Dorothy Forrest Trumbo (1915-2018) Granddaughter, Former Politician, Fyffe, Alabama. 198.17.32.129 (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 February 2019

Please consider changing (Unbalanced scales.svg) used in the article message box to (Ambox scales.svg). –Ntmamgtw (talk) 09:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Changing the icons can be controversial. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for considering the request and for pointing me towards the correct procedure. –Ntmamgtw (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC: consensus for icon change

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the icon used in the POV article message box, File:Unbalanced scales.svg, be replaced with File:Ambox scales.svg? –Ntmamgtw (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Pictograms within coloured shapes are already widely used as icons used on Wikimedia projects, including in other English Wikipedia amboxes. 'Ambox scales.svg' was designed for use in amboxes, and the orange background matches the colour scheme of Content-type amboxes. This is why I support an icon change.–Ntmamgtw (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• No, the original is good. Johnuniq (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

  Hello and thanks for taking part in this discussion, Johnuniq! I agree that Chris-martin's original is good, but my point is that Penubag designed the orange icon as an improvement upon it to be used in neutrality ambox templates. It wouldn't take long at all for an admin or template editor to change the icon. It'd be interesting to know which icon you prefer for this purpose, and why. –Ntmamgtw (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• I have concerns that the simplicity of the black-and-white icon is more visually "coherent" than the white-on-orange-and-brown of the new icon. Do we know whether the new icon would present any difficulties for anyone with color blindness? DonIago (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Good point, DonIago. For the purpose of debate, if ambox icons are better in simpler, less colorful forms, then should we replace some of our most commonly-seen ambox icons with simpler versions of them? If we were to do this, we might choose to start by replacing (Ambox important.svg) with a black exclamation mark on a white background with a circle around it, or (Question book-new.svg) with a similarly simplified icon. The effects of colorblindness on the ability of people to understand graphical elements are interesting and it's very important that we consider how our use of colors might reduce accessibility to content. You might be interested in trying out the Colorblind Web Page Filter tool by Toptal. Glad to have you in the discussion. –Ntmamgtw (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Thank you for linking me to that color page filter. I'm not an artist, which is presenting me with some difficulties in wording this, but I feel the two icons you presented for comparison are "simpler" than the new NPOV icon. While the colorblind filters didn't really seem to show any issues, I'm intuitively unconvinced I guess. I prefer the black-on-white to the white-on-orange, which also reduces the size of the scales. Hope this helps, and sorry if I'm not expressing myself very well here. DonIago (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

      Those are some very valid points, and you made your point very clearly. I am going to withdraw the proposal. –Ntmamgtw (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reason

Hi. "Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies." should be summarized and added to the template. Apparently some editors are very keen on seeing the reason behind the use of this template, so the template itself should make the reason clear. ภץאคгöร 22:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The template documentation seems to make it pretty clear, at least to me, that if you apply this template then you should initiate a related Talk page discussion, and that if you don't do so then other editors are within their rights to remove the template. Can you please clarify where you feel this needs to be added, and why? DonIago (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)