Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 30: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion | Log Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:58, 1 July 2006 editAltenmann (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers216,789 edits →[]← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:02, 1 July 2006 edit undoAlexPU (talk \| contribs)1,916 edits →[]Next edit →
Line 148:		Line 148:
	**And often the POV warriors inserting these tags don't listen to the feedback of other users on the talk page either. ] \| ] 22:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)		**And often the POV warriors inserting these tags don't listen to the feedback of other users on the talk page either. ] \| ] 22:52, 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. `'] ] 22:58, 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. `'] ] 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".] 23:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

	==== ] ====		==== ] ====

Revision as of 23:02, 1 July 2006

< June 29	July 1 >

June 30, 2006

Template:Elk River (British Columbia)/meta/drainsinto

Delete per nom. --Usgnus 18:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Credit Card Cashback

Delete per nom. --Usgnus 18:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete as above. Mystache 21:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Argentina Squad 1990 World Cup

Template:Italy Squad 1990 World Cup

Template:West Germany Squad 1990 World Cup

Template:Argentina Squad 1994 World Cup

Template:Italy Squad 1994 World Cup

Template:Argentina Squad 1998 World Cup

Template:Argentina Squad 2002 World Cup

Template:Argentina Squad 2002 World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
These templates were created to emulate the 2006 World Cup templates, which creators intended to be deleted after the World Cup. Only a template for the current (2006) World Cup should exist, for navigating topical player pages. Keeping squad templates for old World Cups can clutter up player pages (some players have appeared in five World Cups.) If 1990 World Cup squad information is required, it can be found at 1990 FIFA World Cup (squads) etc. SLUMGUM yap stalk 13:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I think these templates are useful. Mxcatania 14:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
~~delete~~ Argentine not noted in 2002 World Cup. I prefer wining squad, runner-up, third place, the fourth, and special teams like Trinidad, Jamaica, Serbian-Montenegrin and (their first and may be the last World Cup/their last one) use squad template. It is a nightmare for Ayala article, 1998, 2002, 2006 World Cup squad, and Valencia squad (soon created by someone). The main squad list provide enough infomation. Matt86hk talk 15:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- change to party agree. Matt86hk talk 15:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete all, these templates clutter the articles. Soon someone will create templates for each Copa America, Euro, African Nations etc. — when will it stop? Punkmorten 16:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. That seems like a slippery-slope argument. This is, after all the world cup. If such templates were created, I would support deleting them. Mystache 21:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep all. I'm not sure that they're really all that different to succession tables for non-notable occupants of notable roles (eg Home Secretary etc). They provide some use; personally, I think it's very useful to have a more obvious indicator that someone played for their national team in a major tournament, which tournament and with which other players. I think they serve enough of a purpose to merit keeping (and I think the same for the current World Cup templates too). — OwenBlacker 17:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep all. Appearing in a World Cup is a great accolade for any player, and should be worth noting. If we delete these, we should delete the 2006 World Cup templates too, as recentism. Erath 17:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Further comment. Most football infoboxes have been very cleverly shaped to save space, with templates like fb-start and fb-end. Work could be done to minimise the space taken by players with multiple World Cup appearances. Erath 18:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep all. I am totally agreed with a previous comment. --Repli cant 18:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment so now a player like Cafu should have 4 different world cup templates? Doesn't seem reasonable to me at all. Yonatanh 00:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment: We have categories to denote World Cup involvement. These are very small compared to the templates, five of which would appear on Lothar Matthaeus's article. SLUMGUM yap stalk 00:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: And what's wrong with that? It is a great opportunity to compare squads with each other and to see changes in the team. --Repli cant 08:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete all as per comment above. Yonatanh 01:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
'Comment There is Template:Netherlands 2006 u21 squad already. Keeping winning squad is ok i think. Matt86hk talk 04:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
'Comment It's totally different things. "U-21 Euro" is just one of many youth tournaments, while World Cup is a greatest sports event in the World. Every WC appearance is a landmark in a career of every player that may changes it greatly and i think it should be noted visually with templates. --Repli cant 08:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete - I agree the WC is a major achievement to any player, however, inserting massive templates with the entire squad in the player's page is not a good solution. Something like the medal table for olympic athletes informing that the player was present in the competition and what results his team achieved would be good. Such templates could be expanded to include other major competitions, like the european championship ot copa america. Afonso Silva 13:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Belgrade neighborhoods and suburbs (urban)

Template:Belgrade neighborhoods and suburbs (urban) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. I created this template, but now think it is a bad idea as it is too large. Rather, I think that multiple templates should be created, corresponding to each municipality of Belgrade, and having each suburb listed in its respective template (to avoid over-crowding). — Incisive Thought 05:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Author is the only contributor. --ais523 07:59, 30 June 2006 (U T C)

Template:Hoaxer

Template:Hoaxer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is intended to be placed on the page of a user with "a history of intentionally inserting hoax information." This is inappropriate for anonymous IPs, as they often are shared among multiple individuals. Meanwhile, an account registered for the purpose of committing hoax vandalism (or any other type of vandalism) should be blocked indefinitely (rendering the template pointless). Furthermore, no policy permits anyone to "readily delete" (which seems to imply speedy deletion) such a user's contributions, even if a hoax is suspected. Delete. —David Levy 04:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I think that the "readily delete" buissiness means something along the lines of "don't feel bad if you have to delete a ton of this users contributions because they're all false". Anyway I've removed that now and rephrased. 68.39.174.238 06:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

There are anonymous IPs that are attached to one user. It's obvious when there is only bad behavior. If it is used to target those people then it is appropriate because the template is a response to an individual. And don't forget just how bad hoax vandals are. Do you realize this is the most imperceptible variety of vandalism? If not branded then these vandals will continue unchallenged for months. This template needs to exist. lots of issues | leave me a message 19:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

An IP addresses can belong to the same person for weeks, months, or even years before it's suddenly reassigned. (Mine changed after two years of remaining the same.) And no, a history of nothing but vandalism does not rule out the possibility that an IP address is shared by multiple individuals (only one of whom had edited this site anonymously).

Regardless, if we are able to somehow verify that an IP address is used strictly for vandalism, it can be blocked indefinitely. Under no circumstance is it appropriate to "brand" an account or IP address in this manner and wait to the user(s) to strike again. —David Levy 19:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I suspect if they contributed legitimately but occasionally went and added nonsense, it might be usefull to say as much. Out and out hoax vandals who have no legit contributions can be blocked, as has always been the case. Also, as can be seen on one of its current uses, it can be used when a persistent hoaxer persistently uses a shared IP, i.e. his school, and so can't be blocked indefinately. 68.39.174.238 21:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If someone contributes legitimately but occasionally adds nonsense, the standard warning messages are sufficient. (And if this is done anonymously, it probably is more than one person.) It's patently inappropriate to apply such a tag to a shared IP address, as this defames legitimate users. We have a suitable tag for such situations: {{sharedip}}. —David Levy 21:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE This template has been edited since it was nominated for deletion. The most controversial language ("readily delete") is now removed. As a result, I vote keep.--M@rēino 19:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- The edit to the language was noted above. This, however, was not my primary concern. (Otherwise, I would have simply fixed it myself.) The problem is that this template serves no valid purpose (IMO), and it's been used primarily to "brand" IP addresses that easily could belong to legitimate editors (including at least one school IP). —David Levy 20:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Title

Template:Title (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template was a attempt to work around various title limitations. However, it's never worked correctly nor reliably; in particular, it only displays correctly with the standard skin, with the quickbar on the right, and even then only with some web browsers. Furthermore, even though it's been deprecated (and clearly states so on both the template and the talk pages!) users have persisted in attempting to insert it on certain pages - iPod, iMac, etc. As it's never worked properly, and is inadvertently causing disruption to Misplaced Pages, I'd like to see this template gone. Consider it a failed experiment. Zetawoof 04:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Does much harm and no good. If it becomes possible at a later date due to changes in MediaWiki, recreate it then. -- Steven Fisher 05:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete. A noble attempt, but more harm than good. Coffee 17:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete - agree with above.--Aldux 17:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep - it is sometimes used on user pages.

~~Anyway, most readers are unlikely to use nonstandard skins.~~ Also, if it is deleted, people could just put the code in instead (and it was already substituted in the sandbox, so the code is there). Polonium 18:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete - It's broken. If users want it on their userpages, let them substitute it. And Polonium, the assertion that nobody uses "nonstandard" skins is false. First of all, there's no "standard" skin, there's simply Monobook, which is the default skin. I happen to know a fair number of people who prefer Cologne Blue. --Cyde↔Weys 19:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment - It's not just nonstandard skins that break this template. It's any form of browser or preferences customization. Even changing the browser font size is sometimes enough to screw it up. Zetawoof 19:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Template:Wrongtitle. It's parameters exactly match, and should be used instead of this CSS overlay hack. Invitatious 23:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:POV-because

Template:POV-because (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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}}. //Halibu tt 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)
Keep per above. Fr e ddie _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 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. Misplaced Pages 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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages too long! That's not how things usually work on Misplaced Pages. 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)

Delete per Ghirla. IF the tag on tag is deleted.--Pan Gerwazy 10:16, 30 June 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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)
- User has only two prior edits. 172 | Talk 17:18, 1 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages little over three weeks ago. I started work on Misplaced Pages 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." 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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. //Halibu tt 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 Baas 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages in mid-2005. The main factor that led me to return was the discovery that my students had been using Misplaced Pages. 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) Misplaced Pages entries. Since then, I came back to Misplaced Pages, aiming to rewrite the problem entries on Misplaced Pages that appeared on that study guide little by little. 172 | Talk 17:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep per Dragons flight. --TonyM 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. 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 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)
- And often the POV warriors inserting these tags don't listen to the feedback of other users on the talk page either. 172 | Talk 22:52, 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)

Template:PokemonHoenn

Template:PokemonHoenn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This was used for the old, hand-made Pokémon species infobox. Its functionality has been superceded by Template:Pokémon species, and it is no longer in use in any articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Serbia and Montenegro topics

Delete. We now have {{Montenegro topics}} and {{Serbia topics}}. Someone can preserve it for posterity if they'd like... Grand master ka 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)