వికీపీడియా:Template locations

There is currently a dispute regarding the placing of templates mainly directed at editors in the article namespace or on talk pages. Among templates where this has been an issue is:

• {{Expansion}}
• {{Reqimage}} For info and original proposals see: 1, 2, 3, 4
• {{AID}}
• {{COTW}}
• {{featured}}
• {{Limitedgeographicscope}}
• {{CSBArticles}}
• {{POV-check}}
• {{Listdev}}
• {{DrugsNotice}}
• {{Album}}

Arguments for appearing on the article page

1. More prominent and will attract more attnetion. Templates can be used to mark a single section of an article, which is thus not indicated when it is on a talk page.
2. {{Expansion}} and others give a clear indication that the article does not adequately cover the subject. Thus, it seems more likely that someone with knowledge of the subject will expand the article.
3. Many editors do not look at the talk page, and may not know of any templates posted on it. Especially in the case of expansion or POV templates.
4. Some templates were designed specifically for use on the article page, which may be informative for the reader and the editor. These designs do not detract from the article appearance.
5. It is possible to stop the templates from showing up when the article is printed, thus not detracting from paper copies of the article.
6. We want everyone, including the casual reader, to know where we know we're deficient. It's part of being open and honest about information (and the lack of it, sometimes).
7. Having poll-related templates such as {COTW} and {AID} on the article page can increase the pupularity of the poll and justify the voting results as the number of voters is larger.
8. Templates are cues, signposts, and notices. On the road, we don't post the whole text of the law regarding temporal and positional traffic priority at a four-way intersection, we post a "Stop" sign. We don't post a scientific essay about the reduction of the coefficient of friction in the presence of moisture; we post a "Slippery When Wet" sign.

   It is important for known problems or issues with articles to be shown to readers it smacks of whitwashing otherwise, and has the benefit of encoraging them to become editors. If they want the details they can look at the talk page, otherwise its important that they are notified.

May be expanded

Rebuttal

Re 1) and 2) apply equally to general talk as well as templates. It is absolute nonsense to allow comments such as "This page needs attention" on the article page, but confine actually useful comments such as "This page needs attention because it doesn't mention Joe Blogg's career in the 1960s" to the talk page.

Re 3) Editors need to read talk pages. It is wrong to encourage them not too.

Re 4) So? Re-design them so that the reader information goes on the article page and editor information goes on the talk page.

Re 5) If the templates are on the talk page they don't appear when you print the article either. Thus this is not argument in favour.

Re 6) See 1) and 2). Either we list all defiencies on the article page or we use the talk page for the very purpose it was created. Templates do not have privilege because they are not pretty coloured boxes!

Re 7) See 1) and 2). Why do polls about COTW have privilege over comments related to actually improving the article in question!

Arguments for appearing on the talk page

• Templates do not have a privileged status above other talk/meta data. If specific talk about problems with an article is confined to the talk page, then it should be blindingly obvious that generic talk about problems with an article (in the form of a template) should be confined to a talk page. To do anything else is inconsisent and wrong.
• A proliferation and highly visible display of templates encourages editors to merely decorate articles with templates rather than actually spend a bit of time fixing the article.
• These templates are meant as information for editors. The talk page was invented for this purpose.
• The number of non-editing readers so vastly outweighs the number of active editors (many thousands to one) that a clean, reader-friendly layout should always take first precedence.
• Some articles are given multiple templates, which make the article look cluttered and unprofessional. See Wikipedia:Template madness.
• In most cases the problem that is the reason for the templates is not self-evident, so an explanation for the template should be required on the article's Talk page. The template and the explanation should be together.
• Some of these templates (for example {{Expansion}} and {{Reqimage}} could be added to almost every Wikipedia article that hasn't achieved Featured article status. Even {{Limitedgeographicscope}} can be added to a large percentage of the Wikipedia articles as they are currently written. Having them on an article's Main page is essentially meaningless. They need to be the article's Talk page along with some explanation of the reason the template was added. Preferably this should be by using the {{todo}} template, but it could just be a new section added to the Talk page. By filling out the To do list, there should be a very understandable description of what needs to be added, and it also provides a good criteria for when the template can be removed.

May be expanded

Rebuttal

• Templates do have privileged status above other talk/meta data. In service as signposts, they must be placed in the most visible locations available.
  • This is something to explore more. If we want to blur the concept of articles and talk a bit by having signposts then that might be more acceptable than the current situation. Maybe a signpost could go at the bottom of the article. "Open issues being discussed at the talk page... POV, Missing Data"?
• Accusing editors of using templates as "decoration" violates "assume good faith". If you see templates being used as "decoration", be bold and fix the problem.
  • Shouldn't the original template poster be fixing the problem instead of posting templates?
• Most information for editors is equally valuable for readers.
  • So you agree that at least some of the information should be moved to the talk page?
• It's true there are more editors than readers. Having templates that actively ask the user to participate probably helps correct that balance. The user switches from "I think maybe this article is biased but I'm not sure" to "I see this article needs help becoming NPOV - how do I help?"

Notes

As part of the template standardisation process article templates are undergoing discussion (with talk template standardisation already done) and this may affect the design of the template.

From Wikipedia:Avoid self-references, "Community and website feature references: While we're often inclined to mention the Wikipedia community that we are all part of, as well as the website features we use in creating the articles, these confuse readers of derivative works. In particular, do not refer to the fact that the page can be edited, do not refer to any Wikipedia project page or process, do not use specialized Wikipedia jargon, and do not refer to any link in the sidebar or along the top of the screen, such as the talk page, What links here, or history. However, there are exceptions to this. In particular, an article which is still in its initial development or under dispute often will include tags such as {{stub}}, and {{npov}} to help editors further develop the article, and the text in these templates include self-references. Try, however, to limit such self-references, even in templates."

Comment: Though the above guideline recommends avoiding self-reference, it lists exceptions such as those under discussion.

Votes

---

Template:Expansion

Belong on Talk Pages ONLY

1. See Template talk:Unreferenced#Comments and Template:Edcomment for reasoning. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
2. Not useful for a reader. r3m0t ^talk 17:11, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
3. For my reasoning here Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#COTW and AID templates--Falphin 17:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
4. Metadata belongs on talk pages →Raul654 22:40, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
5. Stubs, disputes, and inaccuracies are serious article problems. Expansion is a would be nice, but the article is still useful. Talk page is fine for this sort of notice, since it's not an urgent problem. -- Netoholic @ 03:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
6. Almost every template that is intended as a message to Wikipedia editors and not for the casual Wikipedia reader should be on the article's Talk page and not on the article's main page. BlankVerse ∅ 10:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
7. I agree with the above comments, especially Raul654 and Blankverse. Carbonite | Talk 12:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
8. Any message that is not intended for, or may not make sense to, the casual reader, belongs on the talk page. --Michael Snow 15:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

   but this does make sense to a casual reader - this needs expansion - that's pretty clear. ~~~~ 18:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

   What is not clear is WHAT needs expanding. That is the main reason that this template should be on the Talk page with the expectation that the same person who adds the template also adds the {{todo}} template and fills out the To Do list explaining what needs to be added. Adding the To Do list also provides a very measurable way of knowing when the {{expansion}} template can be removed, whereas the way things are now, the template often ends up a more-or-less permanent part of many articles. BlankVerse ∅ 09:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

9. yes, completely agree with Michael Snow jamesgibbon 17:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
10. SimonP 18:18, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
11. Angela. Not useful for readers.
12. older≠wiser 02:38, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
13. Sortan 23:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC). Doesn't really say anything about the current contents of the article, therefore belongs in talk.
14. Agree with Raul, Net, Michael Snow. — Catherine\^talk 06:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
15. It's a pretty ridiculous tag anyway - if you want it expanded, do it yourself! Dan100 (Talk) 08:42, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
16. It's a pretty obtrusive tag that doesn't serve as any kind of POV warning to the reader. I do think that the more discreet {{Expandsect}} is appropriate for articles. --Laura Scudder | Talk 14:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
17. Agree with Michael Snow: Any message intended for editors should go on the talk page. Besides, with this wording, it applies to most articles. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
18. No use to a reader. A direct appeal to editors. —Theo (Talk) 11:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
19. As above. --mav 16:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
20. Pcb21| Pete 11:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
21. Ansell 09:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
22. In it's current form. I would support its use in articles if it was the same size as a stub template and wasn't in talk page format. 17:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
23. — Trilobite (Talk) 06:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
24. KissL 10:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
25. For editors. Spangineer (háblame) 18:53, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
26. Junes 10:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
27. eric ✈ 22:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC). I agree completely with the above reasons.
28. Trevor macinnis 18:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC) Yup
29. Unlike NPOV tags this isn't meant as a warning to the average reader, they can see that it needs expansion already :) --gren グレン 22:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
30. For editors - irrelevant for readers. Enchanter 21:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

    Those are not two different species. All readers are potential editors and this template should be used to encourage them to become actual editors. Golfcam 01:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

31. Mark Yen 05:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
32. Rich Farmbrough 20:59 19 March 2006 (UTC).
33. Per Raul and Michael Snow. jaco♫plane 02:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
34. This notice is less urgent than the dispute notices and many of the other cleanup and warning tags.--Srleffler 00:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Belong in Articles ONLY

1. ~~~~ 14:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
2. <>Who?¿? 14:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
3. Fenice 15:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
4. Chris 73 Talk 16:05, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
5. This template is incoherent in a talk page, since it isn't the talk page that's being requested to be expanded. --FOo 17:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

   Then the text can be changed appropriately.

   unsigned comment (not sure who by) ~~~~ 23:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

   Sorry, that was me. r3m0t ^talk 12:40, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

6. I don't remember it being quite this inyerface, which I don't like, but it should definitely be in articles, not Talk: pages. — OwenBlacker 18:37, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
7. Carnildo 21:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
8. Makes it easier to see.- ZeWrestler 22:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
9. Far better here. Grutness...wha? 01:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
10. That's where editors will notice it most, and thus help the article. Radiant_>|< 11:24, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
11. When used for a section, it must be on the talk page. Otherwise it is meaningless. Would deprecate any use of this for a whole article, that's what stub tags are for. Septentrionalis 23:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
12. Cyberjunkie ^TALK 06:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
13. Deryck C. 16:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
14. Assuming the tag is useful it belongs in the articles where editors are much more likely to see it. And I don't think "casual readers" should be shielded from exhortations to help with the project. Haukurth 09:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
15. Encourages people to be bold. -- the wub "?/!" 09:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
16. Please see my comment on the talk page. Also, "ONLY" is a false dichotomy not accounted for otherwise in this vote. Unfocused 17:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

    If you wish to vote other than "ONLY" please create a section to do so. There is already a section for "well, it is the choice of the editor adding the template" below. This survey was created to discuss whether it is permissable, appropriate, or required, for an editor to move templates to talk pages from articles or vice-versa (en-masse). ~~~~ 18:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

    Since I came to the vote so late, I strongly prefer to express my opinion in the nearest applicable section rather than create a new section, then contact everyone who's already voted to ask them to consider it. This is what happens when people rush to vote rather than discuss whether a vote is even necessary, and what options should be presented. Unfocused 07:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

17. Merovingian (t) (c) 07:29, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
18. 500LL 14:49, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
19. They serve as a warning to readers that the article is incomplete, which they might not otherwise realise, and are more likely to be acted on if they are more widely seen.Osomec 16:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
20. grubber 13:09, 2005 August 4 (UTC) - While browsing around, I am more likely to see this request in an article than in the talk page
21. We should warn users about incomplete articles CalJW 16:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
22. It's a cry for help, right where a user may see it. If it's on the talk page, you might as well just say "hey guys, let's expand it". Stevage 02:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
23. NEEDS to be on the article page. It shows casual readers that we are aware of an article's need for improvement and encourages new editors with information on the topic to dig in. Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 00:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
24. Absolutely. They need to be where people will see them. Chicheley 17:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
25. Duh. KI 02:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
26. Of course. Is it supposed to be a useful means of getting people to expand articles or not? Golfcam 01:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
27. Landolitan 01:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
28. Really has to go in the article. If you're looking at the talk page, you're probably helping to improve the article already, so it'd be of no use! --StuartBrady (Talk) 20:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
29. No one will see it on the talk page. They're also a warning to readers and some sort of a disclaimer. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Up to the preference of the user adding it

1. And as per "no consensus" should not be moved purely for "policy reasons". --Irpen 04:37, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
2. Particularly when it applies only to a section, it makes sense to appear on the article page with other similar notices like {{cleanup}}, but sometimes the talk page would be more appropriate --Mysidia 14:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Vote withdrawn

--sparkit (talk) 14:48, July 10, 2005 (UTC) . With proposed minimised look. "Belong in Articles ONLY" vote withdrawn. -->>sparkit|TALK<< 23:52, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Comment

1. Please note that we also have {{Expandsect}}, specifically designed to label specific sections. - SimonP 23:50, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

   I would support using Expandsect (but not Expansion) on article pages, although I think it could be made shorter. — Catherine\^talk 06:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

   My basic problem with {{Expandsect}} is that I've seen it way too many times where it is the ONLY thing in a section. That's the sort of thing that should be handled by the {{todo}} template on the Talk page. BlankVerse ∅ 09:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

2. I suspect that one reason people might want this notice to be placed on the article itself is because it includes a category designation. If there were a mechanism whereby placing a template on a talk page added the associated article to a given category, this objection would melt away. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:10, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

   With the template on the Talk page, then the Talk page will show up in Category: Articles to be expanded, so that really is not a problem. BlankVerse ∅ 09:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

---

1. I wouldn't object to this or a new template being in the article namespace if it was made to look like a stub template and was only allowed at the bottom of the article. In it's current format it should not be in the article space. Joe D (t) 17:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Reqimage

It is requested that an image or images be included in this article to improve its quality. Please use {{reqphoto}}, {{reqmap}}, {{reqdiagram}}, or {{reqimageother|type of request}} instead of this template to clearly identify the type of image requested.

Belong on Talk Pages ONLY

1. See Template talk:Unreferenced#Comments and Template:Edcomment for reasoning. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
2. Completely useless for readers. r3m0t ^talk 17:13, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
3. Useless, as stated above, it is a request, nothing more. Falphin 18:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
4. Carnildo 21:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
5. -ZeWrestler 22:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
6. Metadata belongs on talk pages →Raul654 22:40, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
7. Stubs, disputes, and inaccuracies are serious article problems. Additional images are a would be nice, but the article is still useful. Talk page is fine for this sort of notice, since it's not an urgent problem. -- Netoholic @ 03:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
8. Almost every template that is intended as a message to Wikipedia editors and not for the casual Wikipedia reader should be on the article's Talk page and not on the article's main page. BlankVerse ∅ 10:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
9. This is a request aimed at editors and doesn't concern the average reader. Carbonite | Talk 12:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
10. For all the reasons stated above. Plus, what's the point of wasting all this space on a big huge template to tell people that the article lacks an illustration? Surely they can see that already. --Michael Snow 15:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
11. — Dan | Talk 16:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
12. SimonP 18:18, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
13. Angela. Doesn't really belong anywhere since it's perfectly obvious without the need for a template.
14. This one does not relate to the quality of the textual content, and so readers do not need to know about it. --bainer (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
15. Ugghly. older≠wiser 02:38, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
16. Sortan 23:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
17. Don't like this template at all, hadn't encountered it before. I understand that the 'set of people who have access to desirable pictures' and the 'set of people who know that Wikipedia can be edited' don't overlap very much. I understand the desire to increase that overlap, and I think the editors who created this had the best intentions and carried it out well enough. But I strongly think this template does more harm to the reading experience of great numbers of users than it benefits us. — Catherine\^talk 06:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
18. Pretty obviously, only belongs on the talk page as it brings nothing to the article itself. Dan100 (Talk) 08:43, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
19. Belongs on TFD. A request on the talk page and Wikipedia:Requested pictures should suffice. the wub "?/!" 09:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
20. I cringe whenever I come across this one on an article. Serves it's purpose just as well with less obtrusiveness on the talk page. --Laura Scudder | Talk 14:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
21. I've never seen this template before, I hope never to see it again... but if it does turn up, it would be far, far better in the talk space. Shimgray 21:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
22. Agree with Netoholic, and (in it current form) with the wub that it should be deleted. Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
23. I don't even like the idea of such a template all that much. --Merovingian (t) (c) 07:30, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
24. Pcb21| Pete 11:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
25. Just confuses someone who is not interested in editing the article as to its status, which is not affected by the lack of an image --Ansell 09:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
26. — Trilobite (Talk) 06:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
27. KissL 10:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
28. Useless --Spangineer (háblame) 18:55, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
29. Trevor macinnis 18:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC) Not very useful, putting something on a page to tell a reader that there is nothing on the page. There's a lot of stuff that may be missing, we can't list them all.
30. Enchanter 21:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
31. Tetraminoe 10:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
32. Rich Farmbrough 20:59 19 March 2006 (UTC).
33. This works just fine on the talk page, since it puts the article into a category designed to attract attention from people who like posting images.--Srleffler 00:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Belong in Articles ONLY

1. ~~~~ 14:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
2. <>Who?¿? 14:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
3. Fenice 15:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
4. Chris 73 Talk 16:07, July 10, 2005 (UTC), but this template does not need an image. I would prefer it to be added to the top of the article in a style similar to e.g. {{cleanup}}, without a picture
5. If we use this template, it should be on the article. However, I am not convinced as to the usefulness, since every article that has no image requires one. Radiant_>|< 11:24, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
6. Please see my comment on the talk page. Also, "ONLY" is a false dichotomy not properly accounted for in this vote. Unfocused 17:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
7. No one reads talk pages. Someone may see this, realise they have a usable image, and fix it. --Stevage 02:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Up to the preference of the user adding it

Vote withdrawn

--sparkit (talk) 14:48, July 10, 2005 (UTC) . With proposed minimised look. "Belong in Articles ONLY" vote withdrawn. -->>sparkit|TALK<< 23:52, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

1. This template is ugly and unnecessary, and should not be used. It is enough to list an article on WP:RP. --FOo 17:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
2. I agree that there's little need for this template at this size. A small template (no bigger than a standard stub or dab template) is all that's needed, linking it to a category. At the current size, it has no place on the article page. Smaller, it culd sit there quite happily. Grutness...wha? 01:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
3. My original reasoning behind changing the template, is when I found it, all of them had been moved to the talk page. I literally had to dig through tons of history to see what the user wanted the image for, as the history was lost when it was moved to the talk page. I then proposed an update to the template with the "cute" little pic on the coffee rolled version. I had two templates on the proposal and was told, rather than have two templates, just propose my "boxed" version. I had them proposed for weeks, in every place I could think to stick the proposal. I have also did a great deal of work to the entire WP:RP sections (instructions, descriptions, and category structure). And yet, people still used the template, despite the section. The reason I made it so "big & ugly" (I didn't think it was ugly ;) ). Was to be a "placeholder" for an image, my thinking that was a reader, would see that an image was going to be placed there, and may encourage them to actually add one themselves. This was also part of the proposal. Actually, I only recall two users complaining/commenting negatively about the template, since it went into full use, hence this vote. Many updates have been made to the wording and layout, to accommodate its use and function. The only example I could give, is that of a school annual, where they have a placeholder for missing pictures, clearly that can't be for an editor, as the book has been published, and is intended for the reader, to let them know, than an image could be there. Other than that, I would not really oppose a change to the template, just wanted to improve its look and use, but of course, would prefer to keep it as the boxed version. <>Who?¿? 07:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
4. A quick note. I suggest we go back to a slightly modified version of the coffee rolled version, if this is going to be placed on talk pages. If someone wants to update this version, while I'm taking a break, and propose the replacement, I would be grateful. ∞Who?¿? 22:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
5. I don't find this template to be all that ugly, although I agree it could be pretty. I certainly do not agree it is unnecessary. Placing this on the talk page is much easier on the editor, and much more noticeable to a reader. --Tetraminoe 10:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Template:COTW

Belong on Talk Pages ONLY

1. See Template talk:Unreferenced#Comments and Template:Edcomment for reasoning. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
2. Not useful for readers. r3m0t ^talk 17:15, July 10, 2005 (UTC) (shouldn't this template be renamed?)
3. This is a Wikipedia-internal process. --Carnildo 21:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
4. -ZeWrestler 22:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
5. Metadata belongs on talk pages →Raul654 22:40, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
6. Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. This is a Wikipedia status designation. -- Netoholic @ 03:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
7. Almost every template that is intended as a message to Wikipedia editors and not for the casual Wikipedia reader should be on the article's Talk page and not on the article's main page. BlankVerse ∅ 10:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
8. I agree with the above comments. Most readers won't be interested in this message. Carbonite | Talk 12:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
9. Not a message for readers. The encyclopedia does not exist to advertise Wikipedia projects, no matter how noble their aims. If added to articles instead of talk pages, this is effectively spam and should be treated as such. --Michael Snow 15:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
10. — Dan | Talk 16:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
11. jamesgibbon 17:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
12. SimonP 18:18, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
13. Angela. Community messages have no place on articles.
14. BaronLarf 21:17, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
15. older≠wiser 02:39, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
16. Sortan 23:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
17. Very much an internal process. Good project, advertise away on project pages, but keep it out of the article namespace. — Catherine\^talk 06:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
18. Wot every1 else sed. Dan100 (Talk) 08:44, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
19. the wub "?/!" 09:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
20. Anyone with the article on their watchlist will know when it's placed on Talk, along with any editor interested enough to check the talk page. --Laura Scudder | Talk 14:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

    Why would anyone be watching a stub? COTW is supposed to raise awareness. Juppiter 16:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

21. I get the feeling I'll be going through this list saying "See Raul? He's right." Not the sort of thing you want or need in the article space. Shimgray 21:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
22. Pcb21| Pete 11:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
23. Definitely. Joe D (t) 17:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
24. This one seems clear to me DES 23:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
25. — Trilobite (Talk) 06:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
26. KissL 10:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
27. Per Carnildo --Spangineer (háblame) 18:57, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
28. Junes 10:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
29. Trevor macinnis 18:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC) In its current form. If there was less intrusion, maybe put it on the bottom of the page I would consider that ok...maybe.
30. Rich Farmbrough 20:59 19 March 2006 (UTC).
31. Absolutely not in the article. No excuse for this one.--Srleffler 00:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Belong in Articles ONLY

1. ~~~~ 14:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
2. <>Who?¿? 14:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
3. Fenice 15:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
4. Chris 73 Talk 16:09, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
5. For my reasoning here and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#COTW and AID templates|here](I'm sorry if I'm making you read all this but the discussions are relevant). Falphin 18:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
6. Deryck C. 01:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
7. Juppiter 02:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
8. Newbie222 20:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC) easier to see.
9. Please see my comment on the talk page. Also, "ONLY" is a false dichotomy not properly accounted for in this vote. Unfocused 18:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
10. Merovingian (t) (c) 07:30, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
11. This is effectively a vote by either users or editors. Useful for them to be told about the page if they are just scanning through. This template is not a continuous feature and should be reviewed regularly anyway so the page will not be defaced for long anyhow --Ansell 09:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Up to the preference of the user adding it

1. Since it's only for a limited time, I am not too much bothered to have it in the article, even though instructions for editors belong on the talk page. Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
2. If there is a pile of template notices already at the top of the article, then this should go in the talk page, otherwise it would be more visible to editors while appearing in the article. --Mysidia 14:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Vote withdrawn

--sparkit (talk) 14:48, July 10, 2005 (UTC) . With proposed minimised look. "Belong in Articles ONLY" vote withdrawn. -->>sparkit|TALK<< 23:52, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Commments

• I'm assuming this includes all sub-COTWs, otherwise we need another seciton for the sub ones. Falphin 18:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Note that the AID-template previously listed here belongs to one of the sub-COTWs.--Fenice 06:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

---

• I would agree it belonged on the talk page, if there were a small notice on the article page telling me to look there. Otherwise I may well miss it entirely. Septentrionalis 14:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC) Second this one if it were to be implemented this way, needs to be visible to users though as it deserves input from them --Ansell 09:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Looks like the WikiAristocracy Block Voters get their way once again . . . Juppiter 21:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:featured

This template should only be used on talk pages.

Belong on Talk Pages ONLY

1. See Template talk:Unreferenced#Comments and Template:Edcomment for reasoning. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
2. No reason to put it on the article page, although some indication of FAC status on the article page would be nice. --Carnildo 21:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
3. No, absolutely not, no way. As the person who primarily does featured article tagging, I will not be labeling the articles - this is obviously metadata which belongs on the talk page. →Raul654 22:30, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
4. Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. This is a Wikipedia status designation. -- Netoholic @ 03:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

   Almost every template that is intended as a message to Wikipedia editors and not for the casual Wikipedia reader should be on the article's Talk page and not on the article's main page. BlankVerse ∅ 10:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC) see new comments below

5. I'm not against having some designation of status, but this template doesn't belong on the article page. Carbonite | Talk 12:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
6. Without the last sentence, it might be okay for readers, but as Raul654 points out, putting it on articles runs completely contrary to existing practice. --Michael Snow 15:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
7. — Dan | Talk 16:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
8. jamesgibbon 17:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
9. SimonP 18:18, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
10. older≠wiser 02:40, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
11. Agree with Carnildo. — Catherine\^talk 06:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
12. I don't see why FAs need highlighting, really. Dan100 (Talk) 08:45, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
13. Absolutely not. The people who work in that area have already decided to only have this tag on talk pages anyway so this vote is moot. mav 11:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
14. As with Carnildo. The fact that there's an existing convention for this, which is well-adhered to and uncontested, makes it seem a bit odd it got here. Shimgray 21:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
15. As BlankVerse. Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
16. No need to highlight one such designation in the article space, particularly as we move towards other ways of tagging stable revisions of articles.Eloquence* 01:57, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
17. Merovingian (t) (c) 07:31, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
18. If this is a featured article, most viewers should find this from the list of featured articles, so this notice should appear in the talk page only. --Mysidia 14:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
19. Pcb21| Pete 11:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
20. — Trilobite (Talk) 06:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
21. Fito 22:13, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
22. Certainly not, but I may be able to be convinced to agree with Carnildo. --Spangineer (háblame) 19:00, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
23. Junes 10:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
24. If featured articles are going to be indicated to the reader, it should be done in a much less intrusive way (as it is now). The template clutters the page, especially when printing. --Mark Yen 05:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
25. Rich Farmbrough 20:59 19 March 2006 (UTC).
26. This template is clearly not acceptable for article pages, as currently formatted. I can imagine templates that might be acceptable, though. (Such as the one that puts a tiny star in the upper right corner of the page.)--Srleffler 00:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Belong in Articles ONLY

1. ~~~~ 14:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
2. <>Who?¿? 14:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
3. Fenice 15:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC) preferably only with its icon + detailed template on talk. But mark it on article in any case, important for reader.
4. Chris 73 Talk 16:10, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
5. Featured status is a certification of the article's quality, and should be shown to the reader in some fashion. This is as good a one as any I've seen. --FOo 17:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
6. Readers will be interested in this and, if showing Wikipedia to others, would pick such an article. r3m0t ^talk 17:16, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
7. For my reasoning here Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#COTW and AID templates]--Falphin 17:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC) Falphin 18:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
8. I've always believed in it on this section. --ZeWrestler 22:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
9. Far better here. Grutness...wha? 01:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
10. Agreed. Radiant_>|< 11:24, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
11. Deryck C. 16:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
12. Sortan 23:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC). Featured status says something about the articles quality, namely that the article is comprehensive and has been chosen as one of Wikipedias best. I would favor a smaller and less obtrusive template on the article page, however.
13. Useful for the reader. - Haukurth 09:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
14. Agree with Fenice and Sortan, some form of smaller marker would be excellent. the wub "?/!" 10:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
15. Please see my comment on the talk page. Also, "ONLY" is a false dichotomy not properly accounted for in this vote. Unfocused 18:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
16. What is the point of featuring an article and not even having a notification to users of the page. Not everyone thinks to look at the Talk for a page to see if it is featured. Also likely that this one would not be piled up with other templates since it indicates a mature article. --Ansell 09:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
17. This is NOT an editor-only template. I think that the Wikipedia should be a better job of highlighting some of the best articles. With that said, I still think that this template should be placed discreetly at the bottom of an article, with either no background color, or a very pale background color. Furthermore, the second line is unnecessary. BlankVerse ∅ 10:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
18. This notice is useful to readers and to the kind of editor less likely to read the talk page, as well as to more experienced editors. DES 23:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
19. A community opinion of the quality of the article, to those who come across it some other way than the featured article list (I'm often one of them). Septentrionalis 16:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
20. Trevor macinnis 18:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC) Everybody needs to know what to strive for. If they never see good work, then how can we ask them to improve articles.

Up to the preference of the user adding it

Vote withdrawn

--sparkit (talk) 14:48, July 10, 2005 (UTC) . With proposed minimised look. "Belong in Articles ONLY" vote withdrawn. -->>sparkit|TALK<< 23:52, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Hmm, I am not sure, I do not want this banner at the top of the article page, however a modified (smaller) template at the bottom to denote it's featured would be nice... (or some software thing to put it next to the title, but that's long term)... So, it depends too much, but that template on the top of the page is a definite no for me. gren グレン 22:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Template:Limitedgeographicscope

Belong on Talk Pages ONLY

1. Metadata belongs on talk pages →Raul654 22:40, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
2. Although I heartily dislike this template. #redirect to Template:NPOV. -- Netoholic @ 03:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

   Isn't it about noting that information is missing due to unintended (systemic) lack of knowledge, rather than that there is a deliberate attempt to hold a certain stance? ~~~~ 00:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

3. Almost every template that is intended as a message to Wikipedia editors and not for the casual Wikipedia reader should be on the article's Talk page and not on the article's main page. BlankVerse ∅ 10:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
4. Appears to be current practice. To the extent this operates as a disclaimer, it may have some meaning for readers, but to be honest I have little use for this template at all. It's so generic that it could potentially be applied to virtually every article we have. --Michael Snow 15:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
5. — Dan | Talk 16:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
6. SimonP 18:18, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
7. Angela. It's basically a comment about an article, so should be on the talk page like any other comment. Putting a comment inside a colored box doesn't make it suitable for an article.
8. older≠wiser 02:41, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
9. Should be on talk page with explanation. Better yet, add text (not meta-text) to the article that acknowledges the gaps and implicitly invites addition -- even if it's just adding "In the United States" to the beginning of a paragraph. — Catherine\^talk 06:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
10. Again, it's up to the people who hold these concerns to do something about it, not ask others to do it for them. Belongs, at best, only on talk pages. Dan100 (Talk) 08:47, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
11. Pcb21| Pete 11:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
12. Not relevant to users, if someone thinks this about a page they will look at the talk. This is not a serious enough matter to be compared to NPOV disputes or such. It is a minor comment from an editor who obviously wants more input from other editors. --Ansell 09:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
13. As per Michael Snow --Spangineer (háblame) 19:04, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
14. Current practice. — mark ✎ 10:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
15. Mark Yen 05:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
16. Rich Farmbrough 20:59 19 March 2006 (UTC).

Belong in Articles ONLY

1. ~~~~ 14:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
2. <>Who?¿? 14:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
3. Fenice 15:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
4. Chris 73 Talk 16:10, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
5. Like Template:NPOV and Template:Accuracy, this indicates a flaw in the article about which the reader should be informed. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

   This template could be added to a very large percentage of the articles on the Wikipedia, so perhaps what really should be done is add another line to the Wikipedia disclaimer reflecting this fact. What is more important is knowing WHAT is missing and needs to be added, and that is a message for Wikipedia editors. This template, and a To-do list should be on the article's Talk page explaining what needs to be added to make the article more universally applicable (e.g. the Personal name article has nothing on African names_). BlankVerse ∅ 10:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

6. A warning to the reader. r3m0t ^talk 17:16, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
7. Invites the reader to make specific types of edits to the article. --Carnildo 21:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

   No it doesn't "invites the reader to make specific types of edits to the article" because the template doesn't say anything about what needs to be added to the article. In that sense, it's pretty much useless without any explanation, which should be on the Talk page with the template. BlankVerse ∅ 10:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

8. Useful to both editors and readers alike. Grutness...wha? 01:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
9. Once more, this is important for casual editors. If they see it, they might fix it. Thus it should be clearly seen. Radiant_>|< 11:24, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
10. This is useful for the average reader and should be on the article page. Carbonite | Talk 12:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
11. agreed, and it reinforces the universally editable nature of wikipedia articles jamesgibbon 17:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
12. Sortan 23:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC). Alerts the reader that the article may not be comprehensive, perhaps so that they can conduct further research from other sources.
13. Useful for everyone. - Haukurth 09:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
14. Please see my comment on the talk page. Also, "ONLY" is a false dichotomy not properly accounted for in this vote. Unfocused 18:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
15. Merovingian (t) (c) 07:35, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
16. — Trilobite (Talk) 06:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
17. This need not be and should not be seen as a simple varient of {{NPOV}}. An article on "X around the world" that covers X in the US, the UK, several countries of Europe and parts of Africa, but not elsewhere, is clearly seriously incomplete but it may not be POV unless it implies that the way X is in those places is the way it is or should be everywhere. I see this as more of a specialized version of {{tl:expansion}} -- it says that content on the subject is needed dealing with geographic areas not currently covered. As such it is a useful notice to readers that the article is incomplete, and it may spur a reader into becoming an editor when a reader says "Hey, I know about X is location Y and they haven't covered that yet." So this should in many cases be used on article pages, not talk pages where only editors already involved are likely to see it. DES 15:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
18. Concur with Charles P. (even having read the comment below his vote) KissL 10:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
19. Like the POV templates, this one warns the reader of a flaw in the article, so the reader can take it into account.--Srleffler 00:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Up to the preference of the user adding it

1. I'm not sure how necessary this template is as the NPOV is generally used for the same purpose. I also believe that if it is the opinion of one user then it goes under Talk but if it is done by community agreement then post it on the article page. Falphin 20:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
2. I think it's okay to use it on articles if it's really bad, as a more specific warning instead of the NPOV template. Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
3. Again, if the top of the article is already cluttered by many template notices such as {{expand}}, {{vfd}}, or {{POV}}, for example, this as a more minor notice should sometimes go on the talk page, but usually it is more helpful for it to appear in the article page. --Mysidia 14:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
4. Agree with Jitse. Junes 10:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
5. I tend towards placing it on the article itself as incentive for change, but it could also be placed on the talk page if there are already other warning notices, or it's a minor case. --Barberio 01:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Should go on article page if it's a warning to the user, on talk page if it's a call to arms to fix it

Vote withdrawn

--sparkit (talk) 14:48, July 10, 2005 (UTC) . With proposed minimised look. "Belong in Articles ONLY" vote withdrawn. -->>sparkit|TALK<< 23:52, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

---

Template:CSBArticles

దస్త్రం:CSB-circle.gif

This is an article targeted by the WikiProject Countering systemic bias as being in need of expansion. Please see the project page for more information. If you know anything about Template locations, please consider editing the article and sharing your knowledge.

Belong on Talk Pages ONLY

1. See Template talk:Unreferenced#Comments and Template:Edcomment for reasoning. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
2. Useless to a reader. r3m0t ^talk 17:20, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
3. Metadata belongs on talk pages →Raul654 22:40, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
4. Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. This is a Wikipedia status designation. -- Netoholic @ 03:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
5. Almost every template that is intended as a message to Wikipedia editors and not for the casual Wikipedia reader should be on the article's Talk page and not on the article's main page. BlankVerse ∅ 10:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
6. I agree with the above comments. Carbonite | Talk 12:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
7. Not a message for readers. The encyclopedia does not exist to advertise Wikipedia projects, no matter how noble their aims. --Michael Snow 15:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
8. — Dan | Talk 16:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
9. SimonP 18:18, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
10. Angela. WikiProjects are for community, not for the readers.
11. BaronLarf 21:19, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
12. older≠wiser 02:41, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
13. Sortan 23:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
14. Internal process; use NPOV or other article templates if the problem is so serious that the reader needs to be warned. Belongs in talk with full explanation. — Catherine\^talk 06:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
15. mav 11:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
16. As Michael Snow. Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
17. Merovingian (t) (c) 07:35, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
18. Wikiproject requested-changes notices are internal matters and should not appear on the article. Instead this should be placed on the talk page and {{POV-Check}} or similar should be used on the article page where it applies. --Mysidia 14:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
19. Pcb21| Pete 11:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
20. Ansell 09:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
21. — Trilobite (Talk) 06:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
22. Concur with Netoholic and Michael Snow. KissL 10:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
23. As per Michael Snow --Spangineer (háblame) 19:07, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
24. Of course. Not much used anyway. — mark ✎ 15:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
25. Rich Farmbrough 20:59 19 March 2006 (UTC).
26. --Srleffler 00:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Belong in Articles ONLY

1. ~~~~ 14:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
2. (with minor adjustments) <>Who?¿? 14:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
3. Fenice 15:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC), but this template is not pretty.
4. Chris 73 Talk 16:10, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
5. Targeted by a community and not a request. I also agree with Fenice that the template is, umm is physically challenged it terms of looks. This template existing is another reason why the template:expansion belongs on talk. Falphin 18:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
6. Same thing as above. Radiant_>|< 11:24, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
7. Please see my comment on the talk page. Also, "ONLY" is a false dichotomy not properly accounted for in this vote. Unfocused 18:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Up to the preference of the user adding it

Vote withdrawn

--sparkit (talk) 14:48, July 10, 2005 (UTC) . With proposed minimised look. "Belong in Articles ONLY" vote withdrawn. -->>sparkit|TALK<< 23:52, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

---

Template:POV-check

Belong on Talk Pages ONLY

1. If a user disputes the article's neutrality, that should be made known. If they're not sure about it, then a warning in the article isn't really appropriate. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
2. No need to link this one as it definitely belongs in the article. Falphin 18:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC) I should of read close this is the template where there is still question as to whether it is or not. So I change my vote. Falphin 18:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
3. Metadata belongs on talk pages →Raul654 22:40, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
4. If there isn't clearly a problem with the article, do not mis-lead readers. -- Netoholic @ 03:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
5. Almost every template that is intended as a message to Wikipedia editors and not for the casual Wikipedia reader should be on the article's Talk page and not on the article's main page. BlankVerse ∅ 10:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
6. Don't clutter the article page unless a problem actually exists. If there's any question, leave it on the talk page. This template should always be on the talk page. Carbonite | Talk 12:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
7. SimonP 18:18, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
8. Angela. Add to the talk page like any other comment. I don't think a box is needed for this.
9. older≠wiser 02:42, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
10. Sortan 00:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC). Unlike the NPOV template.
11. Agree with Angela. — Catherine\^talk 06:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
12. The fact that some editors thinks that the article might not be NPOV is not enough to put it in the article. Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
13. Agree with the above. This is a talk page comment. --mav 14:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
14. Pcb21| Pete 11:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

#Should not be first brought up on article pages. Suited to someone trying to get attention on a Talk page. --Ansell 09:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

1. Use the NPOV template on article pages. --Spangineer (háblame) 19:11, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
2. Like Falphin, I mistook this for the NPOV template. I wonder if there are any other voters who have made this mistake? Junes 11:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
3. The wording of this template (which, imho, could be changed to better reflect its title and usage) suggests that it is a warning and a disclaimer, but that is not how it should be used; that is what the {{POV}} template is for (which many are confusing with this template). The {{POV-check}} template was intended for use after something POV had been removed, so that others could verify that it was in fact POV-free (given that the nature of NPOV writing takes many different viewpoints to achieve). It was intended for the editor, and as such, should be placed on the talk page. --Mark Yen 05:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Rich Farmbrough 20:59 19 March 2006 (UTC).

Belong in Articles ONLY

1. ~~~~ 14:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
2. <>Who?¿? 14:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
3. Fenice 15:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
4. Chris 73 Talk 16:10, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
5. This is a caution about article quality, so it needs to be seen by the user. However, posting this or any other "warning" type tag on an article must be accompanied by a talk-page comment explaining what is wrong. In the absence of a substantive comment, posting this tag is always inappropriate and frequently abusive. --FOo 17:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
6. A warning to the reader. r3m0t ^talk 17:19, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
7. As above --Carnildo 21:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
8. Useful to readers and editors alike. Grutness...wha? 01:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
9. Same thing as above. Radiant_>|< 11:24, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
10. Juppiter 14:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
11. jamesgibbon 17:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
12. Useful caveat to readers. Kaldari 17:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
13. BaronLarf 21:20, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
14. All such templates should be accompanied by comments on the talk page, although not everyone does so. That doesn't mean that readers can't be warned about the quality. --bainer (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
15. As said - readers should know if the article they're looking at is possibly falling short of npov. Dan100 (Talk) 08:41, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
16. Has important information for even nonediting readers, and can channel those displeased with article into editing instead of complaining. I agree with FOo though that it is useless without talk comments on what exactly is POV about it. --Laura Scudder | Talk 14:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
17. Please see my comment on the talk page. Also, "ONLY" is a false dichotomy not properly accounted for in this vote. Unfocused 18:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
18. JYolkowski // talk 21:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
19. Merovingian (t) (c) 07:36, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
20. — Trilobite (Talk) 06:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
21. This is, in part, in the nature of a disclaimer, and IMO is is vital that this template be placed directly on articles in proper cases. DES 15:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
22. I agree with DES; this is a warning. Septentrionalis 16:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
23. Absolutely. KissL 10:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

# Definitely. Should be used with caution. Junes 10:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC) See above Junes 11:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

1. grubber 13:11, 2005 August 4 (UTC) - I appreciate seeing these notices before I read the article.
2. Provides warning to the reader, of a flaw in the article.--Srleffler 00:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Change vote from talk page preference, mainly due to experience and wanting to know when someone has thought an article to be that far off that it needs this tag. Ansell 07:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Up to the preference of the user adding it

1. Theoretically a disclaimer that may be useful to readers. Practically speaking, we have too many variations of dispute templates and should consolidate down to one or two standards. Also, without comments on the talk page to provide an idea of what the problem is, none of these templates are helpful anyway. --Michael Snow 15:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Voted for talk page above, but agree with Michael's reasoning here. — Catherine\^talk 06:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

1. Disclaimer of POV articles is indeed important. This should be a jugement call on the part of the editor, as to how confident they are of a potential problem with the article that readers should be warned about. --Mysidia 15:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Vote withdrawn

--sparkit (talk) 14:48, July 10, 2005 (UTC) . With proposed minimised look. "Belong in Articles ONLY" vote withdrawn. -->>sparkit|TALK<< 23:52, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

---

Template:Listdev

This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.

Belong on Talk Pages ONLY

1. Metadata belongs on talk pages →Raul654 22:40, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
2. SimonP 18:18, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
3. Angela. Talk page if necessary, but since this could apply to most lists, I don't see much point to the template.
4. Pcb21| Pete 11:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
5. Silly template anyway. — Trilobite (Talk) 06:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
6. Rich Farmbrough 20:59 19 March 2006 (UTC).

Belong in Articles ONLY

1. ~~~~ 14:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
2. <>Who?¿? 14:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
3. Fenice 15:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
4. Chris 73 Talk 16:10, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
5. A warning to the reader. r3m0t ^talk 17:19, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
6. This is the most questionable of my votes so I'll go with the flow here. Falphin 18:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
7. An invitation to the reader to make specific types of edits. --Carnildo 21:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
8. Definitely here. Similar se to a stub message (and all stub messages belong on the article page). Grutness...wha? 01:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
9. One of the few templates that should be on the article's main page. My biggest complaint is that almost all lists on the Wikipedia are incomplete, and I think that this template should only be used when a list needs major updating and not when it just needs minor tweaking. BlankVerse ∅ 10:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
10. Lists are going to get expanded far less unless people notice the tl. However, I do agree with FOO's comment that this is a relatively pointless template. Radiant_>|< 11:24, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
11. This is likely of interest to the average reader. However, since most lists are incomplete, I agree with Foo that it's not that useful. Carbonite | Talk 12:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
12. Useful info for reader. Kaldari 17:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
13. BaronLarf 21:28, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
14. How is this different to {stub}? --bainer (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
15. It's not always obvious whether a list is open-ended or finite, although it is probably true that anyone capable of adding something to the list would recognize the difference. older≠wiser 02:44, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
16. Sortan 00:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
17. Agree that it's overused and often pointless, should not be on every list, but if it's going to be used it should be on the article page at the head of the list. — Catherine\^talk 06:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
18. Please see my comment on the talk page. Also, "ONLY" is a false dichotomy not properly accounted for in this vote. Unfocused 18:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
19. This is similar to a stub notice, and we don't put those on talk pages. JYolkowski // talk 21:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
20. Merovingian (t) (c) 08:10, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
21. It is brief and appears designed for article pages. That could change, but it is like {{Expand}}, only more specific, and could go at either the beginning or end of the article: I don't think it would be right for talk pages, because the notice is so short and would likely not be noticed there. --Mysidia 15:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
22. More for readers than editors per se --Tetraminoe 10:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
23. Warns the reader that the list is incomplete. Simple format, analogous to a stub template.--Srleffler 00:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Up to the preference of the user adding it

1. Theoretically serves as a disclaimer to the reader. However, I agree with the many other comments that this template merely states the obvious and is utterly pointless, wherever it goes. --Michael Snow 15:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
2. Depends on the list. Could be useful in the article, e.g. for a list of African countries which is not yet complete, but should go on talk page for open lists or when it's obvious the list is not complete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Vote withdrawn

--sparkit (talk) 14:48, July 10, 2005 (UTC) . With proposed minimised look. "Belong in Articles ONLY" vote withdrawn. -->>sparkit|TALK<< 23:52, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Comment

1. This tag is useless and should be deprecated, since practically every list article is necessarily incomplete. --FOo 17:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

   I tend to agree, as I've seen this overused all over the place. -- Netoholic @ 03:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

2. There should be a way of making it clear whether a given list is capable of completion, but this IMNSHO is not it. —Phil | Talk 07:57, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
3. Not needed, an extra template to confuse users --Ansell 09:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
4. This template is just stupid. Whenever there is a clear criterion for deciding whether a list is complete or not, it also provides for a method to complete it. Shouldn't we take this one to TfD right now? KissL 11:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
5. Not useless, though maybe worded poorly. There has got to be some way to designate subjective vs. objective lists, for instance List of notable figures in cryptozoology vs. List of Prime Ministers of Norway. I think most subjective lists will have a modifier like "notable" (notable books, infamous people, etc.); as far as I know, there is no standardized manner for handling subjective lists, and no template for marking them as such. I don't think this template is the best choice to serve that purpose. However, there are objective lists: there is a finite, theoretically knowable number of tool-lending libraries, for instance. If we are reasonably sure we have listed every tool-lending library in the world, then no template should be used; like the rest of Wikipedia, we may have goofed, and the edit button is there for just that purpose. But we have no particular reason to think the article is lacking in any particular aspect, nothing to caution the reader about, so no template. On the other hand, if we just listed a few tool-lending libraries off the top of our head, without doing any exhaustive research, I think we can be pretty sure that we may have missed some; therefore it seems valid to caution the reader that, while this list does cover a finite, knowable subject, we know that it's incomplete. This template does serve that purpose.

---

Template:DrugsNotice

{{#assessment:Pharmacology|NA|NA}}

Belong on Talk Pages ONLY

1. See Template talk:Unreferenced#Comments and Template:Edcomment for reasoning. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
2. It's a Wikipedia-internal process. --Carnildo 21:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
3. --ZeWrestler 22:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
4. Metadata belongs on talk pages →Raul654 22:40, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
5. Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. This is a Wikipedia status designation. -- Netoholic @ 03:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
6. Almost every template that is intended as a message to Wikipedia editors and not for the casual Wikipedia reader should be on the article's Talk page and not on the article's main page. BlankVerse ∅ 10:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
7. Information regarding Wikiprojects goes on the talk page. Besides, I'm not sure this is useful - surely every article in Category:Drugs is part of the Wikiproject:Drugs? Radiant_>|< 11:24, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
8. If this belongs anywhere, it's the talk page. Carbonite | Talk 12:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
9. Not a message for readers. The encyclopedia does not exist to advertise Wikipedia projects, no matter how noble their aims. If added to articles instead of talk pages, this is effectively spam and should be treated as such. --Michael Snow 15:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
10. — Dan | Talk 16:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
11. I find Michael Snow's argument persuasive jamesgibbon 17:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
12. SimonP 18:18, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
13. Angela. WikiProject information is not useful for readers.
14. BaronLarf 21:16, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
15. All WikiProject member templates belong on talk pages. --bainer (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
16. older≠wiser 02:45, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
17. Sortan 00:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
18. Wikiproject info belongs on talk: internal process, useful only to editors, heavily self-referential. — Catherine\^talk 06:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
19. It's info for editors, not readers. Dan100 (Talk) 08:49, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
20. Laura Scudder | Talk 16:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
21. Again - metadata, not of use to readers. Shimgray 21:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
22. JYolkowski // talk 21:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC) WikiProjects are not of interest to readers; this is somewhat too self-referential. JYolkowski // talk 21:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
23. As Michael Snow. Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
24. Merovingian (t) (c) 08:10, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
25. Keep direct references to Wikipedia internal projects internal. --Mysidia 15:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
26. Pcb21| Pete 11:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
27. Ansell 09:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
28. — Trilobite (Talk) 06:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
29. KissL 11:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
30. Rich Farmbrough 20:59 19 March 2006 (UTC).
31. Bk0 (Talk) 20:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Belong in Articles ONLY

1. ~~~~ 14:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
2. (with minor adjustments) <>Who?¿? 14:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
3. Chris 73 Talk 16:10, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Up to the preference of the user adding it

1. Fenice 16:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)All decisions on project-related templates should be left up to the project-team.
2. Please see my comment on the talk page. Also, "ONLY" is a false dichotomy not properly accounted for in this vote. Unfocused 18:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Vote withdrawn

--sparkit (talk) 14:48, July 10, 2005 (UTC) . With proposed minimised look. "Belong in Articles ONLY" vote withdrawn. -->>sparkit|TALK<< 23:52, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Comment

1. Templates such as this one should be revised so that they do not suggest that Wikiprojects afford "article ownership". --FOo 17:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
   1. I agree. I especially don't want to see this one on the article page because this template discourages people from editing the page. JYolkowski // talk 21:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
2. I'm confused about what the template is for so I have no vote as of now. This project is active enough but it is not describing an effort on the article but about the list on the projects page. I don't understand the point of it on talk or article. Falphin 18:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Template:Album

{{#assessment:Albums|NA|NA}}

Belong on Talk Pages ONLY

1. See Template talk:Unreferenced#Comments and Template:Edcomment for reasoning. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
2. Not useful for readers. r3m0t ^talk 17:29, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
3. Belongs on talk, its not useful for the readers, follow the link to the Policy page for my similar reasoning on why Template:Expansion is not on there. Falphin 18:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
4. It's a Wikipedia-internal process. --Carnildo 21:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
5. - ZeWrestler 22:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
6. Metadata belongs on talk pages →Raul654 22:40, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
7. This is one of the very few templates that belongs on the talkpage. Grutness...wha? 01:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
8. Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. This is a Wikipedia status designation. -- Netoholic @ 03:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
9. Almost every template that is intended as a message to Wikipedia editors and not for the casual Wikipedia reader should be on the article's Talk page and not on the article's main page. BlankVerse ∅ 10:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
10. As above. And ouch, this one really hurts my eyes. Radiant_>|< 11:24, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
11. Even with major modification, this wouldn't belong on the article page. Carbonite | Talk 12:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
12. Not a message for readers. The encyclopedia does not exist to advertise Wikipedia projects, no matter how noble their aims. If added to articles instead of talk pages, this is effectively spam and should be treated as such. --Michael Snow 15:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
13. SimonP 18:18, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
14. Angela. Not useful for readers.
15. BaronLarf 21:28, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
16. older≠wiser 02:45, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
17. Sortan 00:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
18. Wikiproject info belongs on talk: internal process, useful only to editors, heavily self-referential. — Catherine\^talk 06:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
19. Quite apart from being fugly, it's info for editors, not readers. Dan100 (Talk) 08:49, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
20. the wub "?/!" 10:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
21. Eeek! Yes, definitely talkspace. It's not of any use to the reader. Shimgray 21:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
22. As Michael Snow. Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
23. Merovingian (t) (c) 08:11, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
24. Pcb21| Pete 11:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
25. Ansell 09:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
26. — Trilobite (Talk) 06:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
27. KissL 11:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
28. Too much info unrelated to article. gren グレン 22:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
29. Rich Farmbrough 20:59 19 March 2006 (UTC).

Belong in Articles ONLY

1. (at the bottom of page) <>Who?¿? 14:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
2. Chris 73 Talk 16:10, July 10, 2005 (UTC)^, but make smaller and remove extensive request for contribution (second half of template)

Up to the preference of the user adding it

1. Please see my comment on the talk page. Also, "ONLY" is a false dichotomy not properly accounted for in this vote. Also, WikiProjects teams should decide where their templates go. Unfocused 18:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Vote withdrawn

--sparkit (talk) 14:48, July 10, 2005 (UTC) . With proposed minimised look. "Belong in Articles ONLY" vote withdrawn. -->>sparkit|TALK<< 23:52, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

---

Corollary of the above

Both {{DrugsNotice}} and {{album}} serve to tell that 'this article is part of that wikiproject'. By extension, assuming identical consensus is reached on both of them, the same consensus should apply to any template that tags an article as part of a wikiproject.

Agree

1. Radiant_>|< 11:24, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
2. Septentrionalis 14:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC) with the obvious exception: except if there is explicit decision otherwise.
3. — Dan | Talk 16:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
4. Kaldari 17:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
5. SimonP 18:18, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
6. Angela.
7. bainer (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
8. older≠wiser 02:46, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
9. Carnildo 22:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
10. Wikiproject info belongs on talk: internal process, useful only to editors, heavily self-referential. (Like Septentrionalis, I allow for unforeseen exceptions.) — Catherine\^talk 06:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
11. As with Catherine - talk pages, with the exception if something weird turns up, though I suspect anything odd enough to fall under such an exemption would hardly be a normal wikiproject any more... Shimgray 21:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
12. Merovingian (t) (c) 08:12, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
13. These decisions should set the standard guidelines, but we should be able to overule them here in specific instances. Do we already have an official guideline stating that editorial templates (expansion etc) should be talk page only unless specifcally overuled? I thought we did... Joe D (t) 18:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
14. — Trilobite (Talk) 06:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
15. KissL 11:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
16. Yep --Spangineer (háblame) 19:12, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
17. Sure. What project could possibly be so important as to become part of the articles they partol.
18. --Srleffler 00:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Object

1. --Fenice 11:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC) There should be no attempt at standardizing non-standardizable templates.
2. Please see my comment on the talk page. Building rules to build an encyclopedia is a waste of time. Be bold and ignore the rules are better ideas. Wikilawyering and instruction creep are contrary to Wikipedia principles. Unfocused 18:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
3. ~~~~ 06:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
4. smaller "project" notices may in a number of cases be appropriate for direct use on article pages. Nothing quite as obtrusive as either of the examples above, however. DES 15:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment

---

Earlier votes covering certain templates at once

The following votes concern Template:Expansion, Template:Reqimage, Template:AID, Template:COTW, Template:featured, Template:Limitedgeographicscope, Template:CSBArticles, Template:POV check, Template:Listdev, as a group.

Belong on Talk Pages ONLY

1. Metadata belongs on talk pages →Raul654 22:40, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
2. Almost every template that is intended as a message to Wikipedia editors and not for the casual Wikipedia reader should be on the article's Talk page and not on the article's main page. BlankVerse ∅ 10:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
3. Angela. I agree with Raul.
4. This specific set of templates provide no useful information to readers. —Theo (Talk) 11:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
5. Pcb21| Pete 11:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Belong in Articles ONLY

1. ~~~~ 13:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC) vote moved above ~~~~ 14:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
2. Improv 14:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC) -- There should be no distinction between editors and users, and the information is generally pertinent to all visitors of an article.
3. <>Who?¿? 14:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC) vote moved to above. <>Who?¿? 14:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Should not be treated as a group

1. I think there are significant differences in the importance of some of these templates. I would not want to list all of the above as should be treated a certain way after having just made remarks for each of them. In addition, the locations of templates should only be standardized where it is really necessary, this would be instruction creep. --Mysidia 15:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Did anyone notice that this section was entitled EARLIER VOTES and only existed to hold the votes of 3 people (only 1 of whom has not re-voted) who voted before the voting was separated to individual templates above

Up to the preference of the user adding it

Comments

1. Different templates are used for different purposes. As such, some aim at editors only, others aim at both editors and readers. Any blanket decision on where these disparate templates should go can only reduce the usefulness of some templates by putting them where they will be seen by the wrong target viewers. Grutness...wha? 01:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
2. Please see my comment on the talk page. Unfocused 18:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)