Template talk:POV

Template:POV#When_to_remove - What is protocol for how long you can wait before no one says what the issue is, to remove it?

What is protocol for how many hours or days must pass if no explanation or clear, linked, actionable feedback about WP:NPOV is given, before any user may unilaterally remove such a template? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

As a matter of assuming good faith, I'd start a discussion at the article's Talk page prior to removing the tag. DonIago (talk) 06:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

If there's no discussion at all (or even a hint about the nature of the problem in an edit summary) and you have no idea what the alleged problem is, then I'd say you are allowed (but not required) to remove it at any time. After all, it might have been a mistake.

If the problem appears to have been resolved, then you should remove the tag.

If there was a discussion in the past, but people stopped talking/trying to fix it more than a month ago and you think that any remaining problems are fairly small, then I think you are allowed (but not required) to remove the tag.

If you skim through the article and can see that there are still POV problems, then please don't remove the tag (unless you fix the problems first). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

If the tag was recently added by a new editor, consider reminding them of the requirements for placing the tag, rather than immediately removing. If you remove a tag that has no rationale and an editor reinstates it, the duty of justifying can usually be assumed pass to that editor. As long as you proceed assuming good faith and don't edit war it shouldn't be a problem. William Avery (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 21 November 2025

Description of suggested change: Per MOS:ALT, the image should have a blank |alt= attribute added to ensure screen readers do not attempt to read it.

Diff:

−

| image = [[File:Unbalanced scales.svg|50x40px|class=skin-invert|link=]]

+

| image = [[File:Unbalanced scales.svg|50x40px|class=skin-invert|link=|alt=]]

{{Lemondoge|Talk|Contributions}} 15:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 15:41, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Consensus

Is consensus required to add this tag? For instance, can a driveby editor add the tag to the article, and it requires a talk-page consensus to remove it, but no consensus is required to add it to the article?

(Context: ) Katzrockso (talk) 05:29, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Consensus is never required to add a tag that I know of, but other editors can challenge the addition of a tag if they feel it isn't warranted, and then you might need a consensus that the tag is merited. That's pretty basic WP:BRD.

However, for this specific tag, if someone is adding it and not initiating a talk page discussion as noted in the text of the tag, that would IMO be more likely to be reasonably questioned.

Given the context you provided, I think you should wait to see how the discussion concludes and the tag should be omitted unless there's ultimately a consensus in favor of retaining it, since the matters that the tag is intended to alert people to are being discussed in any case. DonIago (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:ONUS states The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on editors seeking to include disputed content. I don't see why a tag is any different than a sentence in this respect. Katzrockso (talk) 13:59, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

The way I see it, the underlying question is, "Should this article have a POV tag?" If the editors who choose to participate in the discussion generally feel it should not, then it seems a bit tendentious, in my opinion, to respond with, "you haven't convinced me that we have a consensus to exclude the tag". Same logic goes for if the editors feel the tag is appropriate. You could always pursue dispute resolution if you feel that the way the discussion is going doesn't align with how you feel it should be going, but if you add, or don't add, the tag in contravention of an apparent consensus, then other editors are likely to feel that you're being disruptive. DonIago (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

The question remains about ONUS - when discussion is underway, ONUS tells us to exclude the content until a consensus is reached as to whether or not to include the disputed content. Should someone be able to go add a tag to an article and then start a talk page section that says "actually you need to show me that there is a consensus that this tag is unwarranted"? I don't think that's consistent with the spirit of BRD, ONUS, etc. Katzrockso (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2026 (UTC)