Template talk:Fan POV

Fanpov

How to use fanpov for section? --Tito Dutta ✉ 12:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Add text

Could someone add the wikicode:

See [[Wikipedia:How to edit a page]] and [[:Category:Wikipedia help]] for help, or this article's [[Talk:{{PAGENAME}}|talk page]].

It was in the original template but was lost during conversion to {{ambox}}. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 15:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Do we need it? Debresser (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Use

Is this a version of {{npov}} for articles about works of fiction, or a version of {{peacock}}, {{advert}}, etc. for BLPs? KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

It is what it is, and nothing else. Debresser (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Request

Could someone add the parameter:

 | image = [[File:Unbalanced scales.svg|50x40px|link=]] 

to the template, to match other NPOV templates? KMF (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

scope

I was just told by another editor about this template having a scope limit beyond its phrasing. It appears it was added in this edit last October. There's no discussion about this, so I don't see the justification. If there's supposed to be a scope restriction like that, it should be made far more obvious by the template text itself. --Joy (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

It was prompted by the following edits: , , , , and this discussion. There are plenty of templates in Category:Neutrality templates that are appropriate for content that has a POV bias in favor of the page subject, whereas the template here seems to me to make it clear that it is specifically for content that is fanzine-like (such as a page about an entertainer or sports team that simply gushes about the subject). Using this template simply to indicate that more criticism should be added is inappropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I have checked those five links and I don't quite see how exactly they map to a scope change here. This template is currently applied in 1660 places. I'm pretty sure we don't have a strict definition of what is meant by fancruft there. If we are to make such a definition and exclude some types of fancruft-but-not-true-fancruft POV issues, then we should provide a more coherent answer which of the other templates should be used instead. At Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup#Neutrality, readability, and tone, there's this template, {{technical}} and {{tone}}. Those other two have 4,116 and 7,335 transclusions, respectively. The former is more specific, the latter is more generic. So most "too sympathetic but not fancruft" spillover would mostly go to the {{tone}} template, then? I'm not sure how it makes sense to have more generic issue descriptions, in an even bigger pile.

In general, I think the readers should be informed about the kind of issue that was detected, rather than the issue being described vaguely. They can't be more likely to understand the issue being raised that way, and may just become blind to the banner. --Joy (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

You say that you don't see how the example maps to the issue here, which makes me think we misunderstand one another. The page 3.5% rule is about a concept in political science. It's not about fandom about the scholars who created it, nor about fandom over the theory itself. We wouldn't say that the page about gravity, for example, is about people who are "fans" of gravity: the concept of fandom simply does not apply. Here is what I think is, plainly, the scope of a template called "fan POV": it's scope is "fan POV"! We already have plenty of other templates for other kinds of related POV problems, in the category I linked to above, besides fandom: Template:Academic booster, Template:Peacock, Template:Political POV, Template:Promotional, Template:Unbalanced, Template:Undue weight. This template should be properly used for fan POV.

I agree with you that we don't want readers to see this template used indiscriminately, nor to develop template blindness to it. That's why it should be used selectively, for pages where the problem is the kind of problem described quite accurately at WP:Fancruft. Note also that the lead there says that use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil. So I think the scope of the template should be limited, not just for any content that lacks enough criticism.

Based upon what I think I am hearing from you, I think that perhaps a problem with what I added said it was about pages that resemble a fan website. I can see, now, how some Wikipedia pages would not literally look like a fan website, but might be appropriate for the tag. So I just made this edit: , which frames it more precisely as being about WP:Fancruft. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I think the problem is the phrasing of the template itself. Even if it is linked to the fancruft essay, it just says This article may be written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view, and there can definitely be fancruft as defined there, content written from a fan's point of view, unknown outside fan circles, with too much detail present that will bore, distract or confuse a non-fan, when its exclusion would not significantly harm the factual coverage as a whole in articles that aren't about fictional works. --Joy (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I guess my main concern is that I don't want editors using this template simply to label POV problems in general, partly because not all POV problems have anything to do with a "fan POV", and partly because using the template inappropriately can be incivil. If it's really too difficult to define "a fan's point of view" distinctly from a POV that is generally too uncritical, then maybe the template should be deleted. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Just "fan" seems a bit too generic, because there's well-known fans of other elements of popular culture aside from fictional works, like sports, as well as other less common but still widespread avenues where it's reasonable to talk about fan POV. Maybe a slight change in wording to specify it's about fiction would make sense. --Joy (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Isn't fan POV an issue of style?

The source code says that it's a content issue. But that doesn't make sense to me. Aren't issues with WP:NPOV an issue of style? Why or why not? OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I suppose it's both (as in the style of how the content was written). --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2026 (UTC)