Wikipedia talk:Historical archive/Template:Noncompliant

This template addressed a very specific issue that is to be compliant all four content policies apply. I have seen in many instances that WP:NPOV is used to sacrifice WP:V, or that article may comply with WP:NPOV and WP:V but fail on WP:NOT. So all this template is doing is to assert that you need to comply with all four. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me or is this template very, very obtrusive when placed in articles? There must be a way to reword the text. x42bn6 Talk 13:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

	This article does not comply with the content policies of Wikipedia. For an article to be compliant, it needs to be written from a neutral point of view, the material needs to be verifiable, it cannot include original research , and should not include unsuitable material.
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page

Here is me attempting to reword and reformat the template. Comments? x42bn6 Talk 13:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

So this is like {{POV}} only bigger?--205.188.116.133 15:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

^{25 June 2006 01:52} Ste4k wrote: I like the first better because it is specific, explains the meaning, and provides references for each of the different sections (for newbies like me) :) Thanks!

Why does the template only categorize into POV disputes and factual disputes? It seems to be redundant with Template:TotallyDisputed. Gazpacho 16:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I edited the template just now to point to the current policies on WP:ATT and original research, since the policies pointed to before had been superseded. --Yksin 22:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggesting for marking as deprecated with deletion in the future

This template is very general. It says that somebody did not like the article without informing that was wrong. This must be explained somewhere else, in the talk page, but usually nobody tries to prove that the article is both pov and or, and also both unnotable and unreferenced in additon. I tried to add some explanation in the template itself, but this makes the template too "poluted" with various instructions.

After the current history of the Stanislav Petrov, I would suggest to drop this template completely as it introduces misunderstandings. The adding people tend to think that the single reason like pov is enough to add and defend the template. But, when added, it enforces others to think that the article has all four shortcommings. It the article is both or and pov, for instance, then would likely beter just to add several templates to the top. Then they also can be removed one by one if somebody fixes only some problems (for instance, by adding some references but not yet correcting pov statements). I would suggest to drop other "combined" criticising templates as well. Audriusa 14:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

At times, a general notice is needed. The template with which it is replaced ({{disputed}}) is terrible - there are many, many times when an article falls short of Wikipedia's standards but is not factually innacurate. I would suggest that we not drop this template, as it is very useful and necessary to Wikipedia's continual improvement. XINOPH | TALK 12:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggested alternatives are {{disputed}}, {{POV}}, and {{TotallyDisputed}}, depending on the situation; those are what the categories in this template imply/implied. If the problem isn't to do with point-of-view of factual accuracy, try {{cleanup}} (or a more specific version, see WP:TC for the list.) --ais523 14:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Deprecated?

Four comments in a TfD makes it deprecated? Don't think so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Some article are disputed, are POV, and OR and are factually inaccurate. This template states that the article needs major rework to be acceptable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Then the template should have been reworded to clearly say that the article has all those problems. There is now a template that can be used to tag an article with multiple issues inside one box: {{Articleissues}}. –Pomte 06:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That template is ambiguous (yo say the least). I am rewording this as per your proposal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned and eleted

Rich Farmbrough, 01:03 10 December 2007 (GMT).