This template was considered for deletion on 2009 March 18. The result of the discussion was "keep".

((editprotected)) I think this template is overly protected. It is transcluded onto less than 100 articles, and its content isn't likely to provoke hostile reactions.

Apart from that I'd request to add the appropriate protection template, ((pp-template|small=yes)) or ((pp-semi-template|small=yes)). Thank you, Debresser (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reduced to semi-protection. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I feel sure that was the right decision. Debresser (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

((editsemiprotected))

Raja Babur Latif Khan(born in Katakair Muzaffarabad)is a social and political activist.He was very famous student leader in his student life.During his student life he became the president of MSF degree college Muzaffarabad,later on he became president MSF in Azad Jammu and Kashmir University.He also preised the Allainace of Students political organisations in Azad Jammu and Kashmir University. After completing his Master Degree from Azad Jammu and Kashmir University.he went abroad for higher studies.He completed his Matser in Business Administration from well reputed UK university,London South Bank University.During his education he formed a forum to raise the voice of kashmiris for peaceful solution of Kashmir.He is the founder and Chairman of Kashmir Peace and Dialogue Forum.He is also working as a social activist to help and assist the downtrodden people.

Rajababur (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not a change to this template.  fetchcomms☛ 19:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

((sudo)) For some reason Category:Inline citation and verifiability dispute templates does appear on this template page, but the template doesn't show up there. Does anyone know what could be causing this and fix it?
A note aside: I'm sorry for using ((editprotected)), but I didn't find a more suitable template to request attention of experienced users... maybe something like ((admin attention)) would be a good idea, what do you think? --Waldir ^talk 10:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A null edit fixed it. I think a template to gain experienced/technical editors would be a great idea. (I wouldn't support the name ((admin attention)) because it's not necessarily admins who could help with it.) This might be a good idea to bring up at one of the village pumps. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added a proposal here. --Waldir ^talk 07:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This template links to a proposed policy that failed to gain consensus WP:ATT. Is it proper to link to a failed policy proposal which might contain misinformation and does not clearly explain the specific purpose of this inline template? Compare to the link for the more familiar ^{[citation needed]}. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no explanation on the template page or on this talk page of this template's purpose. What is the purpose of this template? How does it differ from the template ((citation needed))? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See the above linked TfD. Skomorokh 06:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first sentence of your comment at the TfD clearly stated the purpose of this template and it appeared to be undisputed.

"This template is supposed to be used where perspectives and opinions are asserted without stating whose they are."

I added it to the Usage section of the template. Thanks for your help. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I should have done that first day. Cheers, Skomorokh 16:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re the recent edit here:

The purpose of this template was described in the "Purpose?" section above by the sentence from the TfD "This template is supposed to be used where perspectives and opinions are asserted without stating whose they are." However, in this version of the template page, as viewed on its edit page, there is "title=This sentence may contain claims that have not been attributed to their sources." I feel this is incorrect for the following reasons.

1. Using the word "claims" is much more general than the scope of this template, as described above. Here's some examples of the use of the word "claims" in WP:NOR.

"All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims..."

"Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims..."

    This template pertains to "perspectives and opinions", not to all "claims".

2. Also, this template could be satisfied by putting the attribution in the text of an article. For example, "It has been said that...^{[attribution needed]}" could be replaced by "John Smith said that...".

Thus there should be a change from

"title=This sentence may contain claims that have not been attributed to their sources."

to

"title=This sentence may contain perspectives and opinions without stating whose they are."

I think that the latter correctly corresponds to the purpose of the template, whereas the former doesn't. Thanks, --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see post at Wikipedia talk:Template editor#Help new inline tagging template regarding proposal. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 03:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A proposed revision is available at User:Cinderella157/sandbox 6 and User:Cinderella157/sandbox 6/doc. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've merged your version into the template. Please update the documentation. — JJMC89 (T·C) 14:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JJMC89, Done and thankyou. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]