Tony Sidaway wrote:
I disagree with this; in my experience twoversions has
been useful in
providing transparency to the nature of a dispute over two distinct
versions of an article. Differences of opinion over which version is
more neutral are legitimate--balance is about judgement, not a black
and white issue. There may also be differences over other issues,
such as style. Most recently I used twoversions when an article
rewrite was opposed. The dispute was over whether the correct
definition of the subject of the article was being used.
I've used it too, though darned if I can remember what the article was
at this point. The twoversions template didn't say anything about what
the _nature_ of the dispute between the two versions was, and it doesn't
give any indication that the two-version situation is good or permanent
(perhaps more emphasis can be added when it's restored that it's only a
temporary measure), so I don't think it'll be a tool for POV-splitting
articles in the long run. Perhaps if someone thinks it might be they
should check the articles that use it to see how long the template's
been in use on each.