Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Template:Vote

Template:Vote
''The following discussion has concluded.  Please begin any new discussion  on the appropriate page.'' Closed as keep, as there is no consensus on what to do here. The community should continue discussion on Wikibooks talk:Policies and guidelines and bring this issue to a resolution. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 01:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This is currently unused and does little to increase the visibility of a proposal beyond proposed. Community attention needs to be sought by better means. While strawpolls are useful tools, we don't vote on policies. They are discussed and pass/fail by consensus. Swift (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|15px]] Delete --Swift (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|15px]] Delete --Panic (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol comment vote.svg|15px]] Comment The intent was for this template to compliment Policies and guidelines/Vote by making it clear when a proposal has gone from the drafted state to building consensus for adoption state. I think such a distinction is useful to have, maybe the template name, category and wording need to change though. --dark lama  13:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Since building consensus usually involves modifying the proposal, that transition isn't really useful. Has there perhaps been a problem with policies being drastically altered during strawpolls? I remember things going fairly smoothly with the PAG-of-the-month we had a few years ago. --Swift (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Being altered drastically during the consensus-building phase is not a problem. The whole point is that as disagreements arise, the proposal is changed to address those through compromise. However, focusing on the template itself: [[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|15px]] We don't need this. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 01:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Think of it like this than as a clarification: When a proposal is first being drafted people are working to make it a good proposal and edit the proposal boldly, there might even be at some point consensus among the people working on the proposal that the proposal is good as is, without there being community consensus to adopt it as a policy or guideline. So the community is alerted, and further discussion is initiated to try to build consensus to adopt the proposal as a policy or guideline. Further changes may be necessary, but those changes should reflect consensus because drastic changes at that point might void other people's previous support for the proposal. This template (whatever it is to be called) alerts the community that people are done drafting the proposal and are ready for the community to discuss its adoption as a policy or guideline, and that any further changes should reflect consensus. IOWs there are usually two consensus building phases involved, and this template lets people know that the proposal is no longer actively being drafted but rather being discussed for adoption. --dark lama  15:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As Mike stated above; drastic changes during consensus building aren't a problem. Any change, whether drastic or not, should, furthermore, aim for consensus. already directs Wikibookians to discuss changes on the talk page.
 * In practice the PAGotM team drafted proposals which were then brought to the community for discussion. This was by necessity, and not the ideal, to work through the long back-log of proposals. The community was kept well informed and we never had any major problems. Think of it like a gesture to the ideal that the community be involved throughout the process. --Swift (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe in an ideal world the community would be kept well informed and would be involved throughout the process, but the ideal world isn't the one we live in. To keep the community well informed, involved throughout the process and keep from having a backlog of proposals something has to change. I think for the most part the community is only interested once they feel the proposal in stable or done being drafted so that all they need to do is say "yes this should be adopted and here's why" or "no this should be rejected and here's why", at least that would be my impression over the past 5 years. So this template tries to adopt to what the community seems to want, rather than some ideal, by having a means of telling the difference between a draft people are still working on and a stable proposal that is basically ready for the community to discuss. In any case I've reworded the template to remove the issue with voting. Also by having a separate category for drafts and for stable proposals, DynamicPageList or CategoryTree can be used to list more prominently proposals ready for community feedback. --dark lama  16:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where you're going with pointing out that we don't live in an ideal world. I don't think anyone here is suffering from such illusions. An example of the contrary, my previous comment gives an alternative approach to the practical realities. For those interested in commenting on proposals, but not in being actively involved in the drafting, the well-advertised straw-polls we've used in the past have worked well. Again, this template does little to increase visibility or restrict modification of the proposal.
 * Well, not currently. I like your changes to the template, but separate categories or dynamic listing do little for visibility unless pages show up on the watchlists of potentially interested users (the reading rooms are useful to are an option) or feature somehow in the interface (such as on MediaWiki:Sitenotice. See relevant discussion in the general reading room). Do you have a particular implementation in mind? --Swift (talk) 07:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well your comment suggested to me that there is some illusion that by discouraging this template the ideal of having community involvement throughout the process can somehow be maintained. Also both Mike and you seem to be urging that changes should reflect consensus and that drastic changes are not a problem, while I am saying drastic changes should reflect consensus when the community is being asked to review the proposal and boldly making drastic changes without discussion or consensus during the review process should not be done, but until than people can boldly make changes to the proposal unless there is a disagreement while the proposal is being drafted. Put another way drafting a proposal is a low impact decision, but the decision to adopt a proposal is a high impact decision that requires more discretion and more community involvement. I don't exactly see a disagreement there, unless Mike or you are urging that making drastic changes without consensus, when the community is being asked to build consensus or do a straw-poll, is fine? Basically along with my change to, some changes should be made to to say instead "this is a draft, feel free to change it". You still seem to not understand when this template would be used.  (possibly rename to review?) would be used when the community is asked to review the proposal and when a straw-poll is initiated to determine whether the proposal should be adopted or not.
 * Well at first I think the dynamic list would be included in a template that people can place on their user page, and from there it might be added to other pages, which is similar to how was rejuvenated. This template could be included right under the list of new books on general reading room and within a section of Policies and guidelines. --dark  lama  13:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I just don't see why you need any explicit "review" step - proposals, adopted policies and accepted guidelines are (or should be) constantly undergoing review and revision such that they constantly reflect community consensus, which may change from time to time. However, going down that road is really a discussion about how the community works, and nothing about this template. I just don't see how this template is at all useful to the project. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 18:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(reset)

Wikibooks already in essence has an explicit review part. The review part is when the community is asked to decide whether a proposal should be adopted or not. There is nothing new to that. Its not like Wikibookians writes proposals and there automatically adopted and enforced as a policy or guideline without discussion first. I think its making a big deal out of something rather small, and I just don't get what the issue is. --dark lama  18:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This template can be useful in the same was as is for new books. Using ensures new books are listed on, which in turn ensures more visibility for new books. could be used to ensure more visibility for proposals in a similar way. How is that not useful? --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  18:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been up since February. Let's move it along one way or another. -- Adrignola talk contribs 01:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It was being used until it was proposed for deletion. doesn't do the same thing because its slapped on any proposal, while  would indicate a proposal ready to be discussed and made a policy or guideline if the community agrees with it. Not all proposals are ready to be discussed and made a policy or guideline at the time it is proposed. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark  lama  02:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's really odd. I would think that something that is proposed would be fair game for discussion from the moment it's created. That's pretty much what comes to mind when I hear "proposal". If a proposal isn't really a proposal, I'd suggest coming up with different terminology. -- Adrignola talk contribs 02:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Most people don't bother to discuss a proposed policy or guideline until after some announcement is made. Any discussion that does take place is often informal (like "this is a good idea") and not reflective of whether people feel the proposal should be adopted or is ready to be adopted (like "this proposal has some issues that need to be worked out before I can support its adoption. I think ____ needs to be changed"). Just like people often aren't very descriptive of their reasons when marking a page for speedy deletion but tend to have more to say if the page is discussed here first. I think people don't see proposals with as indication that its time decide to adopt it as a policy or guideline. I think people see proposals with  as being drafts and not stable/finished works (Yes I know a policy or guideline is never finished technically, but people like something they can point to that isn't going to change to something that they wouldn't agree with when discussing and agreeing to adopt a proposal). --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark  lama  08:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * (outdent)
 * I see the merit of two separate phases (hence, two separate templates), but I too have found the terminology misleading: the word "proposed" suggests to me that someone has formally put forward that "we should do it this way" &mdash; a much more advanced stage of development than the informal "draft".  This is not a problem with    at all, but rather with the terminology surrounding   .  I suggest that we
 * rename   to.
 * modify the message on   by changing the words "proposed draft" in the first sentence to "draft proposal", so it reads "This page contains a draft proposal for a Wikibooks policy or guideline."  That's "draft proposal" versus "stable proposal", which is the wording used in.
 * rename   to   .  (This might not be the best possible choice of name, but I think it would suffice; perhaps someone else can think of a superior alternative?)
 * There would be no change at all to  . --Pi zero (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I like Pi zero's ideas was bold in implementing them, since the changes were not regarding the template up for deletion specifically. Unfortunately this doesn't answer the larger question here. As Pi zero states above, two templates imply two separate phases. I'd say if the community wants two phases, there should be two templates. If not, then just the one.  Hopefully this would be more clear-cut than a certain other issue that has yet to reach consensus. -- Adrignola talk contribs 03:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, my creation of the vote template was an attempt to be bold to begin with. If a change in terminology helps I'm for it. I didn't particularly see a problem with old terminology as I think already indicated that a page was draft for a proposal.  was intended as a way to highlight those pages that people felt were at a point that an announcement should be made to try to garner consensus as required by Decision making. Proposals aren't adopted as a policy or guideline on the spot when people stop working on a proposal, first consensus has to be reached before it becomes one. I wasn't trying to change any process, but rather make the process a bit more obvious and provide an easy way to list policy and guideline proposals that people feel are important to get community consensus on. Such proposals are often announced in the reading room and in the site notice, this just provides another way to highlight them and for people to find them. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark  lama  04:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)