Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll/Archive3

what is the issue

What is actually at issue here? I ask this once every day or two, and never get a clear answer. I do not believe that what is at issue is whether or how we should have a poll. What is at issue must be the basic level of ATT, and unless we can come to some sort of consensus on that, whether we exprress our lack of agreement on one page or three is a relatively minor question. To debate rules ndefinitely indicates a hidden agenda, and I urge those with a substantative position to say so directly.DGG 02:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "substantive position"? Can you give an example? --Rednblu 02:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"This poll will run from 04/xx/07 00:00 UTC to 04/xx/07 00:00 UTC"

Have we not even decided on the length of the poll? If it is going to last for two weeks (as an example), we should instead state: "This poll will run from 04/xx/07 00:00 UTC to 04/xx+14/07 00:00 UTC". Otherwise a strict reading of it states it is going to last for no time at all! Mathmo ^Talk 09:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

... which would be ideal. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd suggested 7 days for duration for whenever it ran. The xx was just to put something up there that whoever launched the poll could fill in at the appointed hour. 7, 14, 21, whichever works. I think anything less than 7, should it go live... would be too short. - Denny 13:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Should we kill the poll?

To go over (repeat from yesterday) things as I see them:

• There appears to be consensus for the primary merger of V and NOR on the Community discussion.
• There is a split over RS on the Community discussion.
• People feel they aren't being asked about how to arrange the pages

What if we:

• Accept that V and NOR have consensus, and present that to Jimbo
• Workshop RS and ATT/FAQ in a separate place
• De-activate this, taking some form of the open-ended question back to the Community discussion; if we archive most of that page and announce as loudly "What arrangement do you prefer?" a poll will hopefully emerge from the ensuing discussion.

This isn't exactly what I would have liked; I still think an up-and-down question on the principle of ATT is needed, but for whatever reason people seem entrenched in opposing it. At the same time, "Should WP:V and WP:NOR have been merged at all?" comes close to the core question and we've had more than a week's worth of comment on it.

Alternatively, I suggest Radiant's idea: take ATT to WP:MfD. Marskell 10:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should just kill the poll without an OK from Jimbo... since it was his request that we conduct one that got us here in the first place. If he approves alternate methods, then we can talk about what methods we want to use.

That said, we have to consider how the community will react if we don't run a poll. We have already told the community that a poll is going to take place... people are expecting it. I don't think we can just pull the rug out and say, "nevermind" after we told people that we were going to conduct it. Blueboar 12:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thus far, the one thing that SlimVirgin and I have agreed on is that this poll (no matter how it's worded) is a very bad idea (sorry, Jimbo). As Radiant noted, the fact that we can't even agree on its basic structure (and ended up conducting a debacle of a poll to determine that) illustrates this point.

So yes, Marskell, we should kill the poll. With fire. We need to tell Jimbo that it is isn't going to work (and cancel it with his consent). Jimbo is a reasonable person (who realizes that he sometimes makes mistakes), so I doubt that he would insist on extending this nightmare.

If (and only if) Jimbo explicitly tells us that we still need to hold the poll should we do so. Otherwise, let's end the madness and continue the real consensus-building. —David Levy 14:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that now a poll has been announced and slapped across the top of everyone's userpages, that whatever the merits of now deciding NOT to have it, the perception is going to be that people's ability to have a say was restricted (not saying that's true just that's how it will come across. An expectation has been created, that expectation now has to be fulfilled. --Fredrick day 14:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No one is proposing that the community be silenced. We simply need to replace the wrong type of forum (a poll) with the right one (continued discussion). —David Levy 14:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

you miss my point - it's nothing to do with if the community is actually silenced or not - it's to do with the fact that a perception and an expectation has been created. It just looks bent - if th e poll just goes away. --Fredrick day 14:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It will look much worse when the poll is a huge disaster. There is no easy solution, but cleaning up this mess is vastly preferable to piling more garbage on top of it. I give the community enough credit to believe that it would understand and accept an honest explanation. —David Levy 14:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Kill the poll? Count me in. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts, no. Let it happen. We all, including Jimbo, need to learn from the unintended consequences of our actions. It is called accountability. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Haven't we already been punished enough? —David Levy 14:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe just make the entirety of the poll Q3? Basically, a huge RFC with no threaded replies on the thing itself. What do you think? - Denny 15:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's the "no threaded replies" part that's problematic. Consensus is built via discussion, not by having people file in, announce their opinions, and file out. —David Levy 15:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Replies to sections go on Talk, not on the front page, for the simple fact of not making people's basic opinions completely unreadable/drowned out. Any threaded discussion can go on the Talk page. See the below section. - Denny 15:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Didn't Jimbo request a broad community discussion first, followed by a poll (which could be construed, rationally, as eventually, since "polls are evil")? I do think that putting up this poll as an initial step in the process requested by Jimbo caused an extra layer of issues to deal with, and canning it temporarily might be more Wiki-like. I haven't even begun to weigh in on my views on ATT, partly because I was concerned that a biased and leading poll would go up—this divides the consensual discussion that is still needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That broad discussion is being held at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, kill this poll. And let's not have a poll on the issue. WAS 4.250 15:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If theres going to be no poll, tell/get Jimbo on that, or MfD this all. - Denny 15:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with killing the poll is that most Wikipedians don't monitor this kind of thing, and don't have the energy to fight a few editors who are enthusiastic but very misguided. Some of us (most of us) figured we could rely on things like WP:RS and WP:V and didn't need to monitor them for people fucking up the policies to high hell. Normal consensus is usually good, but extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary consensus. Sensible small changes require a little consensus. Sensible radical changes require a larger consensus. Terrible radical changes really need everyone's attention. A lot (probably most) editors didn't realise this was happening until it was a fait accompli - we didn't have a chance to ask Uhm, why are you turning the cornerstones of Wikipedia into a pile of whale barf?. This doesn't enjoy the consensus it claims to because it affects everybody but only a few were actually party to it. WilyD 16:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wily, your concern would make sense if policy had been changed. It hasn't been changed.

On the larger concern of killing the poll after having announced it, I was suggesting in part that some of what the poll was intended to do has already happened on the Community discussion. We should build on that. Marskell 17:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

By taking clarity and straightforwardness and replacing it with a blurry mess you don't change policy, but you allow users to claim policy changes for whatever they want to argue. I mean, I recognise it's possible this will have no effect and this policy isn't the diaster it looks like. But if you watch how fast thing change you'll realise it's a significant time commitment to try and stop this bomb from going off. Lots of editors have come to WP:A and said OMG WTF are you doing? Have you guys lost your mind?. I don't know. Maybe it's better this way - maybe it's better to know that the project is doomed and editing Wikipedia isn't worth my time. I had thought it was - maybe I was wrong. But I trust the community at large to see the forest for the trees, even if some editors are too close to do so. WilyD 17:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I find WilyD's comments interesting ... my observation is that people hear about WP:ATT, and say "OMG WTF etc."... but once they actually read WP:ATT, and think about it, they tend to say... "Oh, I over reacted. This is actually very good"... at least that seems to be the reaction of most of the people who have commented at the community discussion (not all, by any means... but most). But getting back to the issue at hand... a big part of the concern about WP:ATT was the perception that ATT "changes policies without consensus". The whole point of this poll was to address that concern. We need to foster a new perception that, whatever happens to these policies, the result reflects consensus. To kill the poll would definitely not remove that concern nor foster a new perception. Blueboar 18:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

On first, yes. The blurry mess was the way V relied on RS to make it's points. Clarity and straightforwardness are what people have praised about ATT.

On killing the poll, I understand you completely Blue. It's just that, you know, it's been a damn waste of time for three days here. Perhaps we're on to something below. Marskell 18:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If we want to kill the poll, mark this poll page {{historic}}, but who's for that? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much, my first reaction was kind of like Huh? What's going on? Real puzzlement - why would people try to fix what wasn't broken? I tried to read through ATT but it's very difficult to make sense of - without already knowing V and OR, et cetera, I probably never would have made heads or tails of ATT.

But working on policy, especially monkeying with existing policy, is something most novice and intermediate editors are likely to shy away from. I looked over what had happened, saw Jimbo's comments and said Okay, this'll get fixed to become usable policy again. Not much need to say or do anything. I, and no doubt many other editors, doubt there's anything I (we) can do about it - it seems likely WP:ATT will get pushed through, running roughshod over common sense. I have enough difficult tasks to do here as an editor without trying to take on impossible ones. A poll lets editors have a say without having to devote their complete time to trying to stop this - it's one thing to fuck up the policies - that I can let go. But when people say To hell with consensus or common sense, let's go for it I get all peeved off and have to speak up. WilyD 19:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

A few people, judging from this thread. Marskell 18:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

But certainly not the majority. - Denny 18:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll/InsaneDennyIdea

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll/InsaneDennyIdea.

Basically turn it into a RfC on Attribution cum Poll. Replies to sections go on Talk, not on the front page, for the simple fact of not making people's basic opinions completely unreadable/drowned out. Any threaded discussion can go on the Talk page. Technically, still a poll, which is what Jimbo asked for. - Denny 15:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

But... we already have that' here: Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hence the insane part. That was for people to debate it. Threaded discussion, right on the page. This would be a completely open-ended poll: What do you think of the merger? ArbCom style. Go. That sort of thing. Jimbo can then just look at that page, and it should be fairly obvious if the thing is supported or not (by having the threaded talk happen on Talk page). - Denny 15:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Denny, we are achieving what needs to be achieved through discussion. The poll is dead for now. If a poll is needed we can have one when the need is manifest. WAS 4.250 15:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the poll not running per you? I remind you again that sweeping statements of "I have decided" are rude/not helpful... If you want to kill the poll, MfD it, or ask people for concensus of that. Tell Jimbo that his requested poll is dead. Will you tell him? Or should I post to his talk page that "per WAS 4.25, your poll is dead"? - Denny 15:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Aye, Aye! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. Unilateral comments like WAS's are antagonizing. But if it's dead, let's MfD this. Who is willing to do it? - Denny 15:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If the poll is dead

Let's unprotect and MfD this. I have asked AzaToth to unprotect. Once done I will MfD this "per WAS" at this time, as the poll being 'dead', and will notify Jimbo. If anyone objects to my moving to 'kill' the poll as stated by some, please let me know. - Denny 15:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll - Denny 16:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I do object. We anounced a poll... so we should have a poll. Part of the problem with the ATT merger is that some people in the community thought that it amounted to a sort of policy coup d'etat by a small group of editors. It does not matter if this fealing reflects what actually happened or not... it is a perception that is out there. Those with this perception will say that cancelling the promised poll is just more of the same. They will question whether it was canceled because the "clique" was afraid that it would show that the community did not like ATT. Thus, there will be no finality to anything. ATT will alwasy be in question, with some people claiming consensus and other claiming no consensus. No... we have to have a poll. We promised one. Blueboar 16:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Post on the MfD then. Post all over. I'm a bit irked despite supporting ATT at the flagrant attempts to silence the wide-scale community in a poll despite Jimbo asking for it. I notice primarily older admins that work on policies heavily are overtly against the poll. AGF, but it has the appearance of their not wanting to yield the semblance of authority/power over policy to the unwashed masses. - Denny 16:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, no one is attempting to silence the community. The point is that a holding poll is not the correct way for people's voices to be heard. By all means, let's announce the situation to the entire community and invite everyone to take part in a real discussion. Telling them to line up and cast ballots will accomplish nothing of value. —David Levy 16:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, so if the poll is dead and we won't honor Jimbo's request, who supports NOT doing this poll? Let's hear you here. If you support it, lets here you hear. We need to get this out of the way: do we honor Jimbo's request, or not? If not, lets decide that first, and tell him if we're telling him "No". Otherwise, any other discussion/work is a waste of time if we're not allowing the poll to run as requested. - Denny 17:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't portray this as mutinous defiance of Jimbo's wishes. We don't have to tell him "no." If we politely explain to him that this isn't a good idea (assuming that we arrive at such a decision), I seriously doubt that he'll want to force it on the community. —David Levy 17:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

And just to be clear, it wasn't Jimbo's idea. Someone else proposed a poll, and he went along with it. A poll was not mandated. Broad community discussion was mandated. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

As per User:Elonka in the MfD: If we can't agree on wording, then let's just make it a simple one-question, "What is your opinion on the Wikipedia:Attribution situation?" and let each editor post their own opinion in a single bullet point. That should probably reveal a clear consensus on most of it, and then anything else that's still vague, we can run a separate poll with a more clearly-stated question. --Elonka 16:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll/InsaneDennyIdea - Denny 17:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Better than no Poll at all. Blueboar 17:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This looks the best so far. Let's go with this. It addresses the request by Jimbo, and will yield useful data. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"Useful data"? Most editors feel that there are two or three different questions here, and feel differently on what they are. The result will look like WT:ATTCD, but with every comment in a new section. How are you planning to compile the data? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No one said it would easy to compile. Someone will have to do it after. - Denny 18:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If this happens with this version, would using a link like this one here that I linked help to cut down on edit conflicts? Especially by imploring all threaded talk to go on Talk instead of the front page? - Denny 18:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If this can get us forward, good. 500 words is way too much. We don't need a two hundred mini-essays. Marskell 18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

300, the Thermopylae of Wikipedia! - Denny 18:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Just give it a day or two before crossposting all over the place again. El_C 18:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. If everyone likes it we'll just put it on the Watchlist header. - Denny 18:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Denny: Give it some time to make sure there are no strong objections. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course. - Denny 18:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Object as above. I can't state my opinion on this in a single bullet point; I doubt many people can. The result will be unblessed chaos. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You object to having it be open like this? Or the suggested length? - Denny 18:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I object to the open question by its lonesome. We already have an open discussion; and if that makes any consensus clear, what is it? I'm not convinced that there is even consensus on merging WP:V and WP:NOR at all; not enough editors have discussed it.

300 words should be adequate, and some people will go over it anyway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

letting people say whats on their hearts and minds is the only thing we probably all won't fight over, since no one period had argued over the statement section that was already there. If they go over, they go over the 300, or 500, or whatever. It can't be enforced as a hard limit anyway, in reality. Just a nudge. :) - Denny 18:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If it comes down to that or having no poll, I'm not sure which I'll choose. But it might be more useful to remind people of the Poll poll at the top of the page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

300 is still way too much. It will be blessed chaos if we invite people to ramble. I think we should suggest bolding "vote-like" words to make it easier to assess afterwards. "I support the merger in its entirety because I believe..." Marskell 18:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am curious at to how this will look once we get responses... perhaps we could have a mock/up page and put some sample replies in? Blueboar 18:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Whole bunch up now in both formats. I like using the native section function better; it's easier. - Denny 19:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sections

I think having everyone start an actual section for their statement is a bad idea. It will encourage long-windedness. As an example on length, read the intro to Microsoft. It's 285 words. There's absolutely no need for 300 or 500 words. Fifty to one hundred will be more than enough. Marskell 19:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the tests now. What do you recommend for a recommended length? - Denny 19:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I ran a quick test of my own with longer (paragraph length) bullet pointed comments in one section... it looked kind of cluttered and hard to follow. I will try one with longer comments in the individual section format. Blueboar 19:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I recommend exactly what we have now: Please keep your statement short and to the point. The problem with those tests Denny, is that each has a little edit tab that people are going to be tempted to use to create threads and clutter the page. This is an open end but it's still a poll. Comment, bold key words, move on. I don't see the need for sections. Marskell 19:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The trick is just organization, then. Is there any way to give people a one click way to drop their statement in without doing sections? - Denny 19:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at this version with no sections, compared to this version with the sections function. Without it, it will (I think) get muddled up from all sorts of formatting things people may do. Having sections lets people do whatever, mostly. And we don't need to police that for the arbitrary section break thing. It would be just easier for people to add stuff, too, with less edit conflicts. What do you all think? - Denny 19:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just going to say that edit-conflicts might be a good argument to use sections, I think the mediawiki software is capable of merging simultaneous additions of sections. --Merzul 20:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure... I see advantages and disavantages to each form of organization. I will mull on it more as I wend my way home from work (please don't tell my boss I was editing Wikipedia instead of working something he thinks is more "important") and if the rest of you have not already chosen a format, I will chime in with my view. I don't really care all that much one way or the other. I just wanted to see what they looked like.Blueboar 20:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Should this go to a demo page, like the Six Options? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know—it's simple enough that the page itself can be a demo. On the sections, it's not the biggest issue obviously; whatever people think.

So were the others. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

One other thing: the examples should pose no real arguments beyond generic "good" and "bad". Marskell 20:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I made the example statement completely neutral. - Denny 21:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that Marskell has reverted. But I think we should have at least one example of more than a sentence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we need any example at all, can't one of you guys take the honour (?) of being the first to vote, and then the style will be apparent. --Merzul 21:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ya, I think we can trust people to understand this without extensive examples. On the one hand I'm wondering if we're reinventing the ATT wheel here; on the other, I like the simplicity of what we're doing. It's hard to complain about what we have. Marskell 21:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

We have enough variety of opinions amoung those of us who have worked on the page... if we all add our "votes" prior to officially going live for the rest of the community, I think we can establish a style pattern for others to follow without it being "biased". Would this work or not?

Our next step: Compare these designs in actual operation

We have had a lot of very useful discussion of our options in these several related pages, in my opinion. And we have at least seven very practical poll designs that would get our job done here. So maybe we are now at the stage of operational testing for these options to see which one proves most likely to get a good measure of the feelings of the community about WP:ATT. That is, we have here a good sample of the Wikipedia editor community. And let's actually try out these at least seven options in practice and see which one gets us the best measure of the feelings of the community about WP:ATT.

• We will need a subdirectory Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll/Version001/ into which we would copy the files Option1Demo, Option2Demo, . . . one for each of the at least seven very practical poll designs we have so far.
• Then, each of the least twenty editors here would take each of the polls and thereby test each of these designs by actually responding to each of the seven polls giving us empirical data on which design gives us the best measure of the feelings of the community.

We have done enough of the design work for now. Our next step should be to test these designs in practice to see which one actually gets the best measure of the feelings of the community about WP:ATT. After we have tested these various designs in practice, then our next decision would be 1) shall we put that best design out to the wide Wikipedia community or 2) do we have to do some iterative corrective redesign and another round of testing of prototypes -- which would go into the subdirectory Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll/Version002/ . . . What is next? --Rednblu 21:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Or not. We can wait 24 hrs for more comments on the very simple design that has been agreed on over the last six or so hours and take it from there.

Thanks though, for a good example of bad process creep. Marskell 21:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree. That process is not useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

remaining housekeeper work

Semi-protection please!

Could an admin reading this reapply semi protection to the following? There is no need for IPs to contribute here, and Jimbo had semi'd the page originally. I think it came off when AzaToth unprotected for the earlier MfD. The following need semi:

• Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll
• Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll/header
• Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll (this page)

Thanks! - Denny 21:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Why shouldn't IPs be able to contribute to this page? Picaroon 21:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Decline, while still in the development phase. We can talk about it just before going live. Marskell 21:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why any anon IP needs to be able to contribute to a debate about core content policies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we open the poll now, or are we waiting to do it after April 1st? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If we can agree to pull it off for 4/1/07 or 4/2/07 I think it'd be awesome. Maybe wait to see if anyone really opposes it, and if no one does then go live 4/2/07 00:00? - Denny 23:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If we're ready, I think we should open it now, assuming we're going ahead. We need to get this over with. Also, I hope we're not keeping it open for too long? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd be the last person at this point to object to launching. ;) Lets go for a round number. 7 or 14 days? I vote 7 even. 00:00 to 00:00. - Denny 23:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Notifications

Also, for when we do:

A poll is now underway about the Wikipedia:Attribution merger. Please express your opinion about Wikipedia:Attribution in this poll.

Posted it here, ready to copy/paste in: MediaWiki_talk:Watchdetails#ATT_poll_notification_template_-_for_when.2Fif_it_launches.

• Day 1 (0-24 hours): that notice, as-is.
• Days 2-7: Lose the graphic, add back in the "Dismiss" button.

If the poll goes longer than 7 days, I guess we can look at it then to see if the notice is worth keeping for the full duration. But a week would ensure that no one later can say they missed it, at all. - Denny 23:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Seven days should, be aplenty. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This image better for the first 24 hours?

Not sure. - Denny 23:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Extra stuff

• Slim, Jossi, if we're gonna do the semi on the main page, could one of you get both the header include and my QUESTION graphic too? - Denny 23:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Patience, thanks

thanks everyone for your patience, during this mess. Sorry if I seemed to get pushy in pushing for general forward movement at any point. Just wanted to say it before all the pre-poll Talk stuff went into archive hell (as they should when we launch to clean slate this). - Denny 23:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone here really think there is consensus for this sudden and huge reversal of direction? --Rednblu 23:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be why we asked and put it out as an idea above. - Denny 23:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, FWIW, we have about 70 people that have touched this page. If they don't speak up to say, "Don't do this," well, then what? Don't do it based on their silence? - Denny 23:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Rednblue, please don't WP:POINT, thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious. So what operational definition for consensus are you using? --Rednblu 23:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Help fixing edit conflict?

I'm sorry to have caused this mess, but apparently I accidentally deleted a comment by user Avraham during an edit conflict here. also a comment by Radiant!, but apparently the latter user added that comment back in. The comment by Avraham is still not in, I believe: "# First version; at least there is a representative range of choices. -- Avi 13:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)" in section "Option 3 - Verbose version" subsection "Endorse". Apparently the page is being archived so I don't know how to restore this comment to its proper place. I would appreciate help or advice. Thanks. --Coppertwig 23:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The poll has died. A structured discussion lives.

The poll has died. A structured discussion lives. Discussion is how wikipedia got to where it is. The current project page of this talk page is now a structured discussion. That is entirely appropriate and can be of great value. I am all for it. 4.250.132.238 00:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC) (WAS 4.250)

Well, a restritcted format discussion. To keep it from going to useless anarchy all threaded talk is being forced to this talk page, that will be blanked/archived right before the polling goes live. - Denny 00:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've lost track. Some people are saying we should start the poll now; others that we should start it in two days; others that we are having no poll. Does anyone know what the majority position is? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think any one single point has EVER had majority. That's why I've been working under the, "If no one screams when I poke the page this way, it must be ok to do so," mode of thought. If no one gives a meaningful reason to not launch at 4/2/07 00:00 I say go for it then. - Denny 01:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Which ignores the fact that all sensible people have been screaming silently about it since it was first suggested. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I really don't wanna start any more steam this late, but y'all should have spoken up. ;) Moving on, lets get it done. - Denny 01:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say: start the poll, and let those that want to participate do so. We just need to be vigilant for April 1st, that's all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I say we should go ahead with the poll or structured discussion as of now for seven days. How do we open it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Take down the notice to not vote yet, edit the Watchlist header (and keep random people from undoing it!) and then cross-post like mad. - Denny 01:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I say go for it. Crum375 01:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Open for business. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

So, did I do that right? Or was I supposed to have a header? Picaroon 01:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we'll have problems on Apr. 1, but if others are willing to clean up the mess, then whatever. I don't know what the rush is to do this now instead of in 2 days. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither do I; I just jumped at the chance to make the first statement (again). Picaroon 01:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)