Template talk:WP:RMtalk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Split support/oppose sections

I made an evolutionary change[1] to this template to split the survey section into separate "support votes" and "oppose votes" subsections. This change was reverted[2] with the following explanation:

reverting to version w/o subsections (we don't want to put too much emphasis on "voting" without discussion); counting is usually not a problem

First, I want to say that I did not make this change hastily. I've been converting "standard" surveys to this format manually for several weeks (if not months) now, without any problems, complaints or reverts.

As far as the explanation provided, this change puts no more emphasis on "voting" than does the current version. Under the current version, editors are encouraged to add a new line that says either Support or Oppose with a brief explanation, and this is almost universally what is done in practice. Other discussion is encouraged to go into the separate discussion section. There is nothing about the "split format" that puts even an iota more emphasis on "voting" without discussion than does the current version. See the current voting at Talk:Bath for an example of this.

The purpose of this change is not to solve the "problem" of counting (which I agree does not exist to any significant degree). It's to make clear, for everyone, at a glance, for various reasons and purposes, what the count is during a survey (just one example: it is often useful to note, or even point out in a discussion, "after X days the count is now x out of y supporting" - having the votes automatically counted facilitates this). It's also to make clear whether a given entry is to be counted or not, to reduce conflict about such incidents. A few months ago in an RM survey at Talk:Yoghurt an admin made all kinds of subjective judgements about which votes to count or not. In the "split format" where each oppose and support is explicitly numbered, there is less room for ambiguity. If one wants to comment and not vote, he should use the discussion section (a further evolutionary change might be to add "abstain" and/or "not yet" sections to the template).

If there are no other objections, I request that we give it a shot. If indeed there are actual problems with it, then let's revert it. Okay? --Serge 17:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No objections after almost a week, so I reverted back to it. Let's give it a shot. --Serge 22:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The "V" word

I object. Whether or not the recommendations in a Requested Move are separated into a subsection for "support" and a subsection for "oppose", I object to using the word "vote" to describe the recommendations that people make. In fact, I would disagree that "There is nothing about the split format that puts even an iota more emphasis on "voting" without discussion than does the current version." It's not the split format itself that does it, but the use of the word "vote", two times.

I also don't like the subsections because now all it takes is one move request to force a table of contents to display on a talk page, and I think that looks bad. Also, it upsets the chronological ordering that occurred naturally under the previous format. These reasons are clearly much more trivial than the first, so I'm just going to edit the template to take out the word "vote" for now. I'm open to discussion about how this thing should best be formatted, but I can't agree with any encouragement of the notion that we're holding "votes" over Requested Moves. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As an afterthought, what exactly is the use of being able to tell at a glance how many people support or oppose a page move? Isn't the only factor being considered the arguments that they make, and not their number? What's the point in using a numbered list at all? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It's been changed; cool. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 07:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)