Misplaced Pages

:State route naming conventions poll/Part3/Vote: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:State route naming conventions poll | Part3 Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:34, 22 September 2006 editSPUI (talk | contribs)75,418 edits →Discussion← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:46, 11 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(26 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:polltop -->
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the vote. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

The result of the vote was '''support'''. --] <sup>] - ]</sup> 13:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
====Vote==== ====Vote====
Remember that the 100 edit rule applies. Also, the no comments with the votes still applies. Any comments left will be forcibly removed by a judging administrator. Please vote using ''three'' tildes (<nowiki>~~~</nowiki>), '''not four'''. Remember that the 100 edit rule applies. Also, the no comments with the votes still applies. Any comments left will be forcibly removed by a judging administrator. Please vote using ''three'' tildes (<nowiki>~~~</nowiki>), '''not four'''.

Um? can we allow comments somewhere else??? I'm certainly interested in them. especially the opposes, I want to hear what they propose instead (that fits within the framework of where we are so far, no repudiating the whole thing, that's just not useful) ++]: ]/] 20:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
: Presumably, that would go under "Discussion". However, if you find freakofnurture's inline comments ("'''Oppose''' in the name of all that's fucking holy.") to be "interesting"... =) ] <sup><small><small>]</small></small></sup> 15:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
::... Ya, I saw it... what I am interested in is what alternative is on the table that he supports, which is why I think a comment area somewhere makes sense. That vote, as it stands, counts for zero (or less) in my book, as it's neither useful nor collegial. Hopefully he'll choose to share some positive thinking on what he'd rather see, directly below. ++]: ]/] 17:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


=====Discussion===== =====Discussion=====
Line 6: Line 14:
: Those footnotes are ugly. Is there really any question over whether someone will be willing/able to make the page moves required? ] <sup><small><small>]</small></small></sup> 15:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC) : Those footnotes are ugly. Is there really any question over whether someone will be willing/able to make the page moves required? ] <sup><small><small>]</small></small></sup> 15:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
::I like how we went from "move them only if there's consensus at the state level" to "move them, screw the state level". --] (] - ]) 18:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC) ::I like how we went from "move them only if there's consensus at the state level" to "move them, screw the state level". --] (] - ]) 18:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
::I am willing to move the pages. Correction: I will be willing to move the pages when I find the time. Probably won't get to it for a few months. And the admins made that call. --'''] (] - ]) ''' 23:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't get it. We are voting on whether we support the policy above, but it can still be edited? I am not voting on something that may change. What I support now could change and I could oppose it later on. I will refrain from voting until the policy page is finalized and protected to prevent editing during the voting. --] 16:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
:Everything that has been decided by Poll 1 and Poll 2 is pretty much set, which is the table of states and their respective methods of titling and referencing...It is going to correspond to whatever was decided before so that's not getting edited. Everything else is just style guidelines that everyone has pretty much agreed upon, or what we've always been doing. The big thing is the article titles, if there's a controversial edit to anything else, I'm sure it'd get reverted and discussed first. However, it might not be a bad idea to stop editing tonight (9/25) at midnight that way everyone can be sure they approve what's been written by the 9/26 23:59 UTC deadline. '''<span style="color:#FF0000;">S</span>tratosphere''' <sup>(] ])</sup> 23:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
::Yeah I thought about that but I didn't get around to implementing that. --'''] (] - ]) ''' 02:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Is this over with, or are we leaving it open a little longer? '''<span style="color:#FF0000;">S</span>tratosphere''' <sup>(] ])</sup> 14:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


=====Support===== =====Support=====
#'''] (] - ]) ''' #'''] (] - ]) '''
#] <sup>] - ]</sup> #] <sup>] - ]</sup>
#'''<font color="#FF0000">S</font>tratosphere''' <sup>(] ])</sup> #'''<span style="color:#FF0000;">S</span>tratosphere''' <sup>(] ])</sup>
# --'''] (] - ])''' # --'''] (] - ])'''
#] #]
#]<sup><font color="#00CC66">]</font></sup> #]]
#— ] <sup>]</sup>•<sub>]</sub> #— ] <sup>]</sup>•<sub>]</sub>
# --] # --]
Line 19: Line 32:
#–] (]) #–] (])
#] #]
#]
#]
#] ( ] | ] )
#] (NORTH)
# ] <small>(]) (])</small>
#] (])


=====Oppose===== =====Oppose=====
#'''Oppose''' in the name of all that's fucking holy. —<tt class="plainlinks">''']()'''</tt> 19:05, Sep. 25, 2006 (UTC)
#

=====Result=====
#'''Endorse "Support"''' --] 17:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Endorse "Support"''' ... And thanks to those that have participated to this point. ++]: ]/] 17:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Endorse "Support"'''. &mdash;]]] ] 17:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Endorse "Support"''' --] 19:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Endorse "Support"''' ] ] 20:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Endorse''' ]''']'''] <small>]</small> 21:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.''</div><!-- Template:pollbottom -->

Latest revision as of 00:46, 11 February 2023

The following discussion is an archived debate of the vote. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the vote was support. --TMF 13:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Vote

Remember that the 100 edit rule applies. Also, the no comments with the votes still applies. Any comments left will be forcibly removed by a judging administrator. Please vote using three tildes (~~~), not four.

Um? can we allow comments somewhere else??? I'm certainly interested in them. especially the opposes, I want to hear what they propose instead (that fits within the framework of where we are so far, no repudiating the whole thing, that's just not useful) ++Lar: t/c 20:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Presumably, that would go under "Discussion". However, if you find freakofnurture's inline comments ("Oppose in the name of all that's fucking holy.") to be "interesting"... =) Powers 15:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
... Ya, I saw it... what I am interested in is what alternative is on the table that he supports, which is why I think a comment area somewhere makes sense. That vote, as it stands, counts for zero (or less) in my book, as it's neither useful nor collegial. Hopefully he'll choose to share some positive thinking on what he'd rather see, directly below. ++Lar: t/c 17:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Discussion

Is the implementation perfect? No. But I urge you (as a fellow editor, not as the creator of the poll) to support this for the sake of consensus and to get this issue over with and to move on. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Those footnotes are ugly. Is there really any question over whether someone will be willing/able to make the page moves required? Powers 15:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I like how we went from "move them only if there's consensus at the state level" to "move them, screw the state level". --SPUI (T - C) 18:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I am willing to move the pages. Correction: I will be willing to move the pages when I find the time. Probably won't get to it for a few months. And the admins made that call. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it. We are voting on whether we support the policy above, but it can still be edited? I am not voting on something that may change. What I support now could change and I could oppose it later on. I will refrain from voting until the policy page is finalized and protected to prevent editing during the voting. --Holderca1 16:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Everything that has been decided by Poll 1 and Poll 2 is pretty much set, which is the table of states and their respective methods of titling and referencing...It is going to correspond to whatever was decided before so that's not getting edited. Everything else is just style guidelines that everyone has pretty much agreed upon, or what we've always been doing. The big thing is the article titles, if there's a controversial edit to anything else, I'm sure it'd get reverted and discussed first. However, it might not be a bad idea to stop editing tonight (9/25) at midnight that way everyone can be sure they approve what's been written by the 9/26 23:59 UTC deadline. Stratosphere 23:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I thought about that but I didn't get around to implementing that. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this over with, or are we leaving it open a little longer? Stratosphere 14:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Support
  1. Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)
  2. TMF
  3. Stratosphere
  4. --TinMan (t - c)
  5. Royalbroil
  6. Sonic3KMaster
  7. — Homefryes •Do
  8. --Station Attendant
  9. --• master_son
  10. –Pedriana (talk)
  11. Powers
  12. physicq210
  13. Vegaswikian
  14. xxpor ( Talk | Contribs )
  15. Northenglish (NORTH)
  16. Seicer (talk) (contribs)
  17. Peter O. (Talk)
Oppose
  1. Oppose in the name of all that's fucking holy. —freak(talk) 19:05, Sep. 25, 2006 (UTC)
Result
  1. Endorse "Support" --CBD 17:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Endorse "Support" ... And thanks to those that have participated to this point. ++Lar: t/c 17:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Endorse "Support". —Nightstallion (?) 17:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Endorse "Support" --Syrthiss 19:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Endorse "Support" CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Endorse Ashibaka tock 21:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.