Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed Proposal/Straw Poll

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Straw poll

[edit]


It's not in fact necessary to vote on this (nor does it help). Instead, someone should speak to the Developers on this (via WP:BUG, their mailing list, or their IRC channel) to get them to change the limit. The key to convincing the Devs is a good argument (as given on this page, methinks), not a popularity vote. >Radiant< 09:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe this is a vote. I have removed the template. Navou banter 12:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously it is a WP:POLL, so what is your point? Like I said this won't serve any purpose, and as has been pointed out in the previous paragraph it is already based on misinformation. >Radiant< 13:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I won't remove the template again, however, I strongly encourage you to do so. There is no harm in guageing consensus. The developers don't make the decision to change limits, the community does. I believe your argument is flawed in this sense. Navou banter 13:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the developers make that decision. There are several reasons why this poll won't help, the Bicycle Shed Effect being one of them, Wikipedia not being a democracy for another. Besides, we already have an extensive consensus gauged by the discussion here. Since we had no problems gauging consensus earlier, what purpose is served by counting votes? >Radiant< 13:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a large difference between voting and polling. This proposal will not be determined by this poll, and I don't think (assumption on my part) anyone expects that it will, however, it is a very useful tool to gauge the condition of the ongoing discussion. From your edits, I think there is a misunderstanding of consensus, discussion, polling, and voting. I could be wrong about your edits here also, I don't like to assume. Regards, Navou banter 13:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An even better tool of gauging the condition of the ongoing discussion is reading through that discussion, rather than asking people to pigeonhole or rubberstamp it. >Radiant< 13:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Radiant! here. This is not the way to handle it. Ral315 » 03:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]