This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Proposal template. |
|
Relevant discussion at | → Template talk:Proposed/2005 |
The new simple {{
Qif}}
code is fine, but I still think that the shortcut should be smaller, more like it was yesterday. Unfortunately
Template:Shortcut(
talk
links
history) is protected, and just adding <small> has no effect. --
Omniplex 23:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
The current wording "This page is a proposed..." doesn't make much sense when the template is transcluded into another page, such as a user page. I suggest changing it to "The following is a proposed...". — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Since nobody has objected I went ahead and made the change. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
This template is for a proposed policy and such. It automatically puts them into Category:Wikipedia proposals. Articles and templates don't need to be proposed. Just do it. Rfrisbie talk 18:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Radiant!, John254 and David Levy: please stop fighting over whether there should be a link to WP:VIE or not and discuss it here like adults. Incidentally, I agree with John254's take on the issue. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
While I disagree with most of WP:VIE, this observation appears to be quite accurate. John254 22:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)when you distill an essay's worth of thought into a single phrase, an oversimplified, divisive statement inevitably results
Seeing as there has been an edit war, I wish to help in reaching an agreement. To see where the people involved stand, I wish to conduct an ironic straw poll. This is more to summarize the opinions and to have discussion from there than it is to come to a binding conclusion.
The issue is not about how polls or majority equate to consensus. The issue is that people frequently think that a proposal cannot be adopted without being voted upon. That is incorrect, per WP:POL, and to educate people it would be useful to have a statement on that. ( Radiant) 09:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe that the optimal solution is to drop the final sentence entirely, and instead make use of our lovely redundancy avoider the wikilink. By linking the word "proposed" in the first sentence to Wikipedia:How to create policy, we would not only get across the point the policy discussions are not elections (especially since WP:HCP already states in large bold letters that they are not decided on by majority votes) but also link the users to a variety of other helpful information. It would also have the benefit of decluttering the template. If I may extend a principle here, I would hold that feature creeping the policy templates (specifically, turning them into WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY reduxes) is a bad thing for the same reasons instruction creeping the policy pages themselves is. -- tjstrf talk 11:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
This statement, while technically true, is implicitly disparaging towards the enactment of proposals through supermajority voting since many users will conflate majority voting and supermajority voting, unless we specifically state that "Proposals on Wikipedia are not enacted through a simple majority vote." Such a statement, however, would likely prove controversial in its own right, since it would implicitly endorse supermajority voting. Simply put, this template is not the proper forum for disputes as to the extent to which voting is, can, and should be employed on Wikipedia. Consequently, this template should neither endorse nor condemn voting in any way. Furthermore, a prominent announcement that "Proposals on Wikipedia are not enacted through a majority vote" in this template gives undue weight to this particular aspect of consensus, since other aspects of consensus are not similarly described in this template itself. As attempting to summarize Wikipedia:Consensus in the language of this template would make it unacceptably large, a link to Wikipedia:Consensus should suffice to inform new users of the nature of consensus on Wikipedia. John254 19:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Why does this template need a detailed description of one particular aspect of the policy making process? If we attempted to accurately describe when voting on proposals should, and should not be employed, the template would become unacceptably large. Consequently, the template should merely state that a page is a proposal, allowing a complete description of the process for the enactment of a proposal in policies and guidelines. John254 21:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Can we change to icon to something other than a question mark? kilbad ( talk) 15:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Surachai saiwong — Preceding unsigned comment added by สุรชัย สายวงษิ์ ( talk • contribs) 16:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
edit semi/protected|Template:Proposal.doc|answered:no subst.trim:1 State U .your suggested changes below this line.preferably in a change X to Y format. Other editors need to know what to add or remove. Blank edit requests will be declined.
Write your request this line and do not remove the tildes and curly brackets below. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
5.119.114.95 (
talk) 08:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Proposal template. |
|
Relevant discussion at | → Template talk:Proposed/2005 |
The new simple {{
Qif}}
code is fine, but I still think that the shortcut should be smaller, more like it was yesterday. Unfortunately
Template:Shortcut(
talk
links
history) is protected, and just adding <small> has no effect. --
Omniplex 23:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
The current wording "This page is a proposed..." doesn't make much sense when the template is transcluded into another page, such as a user page. I suggest changing it to "The following is a proposed...". — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Since nobody has objected I went ahead and made the change. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
This template is for a proposed policy and such. It automatically puts them into Category:Wikipedia proposals. Articles and templates don't need to be proposed. Just do it. Rfrisbie talk 18:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Radiant!, John254 and David Levy: please stop fighting over whether there should be a link to WP:VIE or not and discuss it here like adults. Incidentally, I agree with John254's take on the issue. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
While I disagree with most of WP:VIE, this observation appears to be quite accurate. John254 22:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)when you distill an essay's worth of thought into a single phrase, an oversimplified, divisive statement inevitably results
Seeing as there has been an edit war, I wish to help in reaching an agreement. To see where the people involved stand, I wish to conduct an ironic straw poll. This is more to summarize the opinions and to have discussion from there than it is to come to a binding conclusion.
The issue is not about how polls or majority equate to consensus. The issue is that people frequently think that a proposal cannot be adopted without being voted upon. That is incorrect, per WP:POL, and to educate people it would be useful to have a statement on that. ( Radiant) 09:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe that the optimal solution is to drop the final sentence entirely, and instead make use of our lovely redundancy avoider the wikilink. By linking the word "proposed" in the first sentence to Wikipedia:How to create policy, we would not only get across the point the policy discussions are not elections (especially since WP:HCP already states in large bold letters that they are not decided on by majority votes) but also link the users to a variety of other helpful information. It would also have the benefit of decluttering the template. If I may extend a principle here, I would hold that feature creeping the policy templates (specifically, turning them into WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY reduxes) is a bad thing for the same reasons instruction creeping the policy pages themselves is. -- tjstrf talk 11:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
This statement, while technically true, is implicitly disparaging towards the enactment of proposals through supermajority voting since many users will conflate majority voting and supermajority voting, unless we specifically state that "Proposals on Wikipedia are not enacted through a simple majority vote." Such a statement, however, would likely prove controversial in its own right, since it would implicitly endorse supermajority voting. Simply put, this template is not the proper forum for disputes as to the extent to which voting is, can, and should be employed on Wikipedia. Consequently, this template should neither endorse nor condemn voting in any way. Furthermore, a prominent announcement that "Proposals on Wikipedia are not enacted through a majority vote" in this template gives undue weight to this particular aspect of consensus, since other aspects of consensus are not similarly described in this template itself. As attempting to summarize Wikipedia:Consensus in the language of this template would make it unacceptably large, a link to Wikipedia:Consensus should suffice to inform new users of the nature of consensus on Wikipedia. John254 19:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Why does this template need a detailed description of one particular aspect of the policy making process? If we attempted to accurately describe when voting on proposals should, and should not be employed, the template would become unacceptably large. Consequently, the template should merely state that a page is a proposal, allowing a complete description of the process for the enactment of a proposal in policies and guidelines. John254 21:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Can we change to icon to something other than a question mark? kilbad ( talk) 15:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Surachai saiwong — Preceding unsigned comment added by สุรชัย สายวงษิ์ ( talk • contribs) 16:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
edit semi/protected|Template:Proposal.doc|answered:no subst.trim:1 State U .your suggested changes below this line.preferably in a change X to Y format. Other editors need to know what to add or remove. Blank edit requests will be declined.
Write your request this line and do not remove the tildes and curly brackets below. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
5.119.114.95 (
talk) 08:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)