Wiktionary:Votes/2007-06/Wikipedia box template

Wikipedia has an article on:

Approval voting

• Voting on: When and if to use, on dictionary pages, Wikpedia templates that display as a box, such as the one at right, with possible implications on other sister project links. An "inline" alternative to such boxes is illustrated below:
  • Wikipedia has an article on "Approval voting."

• Vote ends: 4 August 2007

  Vote may will not be run to completion. New vote proposed: Wiktionary:Votes/2007-07/Wikipedia box template 2 DAVilla 18:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Vote started: DAVilla 01:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Vote created: DAVilla 11:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Discussion: Wiktionary:Grease pit#Template:projectlinks

  and Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Time to phase out {{wikipedia}} and friends

• Instructions: This vote is structured as an approval vote. Please vote in approval of one or more of the options below. Comments are welcome, but do not cast any negative votes. If you do not approve of any option, or if you object to the vote, you may choose to cast a blank vote by abstaining. At the end of the vote, the option with the most support wins, provided there is consensus.

Wait, I was expecting more discussion on this before going to a vote. No one even replied to my question on the talk page from weeks ago, so I figured we'd have more discussion before this got started. My proposal, which pertains to all interwiki box templates, not just (bafflingly) Wikipedia ones, and which is actually a proposal for what to do instead, not just whether to get rid of them or not, is at Wiktionary:Votes/2007-06/Sister project templates, and had been similarly sitting around waiting to go live. Maybe it's just me preferring my own proposal, but I'd much prefer that form of vote. Dmcdevit·t 08:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I put up this vote because the discussion had stalled. I'm really surprised actually, given all the objections, that no one made any edits to it. It sat for almost a month untouched, and about a week ago I tried to highlight all proposed votes that hadn't been started. I'm sorry that I missed yours, but it seems to be much more specific, pertaining to which templates are actually used. If you're in favor of using boxes at all, you can vote for options 1 or 3. DAVilla 15:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You also didn't consider the separate option I had added to the discussion. --EncycloPetey 19:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I had missed that. If I had realized there was any new discussion, I wouldn't have started this vote. That fact solidifies the question on whether to restart with new options. DAVilla 21:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note that DAVilla had removed portions of my votes without my permission; I have restored my edits to what they were before she tampered with them. --EncycloPetey 19:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Namely the big red images. Nothing had been struck out. And at his request I will leave them. DAVilla 21:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with EncycloPetey, in that no one's votes should be tampered with. Big red visual indicators included. Straw polls/!votes no matter how binding we try to make them, can only be indications of current community opinion (subject to change.) The !votes themselves should still encourage further discussion, especially when someone opposes for reasons you do not grok. FWIW, I understood an "oppose" vote under any given section to mean precisely that: opposition (i.e. -1 for that count.) If you have a different interpretation of what "oppose" means, then #1) you haven't been very clear about it, and #2) you haven't explained why anywhere and #3) you didn't say so, before the vote started. --Connel MacKenzie 05:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

DAVilla's instructions specified that this is an approval vote (with two links to the Wikipedia article on the subject), and for the benefit of those unwilling to click the link, he explained, "Please vote in approval of one or more of the options below. Comments are welcome, but do not cast any negative votes." (More accurate would have been "do not cast any explicit negative votes" — after all, the whole idea of approval voting is that you explicitly vote support for as many options as you like, and implicitly vote opposition to any options you aren't voting support for — but I think his explanation was quite clear, and throwing the word "explicit" in would probably have made it less so.) Now, I don't think that the person starting the vote should necessarily have complete say over the rules of the vote — otherwise they could establish the rules that they think most likely to benefit their preferred options — but approval voting is a reasonable voting technique, especially if our goal is consensus and compromise (since approval voting finds the option that is acceptable to the greatest number of editors), and more importantly, EncycloPetey decided not to challenge the technique, only to flout it. If he wants to put a little "oppose" symbol at options he disagrees with, I don't care (though I think it's a bit obnoxious), but that won't magically change the structure of the vote in a way that makes explicit "oppose" votes worth more than implicit ones. —Ruakh_TALK 15:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

While I hope it is obvious that I did not read those instructions, I do find the entire concept flawed. How can anyone propose that abstention is similar to opposition? That is very far beyond counter-intuitive. Calling such a construction "approval voting" only clouds what people (such as myself) can assume "approval voting" to mean. But all of that aside, the !vote is supposed to encourage further discussion, not dictate weird rules used to automatically discredit genuine concerns. If all "approval voting" does not allow opposition votes, we should not use it here (ever.) Is that really the case? --Connel MacKenzie 00:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If "approval voting" can only be 2, 1, 0 instead of +1, 0, -1, then we should abandon it, using something that I call "Wiktionary-style +1/0/-1 voting" instead. --Connel MacKenzie 01:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you read those instructions yet? Here's an even shorter summary: In approval voting, you vote for what you approve of. If you don't approve of something, you don't vote for it. To make an opposition vote, you don't make an approval vote for it. Why are you so hostile to something you don't understand? Cynewulf 05:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

While I respect both of your concerns that votes should not be tampered with, and while I differ with EncycloPetey on how to one's dispreference in this case should be expressed, the indentation for vote count moreso than the images, what you are proposing is preposterous. A vote of opposition in approval voting is implicit and counts as zero. There are rules to voting, and I could no sooner vote twice on a proposal than what you are suggesting.

However, in light of this opposition and the somewhat unfamiliar nature of approval voting, I am putting together something that allows for what EncycloPetey had desired, that "the distinction between approve, oppose, and abstain...be considerd and maintained" more closely to what most people are familiar with. Since it is my own construction, I would like to give it a non-binding test run and then, if necessary, have it formally approved by a regular vote. DAVilla 16:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This vote was inappropriate for approval voting, as the status quo was not an option. In any case to abstain is never synonymous with opposition. An abstention is a withholding of a vote. For this issue, I have an opinion and want to vote. I do not want to abstain. Yes, there were rules to voting, but they were poorly chosen in this case. This should not have been an approval vote. An approval vote should only be used when all the possible options are available to be voted upon, not when only some possible options are presented. --EncycloPetey 17:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The first option below was meant to be status quo, but it was too general or poorly worded or ambiguous or I can't even say what. I don't know if it's possible to overstate, but with such poorly divided and unclear choices, this vote simply cannot continue.

In the language of voting there is sometimes a poor distinction between abstention and a blank ballot which it would of course make sense to clarify. What I had called "abstain" was actually the vote you were seeking, the collection of the most negative choices available to any voter, which would be to not support any of the options. It is not a true abstention that wouldn't sway the outcome because of the majority proviso. So maybe it was the language of the vote that was poorly chosen. The rules are exactly those of what approval voting really is.

Regardless, I have tried to fix this problem by providing the three options we are all familiar with. In the demonstration vote below, you can truly abstain from the vote by casting "partial support" for each option. It should then be clear that no support for all options is in fact a more negative vote. If you want to evaluate the point values as +1, 0, -1 as Connel has suggested, then the outcome is the same as evaluating them as 2, 1, 0 as I've set it up. The benefit of both the traditional approval vote here and the variation below is that the tally is immediate. By intermixing positive and negative votes as you have insisted, you add a layer of obfuscation. DAVilla 00:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the vote structure chosen is simply not appropriate. Allowing for "opposition" to be properly registered is (evidently) crucial to allowing reasonable discussion. Having "implicit" opposition is simply not appropriate. --Connel MacKenzie 01:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

EncycloPetey, Aren't your first two opposes mutually exclusive, canceling each other out? --Connel MacKenzie 05:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No. I don't want to keep all the boxes and I don't want to utterly eliminate them either. --EncycloPetey 17:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep all relevant Wikipedia boxes.

1. Support - I think we should probably edit the existing box templates to something more like {{pedialite}} and put links in the External links or See also sections Williamsayers79 08:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose EncycloPetey 05:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Keeping all the boxes would be an eyesore.

   How so? I'm sure if you could give an example of where relevant information would be an eyesore, we could come up with a better way. DAVilla 15:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   Having six or seven boxes on a single page, potentially along with images, would be an eyesore. I can't remember offhand which pages I've seen this on, but I've seen cases where all the relevant boxes are there—one for each possible sense of a definition. --EncycloPetey 19:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   I guess I had considered this option to include, by default even, having all links in a single box. But I see now that's not clear, and it really needs to be spelled out in a new vote. DAVilla 20:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Eliminate all Wikipedia boxes. Wikipedia links should be inline.

1. Support Connel MacKenzie 07:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC) I dunno - we've had so many formatting problems and bot foibles with these, they really ought to be listed only in ===External links===, where whatever prose is needed, can be added.

   There's nothing in this proposal that says where the boxes should be. I've been moving both pedialite and disambig down to this section (or ===See also=== negligently). DAVilla 15:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose EncycloPetey 05:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC) The boxes serve a useful visual aid to noticing an article on our sister project.
3. Support This vote is in support trashing the boxes but keeping the links per Connel's comment. Williamsayers79 08:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
4. Support - I like this option, provided we can link both to disambiguation pages for topics with multiple meanings, and to specific articles reflecting specific meanings. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
5. Support —Saltmarsh 04:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
6. I'm not thrilled with this vote, but if it's happening, this is the best option. All boxes, not just Wikipedia ones, should all be gone. I'll repeat my reasoning:

• Box templates:
  • Screw with page formatting (images, section editing, etc.)
  • Look bad with multiple boxes stacked together
  • Have no consistent placement (and cannot because of formatting issues)
  • Are visually distracting/intrusive
• Inline links (see {{projectlinks}}):
  • Now add the new sister project links in the side bar: this means it is still noticeable, but less distracting/intrusive than the box
  • Can easily combine all sister project functions into a single template call with many parameters, without messy stacks of boxes
  • Put all sister project links in one consistent place in every article, === External links ===
  • Are more visually appealing, written into bullet points, and are not affected my many lines of links

It's time to deprecate the box templates. Dmcdevit·t 22:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Wikipedia boxes for disambiguation pages only. Others should be inline.

1. Support DAVilla 01:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC) There can many definitions for a word, and having a box just doesn't make sense with respect to individual definitions. Relevent pages can be structured in a bulleted list. Since the pages on Wikipedia that most resemble the type of content found here are disambiguation pages, it makes sense to allow the boxes in those cases so that they stand out a little more prominantly.
2. Oppose EncycloPetey 05:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC) This would introduce bias that I could not stomach. We would have boxes for America, Napoleon and chair, but not for Venezuela or sailboat.

   The boxes would probably say "dismbiguation page". It's pretty clear what a sailboat and Venezuela are, whereas there are many meanings for the others. The relevant meanings would be listed as pedialinks, per Connel. Excludes mainly those pages with disambiguation (America, Napolean, chair), on some pages (Venezuela, sailboat) there would be one such link . DAVilla 15:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   The point is that some countries would get boxes and others wouldn't. That's not equitable. --EncycloPetey 19:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   Okay, good point. In that case, I'm not sure I support this option all that much. I have spelled out ever option I could think of at Wiktionary:Votes/2007-07/Wikipedia box template 2, and there are several that avoid this problem. I'm not completely certain how to wittle them down though. DAVilla 20:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   Well, I would rather go ahead with Wiktionary:Votes/2007-06/Sister project templates than start another vote with a hundred options. I don't think anyone so far has expressed support for your idea about putting only disambiguation pages in boxes, and yet you managed to add a dozen options treating disambiguation pages as special. Dmcdevit·t 20:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   Barely anyone so far has expressed support for any of the options I've given here, or much conficence in this vote, and that includes myslef. As for your vote, I really think it's too early, and I would advise you against running it. As yet hardly anyone has participated in that converstation, and there are issues e.g. with Wikinews that need to be worked out. As do probably many others, not counting Connel I'd guess, I agree with the principle. The thing is you know that I prefer simpler templates. I wouldn't mind a hybrid of our ideas, but I'd like to determine what the community wants first. Please don't construe any of my votes as being anything other than that. The reason there are a dozen options treating disambiguation pages as special (some of which would exclude them by the way, and note that I have no intention of running that in its current state) is that I have not seen any real opinions on what is the correct way to link topics to Wikipedia. So far the practice has been mainly in cases where adding the link is simple and convenient and in a few cases a demonstrably poor choice. DAVilla 01:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

   My point was not that I'm going to start another vote to rival this one, (because I thought that proposal still needed more discussion, or it would have been proposed already,) but that I would have preferred to see this one have more discussion beforehand. Dmcdevit·t 22:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose Williamsayers79 08:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Abstain per EncycloPetey. I think the best solution would be something like "Include Wikipedia links only at entries for lemmata. Use a box to link to the most broadly applicable Wikipedia article (usually a disambiguation page), but only one box per language section. More specific Wikipedia links should be inline." —Ruakh_TALK 07:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   I didn't do a very good job of saying what should be done when there are multipe relevant pages. I had invisioned just a longer box, and your proposal is a variation on that. I guess it also helps to spell out what "relevant" means.

   By the way... The instructions are very clear. If it were me, I would count EncycloPetey as abstaining, but technically speaking he hasn't casted a vote yet. Not that it matters when I scap it... DAVilla 15:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Withdrawn DAVilla 21:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)