Forum:CT:CON plurality clauses (subvotes)

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:CON plurality clauses (subvotes)
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was support all. OOM 224 (he/him/they) 22:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Following this SH, bringing forward a handful of plurality-vote related subvotes for consideration. There's a plan to follow this up with some of the edge cases as need be; but it's been an issue in recent times quite often in which we really do need these back in policy, so expediting since the SH has been up for awhile.

Summary:

  1. Swapping to infobox image(s) phrasing due to the infobox CT up at the moment, and adding clause for maintenance templates, since we've been doing those anyway thus far.
  2. Originally proposed by AnilSerifoglu, standardizing the format of image votes to what they almost always are now anyway. This would be that the "original" image on the page (for lack of better phrasing) should be one of the options, and everyone is essentially casting a support vote for the one they want, rather than the standard "Support" and "Oppose" sections for each image (hell to calculate).
  3. Making WOTM a majority (or "plurality") vote.
  4. Re-addition of a tweaked version of the original "plurality" clause that had been in Wookieepedia:Consensus until 2023. It takes out the requirement for admins to approve the vote (because that's a bit skewed much) but instead replaces it with a firm requirement that any plurality vote undertaken must itself be subvote of a Consensus vote, and that the CT writer has to clearly inform voters that it is, in fact, a plurality vote, so that a normal vote that falls just short of the ratios can't retroactively declare itself one to try to pass.

As for what plurality votes are generally used for—think the recent disambiguation CT, the current translation CT, or others: primarily: should we do this? Y/N. If Yes, how do we format it? "Should we do this?" wholesale as a proper proposal itself should not be made a majority vote; it should meet the consensus requirements. But as for how to format something once it's decided; allowing a majority can ensure the second vote doesn't deadlock and prevent the implementation of deciding to do something.

The logic here is, essentially, if we split it into enough subvotes, stuff can pass or not, but at least we'll put the issue to bed since it's come up a lot and we've recently been seeing a lot of these "vote on this to accept the results of the below formatting poll" and then another "formatting poll"/vote below, so really just saves a step.—spookywillowwtalk 00:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

1: CON: Image vote phrasing

Current wording:

"Consensus votes to determine an article's main infobox image shall be decided by simple majority vote…"

Proposed wording (changes in bold):

"Consensus votes to determine an article's main infobox image(s) or the images used in widespread maintenance templates shall be decided by simple majority vote…"

And, the subheader on the policy page to be changed from Infobox image consensus votes to Image consensus votes.

Note: tangentially related to Forum:CT:Infobox image galleries, currently up on the CT.—spookywillowwtalk 00:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Support

  1. —spookywillowwtalk 00:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  2. Lewisr (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  3. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 01:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  4. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 02:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  5. Brilliant. Thanks for working on this one! OOM 224 (he/him/they) 07:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  6. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 12:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  7. 01miki10 Open comlink 13:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  8. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 15:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  9. ThrawnChiss7 Mitth symbol Assembly Cupola 19:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  10. Wok142 (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  11. Imperators II(Talk) 23:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  12. CometSmudge (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  13. Zed42 Wolfpack emblem (talk) 10:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

2: Original option clause

Originally proposed by AnilSerifoglu. To add to the "Infobox image consensus votes" subsection of WP:CON (exact titling of section subject to vote 1): Original wording:

"In the case of a tied vote, the article should display the image revision in place prior to the disagreement that commenced the vote."

Proposed wording (changes bolded):

In the case of a tied vote, the article should display the image revision in place prior to the disagreement that commenced the vote. Image consensus votes should always include the aforementioned revision as one of the proposed files as an option. Additionally, these votes should not utilize "Oppose" sections; instead, the proposed image(s) with the votes supporting it will be placed on the page(s) and/or template(s).

Support

  1. —spookywillowwtalk 00:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  2. Lewisr (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  3. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 02:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  4. OOM 224 (he/him/they) 07:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  5. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 12:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  6. 01miki10 Open comlink 13:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  7. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 15:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  8. ThrawnChiss7 Mitth symbol Assembly Cupola 19:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  9. Wok142 (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  10. CometSmudge (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  11. Zed42 Wolfpack emblem (talk) 10:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

3: WOTM

This subvote is regarding whether to make Wookieepedia:Wookieepedian of the Month a plurality, or "majority" vote. As of now, if one candidate has 7 votes, and another has 8, neither win. I kinda think this defeats the purpose and ruins the fun, if it ever did happen.

The relevant changes would be:

  1. Removing Wookieepedian of the Month from the bulleted list in WP:CON and WP:VEP reading "The following voting measures are subject to Wookieepedia consensus rules:". On WP:VEP, this would result in it being moved to the Non-consensus votes section, which makes it means, like the others there, it would be "governed by their respective voting procedures."
  2. Then, WP:WOTM would receive a new rules bullet point (becoming the new third rule, bumping down the last part about when it closes to #4) reading, "The winner of Wookieepedian of the Month shall be decided by simple majority vote, or plurality vote. The vote is still subject to a 10 voter minimum."

Support

  1. —spookywillowwtalk 00:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  2. Lewisr (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  3. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 02:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  4. OOM 224 (he/him/they) 07:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  5. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 12:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  6. Imperators II(Talk) 13:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  7. 01miki10 Open comlink 13:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  8. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 15:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  9. ThrawnChiss7 Mitth symbol Assembly Cupola 19:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  10. Wok142 (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  11. CometSmudge (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  12. Zed42 Wolfpack emblem (talk) 10:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

4: General clause

This is to add a "Plurality votes" subsection to WP:CON, primarily adding an amended version of the previous policy text, reading:

"In certain instances, a simple majority vote, or plurality vote, may be held in conjunction with another Consensus vote. This is typically done when a given issue has already reached consensus but still requires further procedural clarification for minor issues such as formatting or titling. These votes are required to state that the result of the plurality vote will only be valid if the main vote it is tied to also reaches consensus. It must also make clear to voters that the vote in question is a "plurality vote" either by linking to the Consensus policy and stating it will be decided by a "plurality vote," or otherwise explaining that its result will be decided by a simple majority. These votes are still subject to the consensus policy's ten-voter minimum."

Support

  1. —spookywillowwtalk 00:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  2. Lewisr (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  3. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 02:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  4. OOM 224 (he/him/they) 07:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  5. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 12:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  6. Imperators II(Talk) 13:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  7. 01miki10 Open comlink 13:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  8. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 15:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  9. ThrawnChiss7 Mitth symbol Assembly Cupola 19:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  10. Wok142 (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  11. CometSmudge (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  12. Zed42 Wolfpack emblem (talk) 10:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

  • Can I recommend a wording change in vote 2 (it's currently written in a way that's a bit confusing to me)? Instead of:
"instead, the proposed image(s) with the votes supporting it will be placed on the page(s) and/or template(s)"
I'd recommend:
"instead, which of the proposed images will be placed on the relevant page(s) and/or template(s) is determined solely by which of them receive the most support votes" Imperators II(Talk) 13:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Is the descriptor "widespread" intentionally used in vote 1's proposed wording? Seems a bit strange to me to purposefully introduce into policy wording that can potentially lead to situations of arbitrary judgment. Imperators II(Talk) 13:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Yes, but mainly because existing policy already uses similar "heavily used templates" WP:PROTECT/"widespread image/template" (protection reasons MediaWiki dropdown) so the concept is more or less already there and stays consistent.—spookywillowwtalk 14:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)