The result of the debate was Support proposal.
AnilSerifoglu (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Hello,
This is for two things in one go, both of which are somewhat entwined.
Currently, WP:CON covers our stance on image policy consensus votes, defined by simple majority. However, it has no clarifying guideline for what admins should do when closing a forum that ends in an exact tie. As such, bolded changes proposed:
- "Consensus votes to determine an article's main infobox image shall be decided by simple majority vote, or plurality vote. As defined above, these votes are still subject to the ten-voter minimum requirement in order to achieve consensus. In the case of a tied vote, the article should display the image revision in place prior to the disagreement that commenced the vote."
The reason this exact wording is used, and not simply "the image present prior to the vote" is in the spirit of the Senate Hall's discussion of this; someone may change the image, and then it'll be challenged on CT after that. But, the general thought was to revert to whatever the "default" was, which is going to be the one that was there previously. This also follows the general principle on Wook of that if something ends in no-consensus, it'll always default to whatever the status-quo was; the only reason this is needed is because these are majority votes win, which means that ties aren't covered like they are for other votes, which do not have this problem.
Additionally, I'd like to propose having {{Iv}} be a thing, draft here. This works exactly as {{Tc}} does; details of that are something we can tweak after in a separate CT if people'd like to propose an image or anything else. It's important to get this functional first and foremost though, so went with the default formatting. I will add that an AbuseFilter that shows the "Tag: added TC" thing for the Trash compactor threads can also be made by admins afterward, in line with these tagging templates being the same.—spookywillowwtalk 21:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Support
- —spookywillowwtalk 21:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- My photoreceptors approve! OOM 224 (he/him) 21:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- 01miki10 Open comlink 21:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ayrehead02 (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Rsand 30 (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Fan26 (Talk) 21:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 22:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
AnilSerifoglu (talk) 00:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)- Bonzane10
(holonet) 02:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC) - Zed42
(talk) 05:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC) - Sanathestarr (talk) 06:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- NanoLuukeCloning Facility 11:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Supreme Emperor Holocomm 14:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Master Fredcerique(talk) (he/him) 15:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 16:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Wok142 (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- This and the template - JMAS Hey, it's me! 23:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
- Can the proposed wording be modified to reflect that a disagreement need not be present for an Image vote to take place? More often than not it's just an editor presenting the community with several potential options with no one yet disagreeing with them. Imperators II(Talk) 21:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, I'm not opposed, but this tweak moreso concerns the latter outcome portion of that paragraph. It doesn't really say in the first couple of sentences that a disagreement is required; and it could, but that'd be a tweak for that part rather than a tweak to the proposed addition.—spookywillowwtalk 21:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Simply changing the phrasing to "In the case of a tied vote, the article should display the image revision in place prior to the vote, or prior to the disagreement that commenced the vote if there was one" should do the trick, in my opinion. Imperators II(Talk) 21:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm admittedly kinda mentally grappling with that wording because if something isn't deemed a "disagreement" or not it makes it so admins can unilaterally make that call by adding the opt-out of defaulting to the image there prior to the vote fullstop. If the image voting section overall (in a part separate from this additional sentence being added) have a different clarification added, that could make sense, which could be addressed in its own CT because it affects a different part of the paragraph, but the general vibe on the SH was to avoid the "image present before the vote" wording to take it out of our hands entirely.—spookywillowwtalk 22:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Simply changing the phrasing to "In the case of a tied vote, the article should display the image revision in place prior to the vote, or prior to the disagreement that commenced the vote if there was one" should do the trick, in my opinion. Imperators II(Talk) 21:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, I'm not opposed, but this tweak moreso concerns the latter outcome portion of that paragraph. It doesn't really say in the first couple of sentences that a disagreement is required; and it could, but that'd be a tweak for that part rather than a tweak to the proposed addition.—spookywillowwtalk 21:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Can we please make those template names be in all-capitals?Imperators II(Talk) 21:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)- I'm not opposed personally, but that's somewhat of a wider naming wormhole that affects a much wider scope I guess? Because there's a lot of smaller things sitewide like that and it's not so much an image policy specific thing.—spookywillowwtalk 21:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)