Forum:Suggestion: Discontinue the Voting template

To me, the voting template is something that is overused and ill-suited to the daily operation of the wiki, yet it is something that we like to put up in everything that resembles a vote. Currently, we're using the template for RfAs, AfDs, UotMs, War Room proposals, policy drafts and more. I believe that the Voting template is unnecessary for the following reasons:
 * Decisions, for the most part, are made based on the content of discussions rather than the number of votes.
 * Many users fail to add their vote to the template tally, resulting in other editors having to fix the numbers and do recounts.
 * The current number of votes doesn't really matter; all that counts is the final result of the discussion, so having a tally that is updated with every comment is meaningless.
 * It leads users to become over-reliant on using raw numbers to argue in favour or against proposals and nominations.
 * Votes rarely go over 15, and I'm very certain that most of us can visually count that number without the need of a misleading template.

Essentially, the only people who would need to tally the votes are the admins who close the discussions and processes, and even they would probably only be looking at the content of the debate rather than the number of people for or against. --Scottie theNerd 10:22, May 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. Do you have any ideas for a replacement system? -- Emblem-burgertown.jpg EightOhEight Talk 20:11, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Very true, if you can think up, or start a replacement, I'm all for it. Doltensig.jpeg 21:42, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, my suggestion for a replacement is simple: don't use one. The procedures in which we use the Voting template generally operate better without it. Admins already make the judgement calls with consideration to the discussion, thus fulfilling the objectives of the processes outlined above. All we have to do is to not put the template on voting pages and everything works more efficiently. The only time I envision we would need the template would be for straw polls. --Scottie theNerd 06:38, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Bumping this thread in light of RfAs reopening and more voting templates being forgotten and cluttering up the page. --Scottie theNerd 16:06, June 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * This has my support. TimSim (talk) 16:08, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it has mine too. 16:09, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * As it does mine. The voting template, however useful it may seem, is such a pain to edit. Going in to source mode every time I support, oppose, or am neutral on an issue, just to fix a vote count, is not necessary.   404 Error   File Not Found  Please Try Again 16:11, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Bumping this thread again. I'm still seeing frequent corrections to vote counts, and I stand by my contention that having a voting template adds an unnecessary 2-step process to a vote and requires other editors to periodically do recounts and fix vote counts for a tally of no actual purpose. --Scottie theNerd 16:43, July 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * I fully agree. There really is no point to the voting template, especially since you can't pass or fail a vote just because of vote count but of vote quality. And there is a big issue with adding your vote to the vote template, I for one am pretty forgetful when it comes to doing that and I often forget to add my vote. You have my full support for this.

For a replacement, I was thinking of the kind of poll systems forums use, which allow users to submit their votes by selecting a choice and then submitting. An advantage to these systems is that they allow more choices than the voting template. However, users who vote on this poll may forget to state their reasons below. LITE992 19:31, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

You've got my support. -- 19:36, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

A visual system is a favorite among other wikis, which is generally transcluded in separate templates (support, neutral and oppose). In this system, it is more clear who thinks what without a template that is often inaccurate, which certainly helps an administrator determine the consensus. 20:56, July 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm liking the sound of that idea, Bovell. That would be much more easier.


 * So it would look like this:


 * [[File:Support.png]] -


 * [[File:Neutral.png]] -


 * [[File:Oppose.png]] -


 * Or more along the lines of:


 * [[File:Support.png]] Support:


 * [[File:Neutral.png]] Neutral:


 * [[File:Oppose.png]] Oppose:


 * ? 22:12, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Second part fixed. Depending on how the template is set up, either option can be used. It's more of a matter of community opinion of which one is more effective. 23:48, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Another method (used by Wikipedia for the most part) is to have separate headings for Support, Oppose and Neutral votes. Users simply have to post a bullet-point in the respective heading followed by their comment. This makes it far easier for others to see views for and against a motion instead of having to read the whole discussion each time to gather main points. --Scottie theNerd 11:23, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of the little templates. It would make it easier. I don't support separate headings for different vote types though. I feel that's just unneeded.
 * For reference, look at this RfA from PvXwiki. It's a one-step process that is automatically numbered for reference. No fiddling about with a separate voting template. --Scottie theNerd 07:13, July 10, 2010 (UTC) 04:44, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * I also really like the idea of a visual system. While I don't really see the need for the original template to be discontinued, as you can fix up vote counts, etc, I really like that idea.  Commander W567123daniel Wanna Talk? 08:00, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that we have to continually fix up vote counts is the reason why I want to discontinue its use. Compare it with numbered points, which automatically number the votes. --Scottie theNerd 08:15, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * The visual format is much more pleasing to the eyes and it will get rid of any intermediate votes (i.e. strong oppose, weak oppose) which are unecessary and irrelevant. Either support, oppose, or be neutral. Three templates three different votes= simple. None of this "Godly support" "Extremely strong Oppose" B.S. 20PX_SIG.gif  Talk 08:26, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

While I don't mind the visual icons, it's not much of a difference to our current system. It's just a different way of presenting votes and, as WHISKEY35 stated, removes the ambiguous votes in favour of clear support, neutral and oppose votes. We still have the problem of keeping count of votes and sorting them, as full 30+ user vote/discussion can be very difficult to keep track of once it's in progress. I really can't see why it's "unneeded" to have separate headers for each vote considering it makes organisation so much simpler and negates the need to manually record votes. Anyone who reads the discussion can quickly ascertain the points made by either side. For a small-scale vote, such as an AfD, a simple list works well enough (and the visual icons can stand out); but for a larger, complex discussion (such as policy changes and RfAs), headers is a must. --Scottie theNerd 08:44, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition, Halopedia uses all three methods to create a straightforward voting process (the icons, the headings, and the numbering of votes). 14:22, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that we should collaborate both of your ideas, the headings and the icons. The icons would make things easier to determine who voted what if you are just quickly skimming through an RFA, while the headings provide an easier way to tally up the votes while reading through the RFAs reguarly. If we collaborate the two I think we would have an efficient voting method. 14:43, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bovell and CodExpert. The visual system could be something that could really suceed. 09:26, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

Per Scottie. The headings for voting organizes the page a lot better. LITE992 12:50, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

An example of combining the visual icons, the headings, and the numbering, can be found on my sandbox page. 16:06, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

After looking over Bovell's sandbox, I like the way with the images, numbers, and headings. 16:08, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

Bovell's mockup vote is very easy to read and understand. I'm in support of the change. 16:21, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

I am also in support of Bovell's model. --Scottie theNerd 17:27, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

Shall we hold a vote on wether to keep the voting template or change it? LITE992 03:02, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, lets vote. Rambo362 03:08, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Vote - Discontinue the Voting template
The following vote regards the decision to discontinue the current voting template in favour of a replacement. LITE992 03:29, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Support - As nominator. LITE992 03:27, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I think we should use Bovell's way.

Oppose - I see no problems with the old template. Shotrocket6 03:51, July 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * I had to add your vote to the template, so there's a problem I'd like to see solved. LITE992 03:55, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Support-Bovell's way looks cleaner. Rampantlion513  04:01, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Support - --Scottie theNerd 06:14, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Support - The irony being that this very voting template has had to be fixed twice already. 10:45, July 11, 2010 (UTC)