Please join the debate at Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Community discussion

I object to putting all of the "keep the merger" options first. Since the entire point of this poll is that the merger has been challenged by WikiMedia personnel, I think the order should be reversed. Instead of the struck-out idea they should be sorted by relevance. Current alleged status quo first, and the immediately preceding status second. WPians are smart enough that they don't need all of the merge options bunched together and all of the don't-merge options together before or after the merge options. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Updated 22:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And put the "I dunno" options at the end. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: "compromise reached by Jimbo and SlimVirgin" — Since when does one random admin have more authority, weight or importance than everyone else? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggest replacing "SlimVirgin" with "merger proponents". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

She doesn't carry more weight than anyone else. She just happened to be the person who Jimbo tried to work out a temporary solution with. Maybe I'd be listed there if I had managed to work out a temporary solution first. (Instead, I took to badgering him about various things, including the creation of this poll. ;D) Picaroon 00:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe true but does not resolve the objection. The level of control that that editor in particular has been trying to assert over the text is disturbing enough without the poll implying that that this is some kind of vote to go with Jimbo's ideas vs. SV's. The discussion is quite broader than that. I haven't yet made the suggested edit myself because I thought it deserved some further discussion, but I'm not very far off from making it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What can I say? SlimVirgin was a proponent of the merger and has been involved for some time now. However, I don't suspect anyone will mind if you remove the mention of her. Picaroon 00:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. I think it just puts the wrong spin on things, and could lead to WP:OWN bickering later on. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that SV has reverted this change to keep her/his/its name in position as it was. I don't think I need to comment further. I'm going to re-revert it because the user in question has a long history of not explaining edits and reverts and failing to address questions about edits/reverts, whether they appear in edit summaries, article talk pages, or user's own talk page. Come out, come out, where ever you are. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, please don't use this as an opportunity to cause trouble. There is simply no trouble to cause. Jimbo and I came up with a compromise position, which actually works pretty well, because there was never any intention to deprecate V and NOR; I was heavily involved in writing and maintaining those pages so I'd be one of the last people to want to see them forgotten. Please try to move forward in a constructive way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I've written I think 5 responses to this in various tones, and just can't seem to get it where it will sound right. I'll just have to summarize. And I won't even wikilink to any guideline and policy pages. Just because you don't agree with my stance on the issue and aren't happy that I'm criticising what I see as patterns of behavior on your part does not mean that I am here to "cause trouble" or am in fact "causing trouble", nor that I am being anti-constructive, or deconstructive, or unconstructive, or destructive, or whatever you envisioned the opposite of "constructive" to be in the context in which you used that word. I didn't come here to fight with you. I did happen to notice very rapidly when I did come here that you are personally exerting an enormous amount of influence over this alleged policy and its better-accepted predecessors, and I object to that level of influence. If you'd care to address that, I'd be happy to continue the conversation. If you just care to charaterize me as a "trouble"-"causing" non-"constructive" pee-on, then we should probably take that to user pages to the extent it should be discussed further at all. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, just to be really clear on this, I'm not alleging bad faith on anyone's part. I just think there's a lack of balance. That a level of deference is being granted to people who have "worked for five months" on this merge, and that incoming opinions on the matter are being devalued. Please do note that I am not bringing up WP:OWN. While I said a while back that I could detect a whiff of it in the air, that's as far as I've ever gone with that line of reasoning. I think that WP:OWN accusations as such are accusations of bad faith. Having been subject to a BF accusation just now myself, I wouldn't wish that on anyone. I'm not sure how to get this across in a nice, fuzzy-bunny way, is all. Some of us are not happy at all about WP:ATT's coming into being, others are not happy about its present wording, either because it does not accurately reflect the origin policies, or changes them too much in this way or that, and others are not happy about the fact that they're merged at all (process questions be damned). There are numerous viewpoints on this, probably 9 at least, just from the basic math and without accouting for minor variations. I don't think it is unnreasonable for some to have issues with the process and asking hard questions of those in effective control of the process. I think (to really to get to the point) that all parties involved are entitled to edit summaries that adequately explain their rationales, or which direct parties to an actually extant talk-page rationale that adequately addresses the issue. That largely has not been happening around here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, this tone is completely unacceptable. Slim has worked very hard on this policy, and worked out the compromise with Jimbo. I don't understand why you want to remove her name, but I oppose your doing so strongly. You must be aware that it will upset her, and I just don't understand why it's so important to you to do that. I know that policy discussions can get heated, and the policies concerned here have from time to time resembled battlefields, but it's not necessary. Deep breath, calm yourself, move on in a constructive fashion. Grace Note 08:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the note below, I see in retrospect how the "come out where ever you are" commentary may have sounded nasty. It was really meant to be silly, but, alas, what seems funny/goofy/harmless when written can seem otherwise when read by third parties. D'oh. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you. I'm transgressing AGF because I (and I'm not alone in this) am raising issues about over-control and lack of trasparency in this policy merge, meanwhile I get blatantly attacked as a "trouble maker" and un/not/anti-/something/de-"constructive"? I'm not implying any bad faith of SV's part. I objected (something like 2/3 of a day ago) against making the upcoming straw poll be about "SlimVirgin vs. Jimbo"; that's all. I got reverted in a manner that (habitually, in my view, though that is not the topic here) provided no justification for the revert, so I undid it, and explained the rationale for doing so. The AGF accusation here seems unwarranted and defensive. Not to mention completely missed the point. Instead of actually getting an explanation this time, I instead get told I'm an AGF transgressor. Am I expected to suddenly stop questioning anything or having an opinion at all from now on? Why is SV's cow so sacred? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what you mean at all. There is no Jimbo v. SlimVirgin. Quite the opposite: we came up with the most recent position together. But it's really best to forget the personalities and focus on the issues, and I'll hope you'll do that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Gahhh... That was the entire point of my edit. Remove the personalities and just make it be about the issues. Before I got jumped on, my next edit was going to be removal of Jimbo's name. (See the edit summary of that page today if you don't believe me. EVERYthing I've done with that page has been stepwise and in series. I just happened to have to go to a pool league match tonight, so I didn't get home until several hours later, only to find I'm being accused of AGF and maybe NPA violations. Great. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: Just to be clear, if I get re-reverted on this, I won' t fight it. I'm just aiming for neutralty and balance here (see my edits to the poll page today). If no one but me sees a neutrality and balance problem with the wording I'm grumbling about then I am probably mis-grumbling, and will shut up about it. I'm tenacious, but I'm not stupid. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

PPS: I went to do a self-revert on this with edit-summary of "Self-revert; while I don't agree with prefered text, majority if not full consensus seems to be for it", but got edit-conflicted as someone beat me to it. Anyway, "just for the record", I'm trying to play nicer here than I think I'm being credited for. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you've handled yourself fine here. You've gone to great lengths to explain yourself in a reasonable and convincing manner, and that is good in my book. Don't agonise too much over this. Flare-ups happen. Carcharoth 14:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I've slept on it and decided it's a tempest in a teacup. I was being a bit more sensitive than usual after some disputation, on the same day, over at WP:MOSNUM. Today is a new day, and I feel better already! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. How many options are there to vote on? It's difficult to tell at the moment. And when voting and discussion opens, can we support more than one option? Carcharoth 23:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there are too many options. I say we should remove the various "I don't know/neutral" options seeing as they don't really serve to identify any trends or ideas among respondents. I'll trim them now. Picaroon 00:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur. We could also simply remove the stuff about WP:RS and save that for another discussion/poll. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Definitely too confusing. My proposed scheme would be a much simpler wording:

Option 1

Wikipedia:Attribution is the only policy, Wikipedia:Verification and Wikipedia:No original research are redirected to sections of it that discuss the concerns formerly considered by those pages

Option 2

Wikipedia:Attribution is the primary policy, with Wikipedia:Verification and Wikipedia:No original research as subsidiary policies that provide simplified explanations of the concepts involved, and refer readers to Wikipedia:Attribution for further information. This is the current status quo.

Option 3

Wikipedia:Attribution is marked as historical, Wikipedia:Verification and Wikipedia:No original research are restored to full policy status

The current scheme, with sections and subsections is way too hard to follow. I don't think the option of keeping WP:ATT but leaving WP:V and WP:NOR as the primary policies stands a chance of success, it being an extremely unwieldly option. Better just to mark ATT as historical and be done with. If absolutely necessary, it could be done as a sub-option of option 3 in my list, as it is a close variant, but I think it's better to avoid those nested choices. JulesH 08:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I removed a bunch of subtle (and surely unintentional) bias from the voting categories. I won't be watching this every minute of every day, so others please be alert for any additional skewing. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to chill out a bit and remind yourself that everyone involved is trying to do their best for Wikipedia, even if they seem misguided to you. Grace Note 08:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to note that that wasn't a very graceful comment. ;-) I went out of my way to specifically imply that the bias was not intentional. I think we may be having a simple culture clash. There is nothing malevolent at all about pointing out bias in a survey; it's just part of making the survey more sound (in social science terms; in hard science terms they are all meaningless nonsense of course). Anyway, while I do have my irritable disagreements to air, this isn't one of them. Please do not overgeralize discomfiture with one or two or seventeen things I've said to blanket opposition to everthing I say. PS: I don't think anyone here is misguided. The full extent of my complaint is over-control by a limited number of parties, which is self-resolveable with more WPian involvement. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

See #Yes vs. No below. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

We have three fundamental, distinct, but related doctrines, or content policies: verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view. The question is, do we need three pages (one for each doctrine), two (one page might cover two of them), one (consolidate the lot on one page called "fundamental content policies") or four (one for each plus a summary of the lot and explanation of how they interrelate, called "summary of fundamental content policies"). There is no doctrine of "attribution". Attributing is a practice that is often (but not always) helpful for avoiding breaches of the three doctrines. The options should reflect the possibilities of how many pages we might need. Metamagician3000 08:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your summary. We have two "doctrines," attribution and NPOV. If one violates attribution, this may be either because the work is original research or it may simply have the undesirable consequence that it becomes unverifiable (i.e., impossible to distinguish from original research). JulesH 08:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This implies that "no original research" and "verifiability" are the same thing, but they are not and never were. Even the existing attribution change does not claim they are (or I hope it doesn't - it talks about various key principles). This is the kind of confusion that happens when you try to merge what are really distinct ideas into one policy page. Metamagician3000 09:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not an implication at all. There is a requirement that content in wikipedia be based on the content of reliable sources; if you ignore this requirement by making up information then it's original research, if you ignore it by failing to list the sources you're using then it's a verifiability problem. They're two different possible outcomes of failing to follow the same general rule. JulesH 21:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Attribution is not a "doctrine", "policy" or anything else. It is an idea (heading towards "if it is not attributed then delete it") which a small group of editors have developed and are trying to make policy but for good reasons have not achieved anything approaching consensus. --Henrygb 11:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a policy; it says so at the top of the page, and almost everyone -- including Jimbo, despite the fact he doesn't like how the policy was implemented -- seem to agree that it is now policy. JulesH 21:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Like the rest of Wikipedia, just because it says so doesn't make it accurate; it is not a policy because there was never a consensus and that is why we are having a debate about its status. --Henrygb 18:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Actually we have several other "doctrines", including the WP:GFDL, our policy against using copyrighted material, our habit of being ethical to living people, and ideas such as that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. >Radiant< 11:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, AGF as well. I wouldn't want to downplay fundamental ideas about user interaction or intellectual property, or anything else. But the three fundamental content doctrines are interrelated (yet doing distinct jobs) and very important. I guess BLP can now be thought of as the fourth, but it has application only to some articles. Metamagician3000 13:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • There's no such thing as "three fundamental content doctrines". There's a bunch of policies, and a bunch of founding principles, several of either relating to content. There are no "layers" of importance among different policies. >Radiant< 13:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Is WP:TRIFECTA still around? That might be the reasoning for some people thinking of three core polices. I know that is where I got the idea from. As for founding principles. Do we have Wikipedia:Founding principles, or is that a meta page? Actually, looking at those pages, I see that the trifecta is something different again. I might have been thinking of Wikipedia:Five pillars. The trio mentioned here are at the top of Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset, while {{Wikipedia principles}} also includes links to meta:Foundation issues and Wikipedia:List of policies. Carcharoth 14:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, in looking at the various pages Carcharoth links... I note that neither ATT, V, nor NOR has been listed at Wikipedia:List of policies. No wonder people don't understand them. We really do need to advertise this policy/these policies no matter which way we end up going. Blueboar 20:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite, and the point isn't to quibble about whether something is else is also important. The point is that all three of these are and that they can't be reduced to each other. Metamagician3000 00:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit concerned there isn't an option which clearly equates to "put things back how things were a while ago before people started trying to do better". --BozMo talk 09:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless I've missed something, I think that is precisely what "No merger, WP:A tagged as historical" means. If it doesn't then it needs editing, because I'm absolutely certain this is what it was intended to mean. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

How on earth is this going to help deciding anything? We've had lengthy and many discussions about ATT. And we've had Jimbo saying that those three pages should not be merged. To both points, a poll is irrelevant. >Radiant< 09:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree massively with first two sentences. As to the third, JW recommended the poll after the fact, so I'm not sure I see a way around that one. As to fourth sentence, I also concur, but I think the horse is already out of the gate, so the question is about to become forensic. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you could MfD the poll page, but that would be silly. Carcharoth 14:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

A poll is a good way to begin a consensus-building process (or can happen in the middle of the process, too). It helps identify what the disagreements are and which people disagree with what. Then people can discuss things with those identified as disagreeing with them, with the goal of eventually compromising or finding a solution that satisfies all sides. What are other ways of carrying out a consensus-building process? --Coppertwig 22:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. But that is not what Jimbo asked. He asked for a vigorous and wide debate first, followed by a poll, followed by a decision. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed (but was reverted) the words "Yes" and "No" from the options because I found them to be either confusing or biased... "Yes" and "No" are answers to a question... but there isn't a question stated above the options to which a yes/no answer should be given. Without such a question, prefacing the options with a positive or negative word gives a positive or negative bias to the option.

Turn it around and you will see what I mean. Since this poll is in response to Jimbo saying he does not like ATT, we just as easily could say:

• "No, the current version of ATT is acceptable, RS/NOR/V should be explanatory"
• "Yes, RS/NOR/V should remain separate, ATT isn't needed"

My point being that the choices end up being the same, but phrased from a different perspective (ie implicitly supportive of the idea of dumping ATT instead of keeping it). Why not just state the options in a neutral tone without the "Yes" or "No"? Blueboar 14:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Because if you have a poll with more than two options, it becomes muddled which (if any) of those options have consensus support. Far better to have multiple yes/no questions, than one question with "yes, yes?, maybe, no, O RLY and Fnord" as options. Anyway, the more you ask, the less meaningful the answers become. >Radiant< 14:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, I don't see how your comments relate to using the words "Yes" or "No"? We still have the same number of options being presented, whether we include the words or not. If the number of options is a problem... then why not just cut the choices to the core question, and have only two options: 1) "ATT enjoys consensus" and 2) "ATT does not enjoy consensus"

I just don't see how adding "Yes" and "No" clears up the muddle... but I do see how it adds an unintended bias spin to the poll. Again, you could swap them so they say "No, I like ATT" and "Yes, I hate ATT" and still have the same options being presented.

If having the words "Yes" and "No" is important, then we should at least have a question stated for which a yes or no answer is called for ... a heading... something like: "Does WP:ATT have community consensus?" Blueboar 15:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That is what we want to gauge.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Radiant does have a point... the more options you present, the more difficult it becomes to determine which option has consensus. So perhaps what we need to do is structure the questions a bit better ... I would suggest the following: Blueboar 15:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

1) Is the current version of ATT acceptable?

• Yes, the current version of ATT is acceptable.
• No, the current version of ATT is not acceptable.

2)If you answered "Yes" to the primary question, what should be done with WP:V and WP:NOR?

• Redirect them to ATT.
• Keep them as subsidiary/explanatory pages under ATT.

3)If you answered "No" to the primary question, should we...

• Work on ATT some more with the idea of eventually effecting a merge?
• Keep WP:V and WP:NOR as seperate policies in their own right?

4)What should be done with WP:RS? (not a vote - please comment)

I would support that. Only problem I see is (4). RS had no support as a guideline before the merger. Let's keep it out. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Your proposed structure confuses shortcuts and policy pages. To everybody: from now on, please do not use shortcuts to refer to the actual policy pages, as the shortcuts are an issue in their own right. Picaroon 18:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

While not claiming any spectacular expertise, I always find Wiki polls sooo funny given a few years of (low-to-middlish) market research management work. Wiki cannot properly construct the if-then/and/or structure of CATI surveys because a Wiki survey cannot create a "blind" environment: Q3 or Q14b are going to be viewable while an editor answers Q1 on a Wiki survey, and thus the survey wording itself biases any datum within it. Given that this poll is important (given Jimbo's intervention), we ought to do it right (if we are to do it) by starting with one question. We can only answer one properly, because we cannot be blind with more than one. For instance:

• Do you feel that WP:V and WP:NOR should be merged into a single policy page?

And that's it.

Perhaps other people have a different "basic question"? I think we can have a robust, unpolluted answer to one question. If we really wanted to be serious, we could disallow comments and only allow agree/disagree——leave an "open-end" section for comments. What we cannot do is create an if/then survey in the Wiki environment. Marskell 20:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the if/then statement should be avoided. Perhaps this alternate organization is a compromise:

• • Q: What, if anything should be done with the current Policies & Guidelines of Attribution, Verifiability, No Original Research, and Reliable Sources?

1. 1. 1. Option 1 All 4 ideas should be merged into a single page, "Attribution".
      2. Option 2 All 4 pages should be maintained as seperate policies and guidelines.

Then, once concensus is built on THAT point, a futher single question poll could be used to decide on more details, for example, if Option 1 reaches consensus, then we can ask:

• • Q: What should be done with the older policies and guidelines of Verfiability, No Original Research, and Reliable sources?

1. 1. 1. Verifiability: Redirect or maintain as seperate page for historical or clarification purposes?
      2. No Original Research: Redirect or maintain as separate page?
      3. Reliable sources: Redirect or maintain as separate page?

Alternately, if option 2 wins consensus, then we can ask:

• • Q: What should be done with these 4 policies and guidelines if they are all to be kept seperate?

1. 1. 1. Keep all 4 as valid policies and guidelines
      2. Eliminate Attribution and return to status quo before the merge attempt.

This creates a 2 round straw poll, and avoids the confusing nature of an if/then poll. The specifics of each question could be tailored to better capture the points of contention here. But it would seem to me that we need to soon establish where the community intends to go on this. While polling may be evil, it can be hard to slog through discussions where a very small number of passionate editors are debating an issue. It can be impossible to actually establish concensus from a discussion with only a handful of participants. Sometimes there is a genuine concern, and other times there is only one or two editors who are objecting over the silent voices of the vast majority of editors who support the opposite position. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayron, thanks for looking and partially agreeing, but perhaps I didn't explain properly: if we are to do this, we must start with one non-open-ended question (a category important for lawyers and market researchers alike...). "What, if anything should be done..." is an open-ended question. We should start with a "yes/no"—as clear as a yes/no as possible. Marskell 21:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with you, I'm afraid the issues are far to great to deal with with a single yes/no question. We need to decide between a number of possible outcomes -- at a minimum the possible outcomes must include "revert to just Verifiability, No original research and Reliable sources", "keep only Attribution and tag the rest as historical" and "keep Attribution, and make Verifiability, No original research and Reliable sources subsidiary to Attribution." JulesH 21:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, assuming I agree with you (I don't, because you're mis-reading the suggestion), what you suggest suggests to me closing down this page and, ultimately, the discussion in general. A good, thoughtful, dictatorial decision from Jimbo is preferable to this. The "outcomes" must include... what? A "yes/no" question dictates an outcome of yes or no, as just suggested. Marskell 21:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

To add/rephrase (cause I'm thinking I'm being a bit belligerent), I was suggesting no outcomes. I was suggesting a single question, to start, because proper opinion research should be blind and a single question is the only way we can call ourselves blind. We can't talk about all possible outcomes, when discussing a first question. OK. Marskell 22:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Attempted to address your concern with my last few edits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

We now seem to be back to a multi-option question instead of a clear Yes or No on the primary issue, and then subsidiary questions following up on that key one. Why? Blueboar 23:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Marskell is correct: one question.

I object to Wikipedia polls and never vote; but it looks horribly as if I'm going to have to this time. In which case, I hope I am not presented with one of those rococo polls peculiar to Wikipedia. In my opinion, the result of such a poll would be inconclusive (or if conclusive, subject to carps that it was mis-structured). One question, please. qp10qp 04:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

... was not to "remove the policy status of V and NOR". Reverted accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't? Then where's the policy tag on the revisions prior to Jimbo's revert? Last I checked, there had been consensus (or what we thought was consensus) to supersede them. It was only until the Jimbo-SlimVirgin deal that the idea of having all three as policy came up. Um. Picaroon 00:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The "superseded" tag on NOR and V was what started this all saga, and was done a month after ATT was upgraded to policy status. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If its the superseded tag which started this most recent debate, than I offer my hearty apologies, seeing as I suggested its creation - for that purpose precisely! But that wasn't what started the "'this was done wrong -Jimbo.'" It was Jimbo's rejection of the supposedly inadequate consensus which formed on WT:A that started this. Picaroon 00:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Since Jimbo's initial reaction, he has clarified his position, in talk page as well as in the mailing list. What is on the table now is a discussion about the merger, not about the content of ATT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I undid this merger of policy not because I think it is a bad idea but because there was not really a proper process. If ultimately approved, this is a MAJOR change of editorial policy structure (even if, at the outset, the policies are supposed to stay the same). I am happy to restore the policy if there is community consensus to do. I am encouraging the creation of at minimum a "vote" page to allow people to register their opinions more systematically. Jimmy Wales, March 20, 2007 1:46:39 PM PDT, WkieEN-l

What we are seeking to gauge is support for ATT as a merger of existing policies, not as deprecation or superseding of existing policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not the questions I had in mind when I created this page, but I guess the initial purpose of the poll has been swept out from under me. Ah well, I won't resort to claims of ownership. Picaroon 00:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What was the question you had in mind, Picaroon? I may have missed something, sorry... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you missed nothing, but I've sure confused myself - this all only happened a day ago, but my chronology is already fuzzy. As I discussed with Jimbo on IRC, I had one idea and he had another. I think I created a version of the page in preview which was worded along the lines of finding out what people hoped to happen to the redirects and what the final status of Wikipedia:Verifiability should be. However, after IRC discussion, I modified them so as to be looking for what you mentioned above - opinions on whether the merger had (has) consensus. This seems to be the version I saved. Anyways, it's history and, as you say, the answers we're looking for have evolved. Picaroon 00:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please explain the difference between a merger of existing policies and a deprecation or superseding of existing policies. I don't see any difference. Each would mean putting "superceded" on the longstanding policy pages and/or freezing them, wouldn't it? --Coppertwig 22:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, time for the next header. Anyways, is this option necessary? RS has been a guideline for a while, I believe, and I don't think anyone, throughout this whole discussion, has floated scrapping it entirely. Did I miss this proposal? Unless it happened, we don't have any reason to believe RS is going to be devaluated completely. And if we have no reason to believe that, then it's just clutter. Other thoughts? Picaroon 00:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Removed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved the question about RS to the "Yes" section, as it belongs there rather than on its own. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, good point - it hinges on a yes vote, so it should be a subheading. What do you think about the additional comments section? There are already several talkpages this discussion is spread out over, so I don't think we need that section, either - as I've said several times, even more discussion fragmenting isn't desirable. Picaroon 01:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What if my opinion is "ATT needs more work, but when it's done, V and NOR should be redirected"? >Radiant< 07:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I just posted a much shortened version. Not that it has to stay this way—just a simpler idea for people to think about. Marskell 09:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• You're begging the question. >Radiant< 12:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the current version is as confusing as it can be. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Why? Marskell 13:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Because it is? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want it really simple, you would have two options Yes and No. Then you can have specifics about how these Yes or No would work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

(ec)LOL. Well, OK. I thought the options were clear enough: back to the previous status quo, all four, some of the four, just ATT. Is that really confusing?

If you cut question two and three from this I could swallow it. But, I'm sorry, "Supposing that ATT is accepted, what should be done with V and NOR? As long as ATT is not accepted, this question and its answer are irrelevant" is not the proper way to collect useful data. Marskell 13:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sure it is. Surveys work like that all the time. It also allows for (surprisingly common) opinions like "oppose this, but IF it passes anyway, then do so-and-so". >Radiant< 13:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Radiant, but it's not unless you can properly program a "skip", which we can't do here. Marskell 14:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, yes, I did advocate a Yes/No above and its always the best way to proceed if it can be done. Latest change is better, but we need to make clear whether we mean acceptable as a replacement or acceptable in terms of it's wording. Marskell 13:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

To unpack last, I'm assuming the intent here is not to decide whether the words on ATT need to be tweaked, but whether the basic idea of ATT replacing RS, V, and NOR, is a good one... What redirects where, etc. is subsidary and can be worked out through further discussion if there is consensus for the main change. Marskell 14:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The point of having this poll is that Jimbo wants to know two things... 1) "Does the merger of V/NOR/RS into ATT have community consensus?" ? and 2) "If it does, what do we do with the old policies and guideline that got rolled into it?" These are two seperate questions. So shouldn't we ask them seperately? Blueboar 14:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, separate in both space and time :). Ask the first one as crisply as possible, and then turn to the second one. Marskell 14:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I read all of this here and see it bleeding over to things like WP:N and I ask myself is it the Policy Change that needs to be addressed or is it the way we Change Policy that needs to be addressed? I think it might be that the way we change policy that needs to be addressed first. Trying get up to speed on what is going on, and following the divergences, fragmentations and forks in the present format is nearly a full time job, and I already have one of those. Jeepday 11:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• We discuss neither here. WP:ATT is not a change in policy, merely a change in presenting it. The actual policies haven't changed much lately. If you wish to discuss the way of changing policy, the best spot would be either the village pump, or a new proposal for a viable way. Note that such proposals tend to backfire. >Radiant< 12:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I realize that RS was only a guideline while V and NOR were policies... but it is part of the equation here. It should be included. Blueboar 14:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This was already covered at a topic above. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Where? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 23:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not see how this poll would work. We cannot even agree on its wording. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Seconded. I said in advance that this poll was probably not a good idea. >Radiant< 14:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Now I feel guilty. I thought we'd just achieved something in the last hour... Marskell 14:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And to add, I'm not disagreeing with the latest wording at all, which is very straightforward. Two concerns:

• We need to allow people to vote yes even if they don't want to have all three merged; Jimbo seems to want to keep NOR as a separate concept, for instance.
• "Delete" and "detail pages" are not the exact options. Live pages, historical tags, etc. Rather than over-loading the initial question, we can defer that debate. Marskell 14:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, you'll give up over my dead body. :) Jimbo has agreed that the Attribution policy be canonical, and so it is only the merger that's at stake and the poll is therefore not as crucial as it seems. I believe that the Attribution policy will go from strength to strength, even if the merger is voted down, because the other policies will be linked from it and it will centralise them. Discussion over the poll wording is necessarily knotty, because we're all acutely aware that dodgy wording would skew the result, as happens on so many Wikipedia polls. I hope you will somehow find the patience to deal with this wretched poll, because you've been one of the backbones of the Attribution policy all along. The FAQ in particular owes a lot you. qp10qp 14:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... Problem is that it is not up to anyone of us to dismiss the poll. If Jimbo has the power to single-handed challenge ATT as he did, and as he asked for a poll, looks like we shall have a poll regardless if it is a good idea or not. This may sound callous, but that is the reality of it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Just so. And all the more reason not to give up now. If the poll supports the merger, Jimbo will accept it, and we're there. But even if the poll goes against the merge, it's not the end of the world because Jimbo has agreed to the Attribution page being canonical. So I see the glass as half full going on fully full. :) qp10qp 15:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This poll came about because Jimbo has some questions he needs answered... but I'm not even sure if we have agreement as to what those questions are. How can we agree on the options to be presented if we can't agree on the questions to be asked? Perhaps we need to ask Jimbo to get involved in setting up the poll, so that the questions asked reflect what he wants to know? Blueboar 15:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure he will want to get involved in the details. He asked "find out of there is consensus for the merge, and if there is I will not oppose this". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Then that is what we need to ask... "Is there consensus for the merge?" Blueboar 15:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Not really... the result of the poll is what will tell us if there is consensus for the merger.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What Jossi said. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It is usual in complex decisions to have an approval poll. For example, I can see approving "retain WP:V and WP:NOR as historic" and "finish work on WP:ATT and redirect the other two when done" Thia has the advantage that we don't need to spend so much time on wording; anybody who disagrees with all the options can just add one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• The disadvantage is that the divergence makes it next to impossible to determine (let alone agree upon) which options(s) have consensus. >Radiant< 14:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The solution has usually been to compile a count of all those !voting at all; usually compiled afterwards, but we could request that anyone !voting sign an overall list. If 80%, say, of those who have expressed any opinion approve "historic" or "redirect" then that's the consensus; if 80% approve both, it doesn't much matter which we do, but we can have a runoff if either of the 20% minorities feel strongly. (As I write, we have one Yes/No question, and one "If Yes, then..." question, so this is less of a problem.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And it's just gotten worse with forking of the discussion over to Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion, the justification for which is entirely unclear to me. 00:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think these are more elegant, both versus the version of earlier today and my first clumsy change. Should we ask the first alone, wait to see if there is a Yes consensus, and then ask the second? Marskell 15:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with asking multiple questions at the same time... but I do like having them as separate questions. Your current version works for me. Blueboar 15:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"Respond only if you voted YES" is problematic. People who vote NO to first are still entitled to an opinion on what will happen if they're voted down... I think we should space out the questioning. Marskell 15:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's why I said "this question is only relevant if the answer to the first is YES." By the way, people who agree with the merge in principle, but not the present wording of ATT, are going to vote no on #1. >Radiant< 15:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

1. I do realize that; I suggested from my initial post that this may bias the answer to first and thus that the questions should be spaced 2. Not if we offer a proper instruction in that regard. Marskell 15:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

But that would be fine. ATT is in its current stage a completed work (with the caveat that all policies need some tweaking). So those that believe that ATT as it stands is a no go, should vote No. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've tweaked Question 2 to make this clear; do we want to say "the merger implemented" in Question 1? Some people dispute the question of fact whether the merger has been implemented. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Insofar as ATT has a policy tag on it now, I think it fine to say "merger implemented." Or at least I don't think anyone will be confused as to what they're voting on. In fact, I think Q1 is so simple and obvious we should go with it as soon as possible and leave Q2 pending results. Marskell 16:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't care if the change is reverted (others may); but I think we should go with both questions, in order to provoke discussion as to the next step if Q1 fails. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have tweaked this. I presume that, even if there is consensus against WP:ATT continuing to be policy, the page will continue to exist with a {{rejected}} tag. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A Yes/No vote cannot have caveats for those that voted Yes, or for those that voted No. We cannot ask for a Yes or a No, and then if you voted No, and the consensus was Yes, to minimize that consensus by placing caveats upon the consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been re-reading Jimbo;'s comments in the Wiki-EN-l mailing list, and it is becoming obvious to me that this poll is not the next step in the process. What Jimbo asked:

1. A vigourous debate on the issues at hand
2. A poll to assess the level of support
3. A closing process and final determination (TBD)

The poll is the second step in the process he asked for, and not the next. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A straw poll may be in order anyway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure that is the case, Pmanderson. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And isn't the five months of editing on ATT a large part of step 1? Marskell 16:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Jimbo, no. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And he's right; a wide, and widely publicized, debate on the result, is called for. Some editors missed the whole five months; most editors missed part of it. (We should, if possible, avoid retroactive complaints avout process; some of them are difficult to act on without a time machine.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

So what do you suggest? We post to the Village Pump and anywhere else we can think of? This has already been done. And the poll itself ought to initiate vigorous debate anyhow. Marskell 16:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's comments yesterday in the mailing list:

"A major policy restructuring took place in a way that a huge number of very active and high quality editors were not consulted."""

"A broad community discussion to shed light on the very good work done by a group of people laboring away on WP:ATT and related pages, and then a poll to assess the feelings of the community as best we can, and then we can have a final certification of the results.' "

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it is unavoidable... Not sure ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

We could open a page at Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Community discussion, advertise the page everywere we can think of, ask all these that were not consulted to comment, and then in 10-15 days open the poll. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm of two minds. For the last month WT:ATT has been hit by like five threads a day. It has been talked about. I don't know how much more useful information is going to be derived by (re-)posting to various locations. At the same time, we need to show due diligence to Jimbo. One thing we should not do is have this talk become another swamp—perhaps your Community discussion page is a better place to go. Marskell 16:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a discussion page is a great ides. Several main threads:

• Do we want a merger at all?
• Is the present text of WP:ATT such a merger? does it represent present policy and practice?
• Should present policy/practice be changed? (primarily a place for postponing such discussion; but if there is consensus for change, fair enough.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Great, Pmanderson. Be bold and start the page. I need to go now, and will come back later today. Advertise it in all talk pages of policies, the Village Pump and the Community noticeboard. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Done a draft. Others will have to go over it, and advertise it; I need to go myself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Marksell, several editors in the mailing list have complained loudly that they did not know about ATT, despite all the activity that it generated. So, we need to afford them the possibility to engage in a discussion in which they can be afforded the possibility to understand the rationale behind the merger and comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's certainly fair enough. Marskell 17:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Good thinking, Jossi. I like this idea. I think the merger will get more votes in favour after a thorough (energetically advertised) discussion than at present when people might just vote against it out of reactance. qp10qp 17:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I give up too. Marskell 22:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

:) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

We've still got Q1 as short and sweet... Maybe... Marskell 22:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Look at it this way, Marskell: we are wagging the dog with the tail. First, we need the "wide community debate" as per Jimbo's and only then, a poll. But it seems that we are more gang-ho to get the poll designed before the discussion. Let's change that and focus on promoting the debate. Shall we? Giving some attention to the discussion page at Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Community discussion, would be best. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes. The wide community debate will be good. I suggest a pop culture exception be suggested off the top. More seriously, I'm just not getting it here—usually when you're a minority of one, you can deduce why you're wrong, but I can't. Given that Qs 2, 3, 4 depend on Q1, why don't we just ask Q1? It will be the community debate. It can be left up for a week, a month. Ask: "Do you agree with the merge?" and debate it. Marskell 22:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Simple is best. I would keep just the 1st question and everything else moved to the debate page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Dude! Yes. Marskell 22:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The simple first question to ask is "Should WP:V be merged with WP:NOR?" If we don't have consensus for that, we don't have consensus to do anything. If we do have consensus for that, the argument over whether the present WP:ATT is that merger is secondary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's do it, then. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. This is oversimplifying the matter. (Also see m:Voting is evil#Polling_encourages_false_dichotomy.) If someone supports merging some policies/guidelines but not all of them, is that a yes or a no? There should be more options to avoid polarising the issue too much. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 23:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, someone might want all three to remain active, but only some to be considered official/canonical. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, there's already a talk page here.

I am concerned that canonical might not be a word everyone is familiar with, especially non-native speakers of English. I know we are not the Simple English Wikipedia, but is there a reason another word, like "primary policy", cannot be used?

Thanks,
Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. But please, note that we have been working all day so far in getting this poll worded accurately. Please discuss major changes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

We can link to canonical, if necessary; "primary policy" is not quite the same thing. Is it what we mean? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe "ruling policy"? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed the first question to be more practical and specific and less abstract and metaphysical: from

• "Do you agree in principle with the merger intended at Wikipedia:Attribution?" to
• "Do you agree with replacing some other policies with Wikipedia:Attribution?"

If the first version were to be used, the wording of the second question would have to be changed to refer properly to the result of the first question. --Coppertwig 22:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

We are thinking of keeping just question 1, and the rest to be moved to the debate page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the current version of the question:

• "Should WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR be merged?"

It's short and to the point. (I think user Marskell put in this version of the question.) However, if there is consensus for "yes" for this, it is not to be interpreted as consensus that Wikipedia:Attribution is the merged version of those policies. A further process would have to establish how to carry out the merger. --Coppertwig 23:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And how do the people who want V and NOR merged, but RS kept separate, answer that question? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, maybe that question is too simple. However, I object to the wording "agree in principle" and the wording "intended" -- intended by whom? What is actually intended? Much too vague. I'm waiting for user Jossi to explain the reason for the revert to this vague wording. This wording is now in the third question. Better than having it in the first question, but I still object. --Coppertwig 23:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Coppertwig with respect to the vague wording. Different people might have very different interpretations of what it means. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 23:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

How about: "Is WP:ATT (acceptable as) that merger?" Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds OK to me (not as the first question, of course). --Coppertwig 00:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of the options currently seem rather polarising. It is possible that some editors will want some pages to stay merged, but not all three.

There is also the question of what to do if there is not consensus for WP:ATT. I am not sure what options everyone would like to see there, but I think "remain active with primary policy at WP:V and WP:NOR" should be on the list.

Thanks,
Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And now there are even less options.  : ( Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

See m:Voting is evil#Polling_encourages_false_dichotomy. The question of whether or not the policies and guidelines should be merged really shouldn't be simplified to a yes/no. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 23:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no need or benefit to a poll on ATT. It is already policy. Keep it and V and NOR frozen and let people refer to these as they wish and discuss them as they wish while they are frozen. Let consensus emerge naturally through use and talk. WAS 4.250 22:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Community discussion ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Either as a new question; Is ATT policy? or the second question: ATT is policy, and therefore is the merger. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe ATT has consensus; but if it doesn't, it isn't policy, no matter how many policy tags it bears. Either way, I see no harm in asking. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please use informative edit summaries. If your edit is a revert, please begin it with the word "revert" or an abbreviation of it. If you edit involves only a few words, please quote the words in your edit summary. Make your edit summaries as informative as possible about what kind of edit you're doing. Thanks. --Coppertwig 22:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Marskell 23:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the wrong question to start with. There are too many different answers: "I agree with some merger, but not with this one"; "I agree with merging Verifiability and OR, but I do/don't want RS in the mix." and several others, including mikka's "This was done wrong, and the wording is flawed." I expect it to fail, and to leave no clear indcation of how consensus can be achieved. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

But that's all in the instructions. Again, you either do or do not agree with the merge in principle. We can say "Vote yes, if you agree to a merge of two of the three, and note which two", for instance. Marskell 23:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Aye, Aye. Let's put the focus on the community discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion, and then come back here in a week or so to fine tune it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm coming back in eight or so hours. I will say that, despite some reverting, we've got precise questions on the table compared to 24 hrs ago. Marskell 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The current questions are not what this poll is about. The poll is about gauging consensus for an existing merged page called ATT. No more. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And if that support fails to be consensus, then what do we do? What's plan B? At lease if we have consensus to merge, and not for ATT, we know we have to rewrite the merger. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The answers to that question could be much more complex than simple yes/no. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 23:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This is getting really complicated. I was thinking on a simple 3 options approach,

• Would you prefer that:
  • (a) WP:N & WP:OR were policies, but not WP:A,
  • (b) WP:V, WP:OR and WP:V all have policy status,
  • (c) WP:A is a policy, but not WP:V & WP:OR.

Addhoc 23:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)