Template talk:Poll top

Usage and purpose
This template is meant to be used with pollbottom. It is similar to the AfD closure templates (at and ab) but generalized (and colored) such that it should be useful in talk page polls. When a talk page polling is complete, you simply place [conclusion] --~ at the top of the debate area, and then place  at the bottom of the debate area.

The result will look like this (assuming no changes are made to the template) —


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was [conclusion] -- Locke Cole ( talk )  (e-mail) 22:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

There are two optional parameters:


 * result: Allows you to totally customize the result line (the "The result of the debate was " boilerplate).
 * type: Allows you to override the "type" of the thing being debated. By default, the text refers to the thing being closed as a "proposal" ("The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal below"; this allows you to replace "proposal" with the word(s) of your choice).

For example, the following–

move. ~


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move debate was move. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hopefully I haven't duplicated a pre-existing template by creating this. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 03:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"Debate"
IMO, the phrasing within the template should be changed from "debate" to "discussion", as debate implies contention and disagreement; not all requested moves have involved opposing parties. Olessi 16:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. "Discussion" sounds more collaborative.  Skeezix1000 18:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I changed the wording and added a link to WP:RM. Olessi 21:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * But is the use of the template limited to requested moves? Skeezix1000 11:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The previous wording was "The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed move"; what other moves would the template be valid for? Olessi 16:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * According to the template history, it read "The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal", and the discussion above suggests that this template was intended to be of general application. The reference to "proposed move" was, I believe, simply a demonstration of the ability to customize the template to fit particular situations.  I've seen the template used for all manner of debates, not just moves.  Skeezix1000 19:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Feel free to remove the link to requested moves, but I think that "debate" should not be included, as not all discussions are debates. Olessi 20:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, I always agreed with the initial proposal of replacing the word debate. Skeezix1000 21:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

ToC accidentally (and automatically) included
Can someone please explain what is happening here and how to fix it? The topmost section is an old merge discussion that was "archived" using this template. But since it's the topmost section, the table of contents is also being inserted into the archive box. ElKevbo (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Relevant RfD
An RfD is being held that may affect templates similar to this one (which uses ): See Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 15. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 02:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)