Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll/Armedblowfishmockup

Attribution (WP:ATT) is an attempt to unite Verifiability (WP:V) and No original research (WP:NOR). It is not the result of any single editor; it was worked on for over five months by more than 300 editors. It was upgraded to policy on 15 February, 2007. The proposal was e-mailed to Wikipedia co-founder Jimbo Wales, made public on various policy talk pages, on the WikiEN-L mailing list, and was announced on The Wikipedia Signpost.

Important aspects of Reliable sources (WP:RS) were also merged into WP:ATT, with other information to be incorporated into the accompanying Attribution/FAQ (WP:ATTFAQ). The intention was to express present policy more clearly and concisely, and to make it more manageable and easier to follow by having it on one page.

Jimbo's initial comments on this issue are here, and here.

More recently, on the WikiEN-L mailing list, Jimbo Wales suggested:


 * "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,", (see: Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion), 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" (this poll).

References:

Instructions

 * Instructions
 * Familiarize yourself with the debate:
 * Summary of the objectives of the merger: Attribution/Attribution explanation
 * Discussion of its success, under several heads: Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion.
 * Other statements:
 * Vote for your preference(s) by typing # ~ and a short comment if desired.
 * Do not directly respond on this page to opinions of other editors; discussion should take place on the designated talk page. Comments in the voting sections of this page should be limited to votes and short statements. Responses in the 'polling' section will be refactored and moved to the Talk page.
 * For further comments use the assigned "Additional comments" section.


 * Notes
 * This is a straw poll, not a strict vote. As such, any numeric results will not be definitive. This is a means of gathering opinions in an organized way.
 * Attribution is not intended as a change to policy, but as a more maintainable consolidation of it. Editors are not being canvassed on desired changes, and debates over long-standing principles and policy wording should be avoided.
 * Related questions have been asked at the community discussion, see Should WP:V and WP:NOR have been merged at all? and If they remain meged, should WP:RS remain merged with them?

1. Which of the following arrangements would you prefer?
[You can vote for any of these options or mark them as your 1st choice, 2nd choice, etc.]

In the alternatives given below, the original pages means: those policy or guideline pages that, in accordance with consensus established in response to question 2, should be merged into Attribution. If your vote is conditional upon rewriting WP:ATT, please indicate that in your vote.

2. If Attribution does not become inactive, which of the following should remain merged in it?
[Please answer "yes" or "no".]