Wikipedia talk:Attribution/poll2

Archive in some form

 * 1) Failed Support --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) * Historical Support --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Failed Pcarbonn (talk) 08:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC) I favor the option of refocusing the OR and V policy pages, and to significantly improve the OR page to convey a more clear, specific message. This would make the ATT page unnecessary.
 * 4) Failed Support It feels awful after all the time I spent on this, but ATT did fail. It's time to move on. Marskell (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) * Historical This would be fine, as second choice after Failed. Marskell (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Failed "Vetoed" would be more accurate. In any case, the proposal to replace V and OR with this did not succeed, and I agree with Marskell that this should be set aside as an unsuccessful attempt. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 18:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Failed Support, this was proposed as a policy and was rejected. I don't see any reason to treat this page any differently than other failed policy proposals. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) * Historical I agree with Marskell, a reasonable second choice after Failed. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Failed Support after a couple days' reflection and in an effort to find consensus. This seems like the most objectively accurate tag, in the absence of an ability to form consensus in support of any other option. It's true that much of the document would still be consensus, but it's also a fact that the document as a whole failed to achieve consensus support. PubliusFL (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) *Historic Support as second choice after Failed. PubliusFL (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Failed Support After consideration of the options and discussion, I think this serves little purpose as a training tool and is just a failed attempt with the best of intentions. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Failed Support No consensus was ever reached for this page so it should be marked as failed. Davewild (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) * Historical Could live with this as second choice. Davewild (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Failed Support Wouldn't this be normal for a policy proposal that the community decides not to support? Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 18:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Failed Support For reasons stated. It had a run, it was rejected. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * 16) Failed Support It is both an opinion and a failed proposal, so we should tag it as both. -- The_socialist talk? 14:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Failed/Historical Sandy Georgia  (Talk) (per comments)
 * 18) Failed/Historical ... A clear indication that this is a failed or historical proposal is needed I think. In terms of moving forward, developing WP:5 would seem the logical place to start. Orderinchaos 17:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Historical Support What it is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Historical Support --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) *Failed Could live with this --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) Failed Weak fourth choice, because I believe the intent is another reference to historical. JJB 14:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) *Historical Weak fourth choice (not counting ties). JJB 14:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) Tag as historical. The net result was more confusion, not less: it tried and failed to conflate three policies and a guideline which had of necessity been made distinct per consensus. — Athaenara 20:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) *Tag as failed. The net result was more confusion, not less: it tried and failed to conflate three policies and a guideline which had of necessity been made distinct per consensus. — Athaenara 20:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Opinion (Essay or Supplement essay)

 * No Overlap


 * 1) Essay Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 01:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) EssayDGG (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Essay Cla68 (talk) 11:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Essay Then add my vote in for "Essay"...Lethiere (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC) (per comments)
 * 5) Essay ... I don't know what opinion you are counting, but if you have not yet counted my opinion, it is that this page is more likely an essay at this point in time than anything else. Hiding T
 * 6) Supplement Kendrick7talk 22:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Overlap with Process
 * 1) Essay Blueboar (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC) (2nd choice)
 * 2) Essay Could live with it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Essay My second choice. J Readings (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Overlap with Archive
 * 1) Essay Could live with it as a second choice. Davewild (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Essay Good solution, but in this case it would be best it is kept up to date as good as possible, in order to avoid in the end it gets (consciously or unconsciously) used as a parallel ruleset (see How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance) --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) *Supplement Could live with it (if supplement essay is intended, and if both WP:NOR and WP:V are mentioned as policies this is supplementing), but would prefer simple essay in that case. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Essay Support as third choice after Failed. PubliusFL (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Essay It is both an opinion and a failed proposal, so we should tag it as both. -- The_socialist talk? 14:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Essay It could be tagged as an Essay and a Failed proposal, if this would bring a compromise and closure to this. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Overlap with both other categories
 * 1) Supplement First choice is this or "essjay". JJB 14:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) *Essay Second choice (tie). JJB 14:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Process (recognized form of policy or guidance)

 * 1) Summary Blueboar (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Summary -/- Warren 02:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Summary Support ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Summary Support J Readings (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) *Guideline Third choice, maybe second actually (tie). J Readings (talk) 09:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) *Policy Third choice, maybe second actually (tie). J Readings (talk) 09:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Summary Support per Jossi. Sceptre (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Policy Having got over the outrage of returning to find WP:V and WP:NOR labelled "superceded", I now think this should be policy, for all the original reasons behind it. However, do not denigrade the exisitng policies.  There is nothing wrong with overlapping policy, as long as everything is consistent, especially where the new version is better for newcomers.[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] (talk) 07:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) *Summary SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC) (per comments)
 * 10) Summary Fuhghettaboutit (talk)(per comments)
 * 11) Proposed Second choice (tie). JJB 14:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) *Guideline Third choice (tie). JJB 14:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) *Policy Third choice (tie). JJB 14:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) It's canonical. qp10qp (talk) 09:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)