Template talk:Vote

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Testing stuff here

  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal.
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal, with comment. signed!


I'm not sure if the colors work (as in, if it is better). What do you think? --Driver2 19:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Color makes it easier to estimate the votes. Just what was wrong with red and green? --Lulu-Ann 14:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Red and green may be harder to distinguish for people who are red-green color-blind, which are about 9% of all men. --Driver2 17:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Then you should do it like they solve that with traffic lights: add some blue to the green. In any case don't have an approve with a colour that's leaning towards red, that's just not logical... --Eimai 18:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to choose better colors, it was just a suggestion to start with. --Driver2 19:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
color-blindness varies in severity, and those who cannot distinguish the differences between a clear red and a clear green are extremely few (would guess less than 0.05%). --Skippern 16:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
How about black for yes and black for no? Works beautifully for me, what with being able to read and all ... Chriscf 15:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I liked the color, it made it very easy to count votes for the more than 90% that is not colorblind. And do you have a problem that persons not using yes or no as argument get another color? --Skippern 16:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I have a problem with the idea that counting votes is somehow relevant at all. Chriscf 16:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
So you don't like the idea of democracy? Instead of arguing here about it, why not use your creative mind to find a better system? I agree with you that the process of having new tags approved is not good, but until an alternative system is introduced, we have to play by the rules of the existing one. --Skippern 16:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with democracy, but OSM is a meritocracy. Ideas succeed because they're good ideas not because some gang of people vote in favour of them. The fact that we have a crap system in place does not mean we must have a replacement before closing it down. Chriscf 16:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
The proposal system is the only way to introduce new tags to a broader mass of people, and the only known system to solve disputes where different tags are used for the same purpose, and there is where the democracy comes to play. A failed tag will by itself die if a better tag is introduced, a widely used tag is automatically approved and so on. If you have a better solution to how to introduce new tags, please come with it, until then accept the system as it is. I do not like the system, but accepts it as I do not have time to sit down and make a better one. The colors introduced by this template was good. --Skippern 16:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
No, the democracy comes into play when people start using the tags, not the voting. Any system reliant on voting is inherently vulnerable to blunders resulting from people having no idea what they're voting for. Chriscf 16:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Votings (or opionion polls, however you call it) do exist, whether you like it or not. If you can easier find the pro and con votes, you can also easier find the relevant comments. Especially if votes do not mean accepted/rejected, it is nice to have an estimate of how many people like it or not. Without colors you DO have to count them one by one, giving them even more weight.
And you do have to have a replacement, how else are you gonna handle new proposals? Even if the replacement means there is no voting at all, there has to be a way to propose new ideas to the general public someway. Better think about that and propose something constructive, instead of just ranting about the proposal system. --Driver2 16:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
You've missed the point entirely. I'm not going to repeat the reasons why colours are a bad idea - the folk at Wikipedia had this discussion a long time ago, and there's nothing to suggest that the situation with yes/no votes is any different here. Chriscf 16:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
And apparently you missed mine. Well, it's no news that you can't be argued with. --Driver2 17:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't have missed your point, since you don't appear to have one. I'd be grateful if you could provide some solid reason why we should colour the votes that doesn't ultimately boil down to "looks prettier". Chriscf 17:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Colours are an inherently bad idea:

  • Some users have typed out their votes, and will not be coloured. Thus, users are penalised for not using the template.
  • The parameter need not be "yes" or "no", and has an optional parameter to elucidate further. By colouring "yes" and "no", users engaging their brains to consider things properly are put at a disadvantage.
  • Using colours incorectly emphasises the vote, when the reasoning is important. The current bolding is bad enough.

In summary, it even further drives what should be reasoned discussions into cookie-cutter popularity contests. Chriscf 15:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit War on Vote Template?

What is going on? Each time I look at a page with a vote it looks different. Have somebody started an edit war here?????????????????? --Skippern 20:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Some idiots keep reinserting the colours, despite having been presented with plenty of reasons for not having them, and not providing a single useful reason for using them. Chriscf 21:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Your only real reason is that you don't like the colours, and basically just use this vote template as well for you crusade against the smoothness tag. The reason why the colours were added were simply to get a quick overview whether people liked the proposal or not in general.
If there are many "yes with comments" votes, and there's a "no" vote in there somewhere, I want to be able to see that vote (instead of getting drowned by all the other votes) and read its comment to ask myself whether it's a problem or not. It could be something which the other voters didn't think about.
If you were putting a no vote on a page with all yes votes I'm sure you want it to stick out against the other voters as well. After all, we know of your wisdom, of a greatness previously thought impossible for human beings, and we are also aware of our incapability to grasp the concepts as well as you do, so it'd be a shame if we were voting in favour of something which is deemed so inherently flawed by our Master. --Eimai 12:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The way the template is now is messier than ever. Whomever takes prat in this edit war is only making it worse for themselves. Please reinstate this tag to a sane setup (color or not) and find somewhere else to fight the battle. --Skippern 12:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to remove the newline within the noinclude tags. Fixed now. --Eimai 14:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

neutral votes

What do you think about adding a parameter value (e.g. "abstain", "neutral", ...) for neutral votes? There is a popular symbol from the Wikimedia projects we could use: Symbol neutral vote.svg. --Tordanik 16:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Great idea :D! Added :).

EzekielT (talk), 13:42, 26 July 2017.

How this template can be translated?

How this template can be translated? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)