Template talk:Proposal

message: The new simple  code is fine, but I still think that the shortcut should be smaller, more like it was yesterday. Unfortunately  is protected, and just adding  has no effect. -- Omniplex 23:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shortcut layout

message: The current wording "This page is a proposed..." doesn't make much sense when the template is transcluded into another page, such as a user page. I suggest changing it to "The following is a proposed...". — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "This page" 

message: This template is for a proposed policy and such. It automatically puts them into :Category:Wikipedia proposals. Articles and templates don't need to be proposed. Just do it. Rfrisbietalk 18:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed ''policy'' template 

message: Radiant!, John254 and David Levy: please stop fighting over whether there should be a link to WP:VIE or not and discuss it here like adults. Incidentally, I agree with John254's take on the issue. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Consensus" edit war 

message: * Doc. John Reid 05:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctl 

message: Seeing as there has been an edit war, I wish to help in reaching an agreement. To see where the people involved stand, I wish to conduct an ironic straw poll. This is more to summarize the opinions and to have discussion from there than it is to come to a binding conclusion.
: Addendum: To make this more of a discussion than a vote, please state your reason why you are commenting where you are. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 03:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have decided to go in another direction with this. Instead, I would like if we were to list why we should and why we shouldn't note that polls/majority don't equate to consensus. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 11:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pros and cons (formerly Ironic Straw Poll) 

message: #The nature of consensus is disputed, and ill suited to summary treatment in one sentence. Therefore, we should not use this template as a forum for disputes as to what does or does not constitute consensus. A link to Wikipedia:Consensus is quite sufficient. A dispute over the nature of consensus is indicated by the recent edit war over the status of Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote, and by the discussions on Wikipedia_talk:Discuss, don't vote, amongst other events.  There's clearly a dispute as to the degree to which supermajority opinion may be used as an indication of consensus, and the extent to which voting is, or should be, used on Wikipedia.  While this revision of the template claimed that a majority does not constitute consensus, the term "majority" could be taken to indicate "supermajority" unless we specifically state that a "simple majority" does not constitute consensus.  This, while true, might imply an endorsement of "supermajority consensus".  There's really no way to avoid stating a disputed position on the template if we try to define what consensus is not in one sentence.  The content of Wikipedia:Consensus isn't disputed, of course, but only because it is describes various competing theories as to what consensus is without endorsing any of them.  For instance, consider the following sentence: "While consensus-building is still the preferred method, some contributors have also come to use a supermajority as one of the determinations." Does that mean that a supermajority can indicate a consensus?  Perhaps, or perhaps not.  Similarly, even if we are to use supermajority opinion as an indicator of consensus, we don't really know what the numerical thresholds are. John254 03:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why there shouldn't be a note

message: The issue is not about how polls or majority equate to consensus. The issue is that people frequently think that a proposal cannot be adopted without being voted upon. That is incorrect, per WP:POL, and to educate people it would be useful to have a statement on that. (Radiant) 09:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What happened to your pretty signature? I never really liked the poll to begin with, but I hadn't thought of anything else. Luckily I just did -- instead of voting, we can list why we should note it and why we shouldn't. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 11:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: While it is true that consensus to adopt a proposal can be ascertained either with or without a formal vote, this revision of the template is not conducive to conveying this precise message.  Moreover, favoring this particular aspect of consensus in the language of the template would give it undue prominence with respect to all other aspects of consensus of which new users should be informed.  Since attempting to summarize Wikipedia:Consensus in the language of this template would make it unacceptably large, a link to Wikipedia:Consensus should suffice to inform new users of the nature of consensus on Wikipedia. John254 00:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  By the looks of it, the reason not to include a reference to how polls don't equate to consensus is because linking to Wikipedia:Consensus is good enough. Perhaps one settlement is making the link to Consensus more conspicuous? Also, feel free to add more choices to the strawpoll. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 02:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *Ironically, John254 was the one who proposed the wording that he now objects to. The previously agreed-upon wording was David Levy's version that "[consensus] is not determined by counting votes" . That is the precise thing we should educate people about. (Radiant) 12:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: TEMPLATE:PROPOSED - FAIR AND BALANCED (Sorry, I had to). Anyways, ass I've said, a settlement between a simple link and specifically wording the situation is putting something along the lines of "See Also: Wikipedia:Consensus". However, I have not received any opinions about this proposed plan. Any thoughts? ★MESSEDROCKER★ 01:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an excellent idea.  I strongly endorse making the link to Wikipedia:Consensus more prominent. John254 01:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: More appropriate links would be Wikipedia:How to create policy and Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Once more, the issue is not whether this template should define consensus; that's a red herring. The issue is that people frequently mistakenly think that a formal vote is required to adopt a proposal. (Radiant) 12:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Further irony

message: Can we change to icon to something other than a question mark? kilbad (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you suggest, and why?  —David Levy 15:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Icon change 

message: Surachai saiwong  — Preceding unsigned comment added by สุรชัย สายวงษิ์ (talk • contribs) 16:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pk 

message: edit semi/protected|Template:Proposal.doc|answered:no
subst.trim:1
State U
.your suggested changes below this line.preferably in a change X to Y format. Other editors need to know what to add or remove. Blank edit requests will be declined. 
Write your request this line and do not remove the tildes and curly brackets below.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.119.114.95 (talk) 08:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2021