Template talk:Not a ballot

message: *  generate the standard text with "a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so"
*  replace the text above with "reason"
**  if your "reason" text contains a '=' (often external URLs) — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib
Note: Please insert this template underneath the heading/link to the article and/or the nomination. Placing the template above the heading makes it look as if the warning is associated with the previous discussion when displayed on the daily AfD listings. -- Saberwyn 22:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Usage

message: :"Additionally, some users may recommend deleting a page based wholly or partially on the fact that a large number of new or anonymous users recommend keeping." Do people actually do this? I would hope they have better reasons to recommend deleting. I don't think this line reflects very well upon the wikipedia AfD process; it will give newcomers a rather strange impression. David Sneek 20:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen at least two cases of editors explicitely motivating delete with the presence of "new editors". My guess is that some editors that are neutral on a given article become more inclined for deletion in these cases: this sentence is more about the actual rather than the ideal process (if any).- Liberatore(T) 14:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your answer. I still believe, though, that the template would be better and newbie-friendlier without that sentence. David Sneek 09:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anon users

message: The text currently says, "please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted."  This is actually kind of confusing; an unaware reader is likely to get the impression that it's trying to say something like "this is not a vote on whether this article is to be deleted; we have no intention of deleting this article at all." 
(You may think that's silly; you may think it's obvious that the point is that it's not a vote but rather a consensus-gathering poll, but the reason you think that's obvious is becuase you already know it!)
To the person who doesn't already know this, to the person who assumes (as so many do) that everything is a vote, the sentence is actually pretty unlikely to have the desired effect.  I think we should make the intent of the statement much more explicit, with something like:
: ...please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted; it is more like a straw a nonbinding poll to gauge consensus on the question.
And even if we don't change the wording, we should at least change the emphasis from "this is not a vote" to "this is not a vote".  (In fact, if there are no objections, I think I'll make that small change now; my only reluctance is that I know that one should be wary before editing templates.  This one isn't high-use, is it?) —Steve Summit (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only objection I have is on the "straw poll" part. I would rather say "this is not a vote, but rather a discussion, on whether the article is to be deleted". - Liberatore(T) 14:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I meant to admit, mentioning "straw poll" would definitely be poor (it's one of those terms people are always twisting around to mean whatever they want to mean).  But at the same time, AfD is clearly more than just a "discussion". Does "nonbinding poll" work any better? —Steve Summit (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's better than "straw poll", but still gives the idea of collecting votes. Is there any simple way to say this is a process of collecting opinions instead of votes? For example "...please note that this is not a vote. It is a process of discussing and collecting opinions and ideas about whether the article is to be deleted." The "ideas" part is because sometimes people propose something different than just keep or delete. - Liberatore(T) 16:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  It's not a vote but neither is it a poll.  Note that the Voting is evil is actually a cross-wiki clone of Meta:Polling is evil and that all the section headings talk about "polls", not "votes".  It is instead a discussion attempting to reach rough consensus on the appropriateness of the article for the encyclopedia.  Rossami (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Please, go ahead and ask at WT:AFD whether "AfD is not a vote" is just jargon. If it's jargon, it's taken to the letter by many people. - Liberatore(T) 10:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "not a vote" 

message: It seems to me that very often the mere presence of many puppets "voting" in either direction makes editors more inclined to go in the other direction. Therefore, sockpuppeting and meatpuppeting will frequently hurt someone's cause rather than help it. We might get less sockpuppeting if we pointed this out on the template. JoshuaZ 19:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A sentence like this was indeed added some weeks ago, but was later removed (see "Anon voting" above). Saying that "some editors are more inclined to suggest deletion" could be a reasonable compromise. - Liberatore(T) 10:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested addition to template 

message: It came up in an AFD - what status do templates have?  Is using them policy, or pursuant to guidelines, are they something else? Шизомби 17:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume this is about the use of templates in AfD discussionss. This one has been used a number of times, as well as  and . In my opinion, the editor placing a template is taking responsibility of what's written in the template (it's like he/she has written its content), but other than that I have not seen any other objection so far. As far as I know, this one is not mentioned in any policy or guideline, but it's not forbidden either. - Liberatore(T) 17:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no personal objection to the template, it was raised by another.  He thought people may find it overly intimidating and that people need to understand that they are still free to post.  I don't think the template is that scary and that it explains itself pretty well, though it is longish.  Шизомби 22:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given how little it seems to dissuade anons and new users from posting crap reasons to keep things, intimdation doesn't seem to be a problem. JoshuaZ 22:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Status of templates?

message: Not trying to be obtuse here, but what does this sentence mean?  "Additionally, some users may recommend deleting a page based wholly or partially on the fact that a large number of new or anonymous users recommend keeping."  Morton devonshire 00:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While it is verbosely worded, I think it means if many new or IP users recommend keep, then more longterm WP users might recommend delete as a result.  Something of a knee-jerk reaction perhaps.  Anyway, I think it's meant to be a heads-up to those new or IP users that their keep might result in people recommending delete who would not have otherwise recommended delete.  Whether that's true and if so to what extent, I couldn't say. When you initially removed it, you indicated you thought it was redundant with the comment about the closing admin.  I believe this doesn't refer to closing admins, but rather to other users participating in the AfD prior to its close. Шизомби 00:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way, it's confusing and not really necessary given the purpose of the template.  One of the problems with the template is size, so economizing space is important too.  Morton devonshire 00:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. It is important for new users because when a flood of IPs vote keep, many longterm Wikipedians, myself included, will very quickly swing towards deletion. Making them aware of that helps avoid biting the newbies. I'm going to see if I can come up with a way to express all that we want to say in a shorter template, though. Stifle (talk) 12:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So wait, it's their job to keep you from biting them? That sounds somewhat backwards. If you recognize that you have a psychological reaction to anons coming on, shouldn't you deal with that yourself rather than try and change them so you don't have to? GreenReaper 04:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) This is the most controversial point of this template. Please take a look at the discussion above. I think that the changes proposed by JoshuaZ are the most reasonable. - Liberatore(T) 12:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I have re-introduced the clause "this is not a vote", because this is the most important part of this template. This is meant to discourage people from registering multiple accounts or fake "votes", which would just complicate closing the discussion without changing its result. - Liberatore(T) 12:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What does this mean?

message: Here's a possible draft:
:"The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or sockpuppetry."
Is that concise enough? --Folajimi 02:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's good. I'd replace "AfD nominations" with "deletion discussions", as this template is intented for newcomers. The link should be to Sock puppet (internet) or maybe to WP:SOCK (not sure what's best). - Liberatore(T) 13:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest :WP:SOCK for this purpose; the helps place emphasis on the connection to Wikipedia's policy on this matter. It also helps that a link to the disambiguation page is placed at the top of the page. Folajimi 13:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok then. Since I do not see any other objection, I guess you can just go ahead and update the template, at this point. - Liberatore(T) 16:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cheers. --Folajimi 17:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed language.

message: This template seems to serve only one purpose, to discourage people from making their voices heard in AfD debates.
Sockpuppetry in particular is not going to be affected by a notice, even if it is blunt and impolite.
I think it is not a remotely subtle template to use.
zoney  ♣ talk 23:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This template is threatening and unhelpful. What happens without it? Maybe a bunch of newbies weigh in? Who cares? That could even be a good thing -- how arrogant is it of us to assume that new users can't contribute responsibly to an AfD? Furthermore, I agree with Zoney that the template will probably be ineffective in stopping sockpuppets. A puppetmaster is inherently dishonoring Wikipedia policies; why would he heed this warning? I don't mean to be rude, but I disagree with what I perceive as the spirit of the template. I'd like to hear some responses before I consider nominating it for deletion. --BDD 04:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It isn't meant to be subtle. It is meant to get the attention of new users. It has a much better chance of preventing them from getting bitten since they will have advanced warning. I know empircially that it has detered meatpuppeting in the past (at least one occasion someone from a forum I keep track of mentioned that he hadn't followed through on a request to go vote on one of our AfDs because the individual saw the template). JoshuaZ 04:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template should not be used

message: # "Reason" parameter seems broken, I cannot get it to work.
# The 4 tilde signature block comes out white on pink background in FF. Is the 'code' really required?
— RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 19:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The parameter is to be used as , not as . I have removed the code tags, as they do not look well on the new background (Liberatore, 2006). 11:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, it looks better now, but I am still not seeing the reason work. I don't know much about templates, but I don't see any code in the template either that is looking for any parameter. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 13:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In a template, code like default is replaced with the first argument, if any is provided, or with "default" otherwise. The following is produced by  (Liberatore, 2006). 14:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I was bit by the '=' in the parameter problem, again. I fixed it with a 1=my text here. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 15:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two bugs 

message: The text of this template is very nearly the opposite of the truth. AFD is not a vote? What are you people smoking? Of course, if AFD weren't a vote there wouldn't be any use for this template in the first place. Nobody is bothered by newbies offering their opinions - it's the newbie votes that sometimes frighten the professional careerist AFDers.
Can we try a little honesty? Just a little? Or is that too much to ask of the high and mighty 'We' of Wikipedia? Mirror Vax 13:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you believe this template is unhelpful and discourages deletion discussion by newbies, I suggest listing it under templates for deletion if you are so inclined. Nufy8 15:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why can't the misinformation be corrected? Or do you believe the template is fully truthful? AFD is not a vote, etc. Come on. You know it isn't true. There are one or two free-wheeling admins, Jimbo being one, who sometimes go against the vote count. The rest follow the count quite strictly and never decide on "the merits of the arguments". Mirror Vax 20:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure some admins have made decisions based solely on votes, and I'm sure others have taken the arguments themselves into account. Either way, it's still deletion policy that AfD is "not a strict 'count of votes', but rather a judgement based upon experience and taking into account the policy-related points made by those contributing." I'm sorry if you perceive the actual practice of deletion as counter to official policy, but changing the template to conform to your own personal perceptions instead of what official policy states is not the way to go about expressing your dissatisfaction. Initiating civil discussion on that policy's talk page is. Nufy8 21:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sorry that I'm correct, or sorry that I'm wrong? You didn't exactly say whether you agreed with my "perceptions". Which statement is closer to the truth: "AFD is not a vote" or "AFD is a vote"? Both are incomplete, but the second is much less misleading, yes? Mirror Vax 22:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter what my perceptions are of deletion in practice; the policy states what I quoted above, and to change the template to purport the exact opposite is unconstructive. As for your second question, "voting" in some sense takes place in AfDs, and the object is not merely to count every "vote" and decide based on the results, but to make judgments based on arguments of each suggested action. I would agree that it's not worded particularly well in the template, but like I said, it still needs to be in concordance with policy. Nufy8 22:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what's so constructive about asserting things that nobody believes are true. Suppose I placed a template on articles that asserted that the article was 100% verified and accurate. You object that Wikipedia articles do, in fact, contain errors. I retort that that is only your perception and being error-free is the policy, and the statement must be in concordance with policy. The point is, it's one thing to express a preference for how one would like things to be, and another to assert a fact. This template, as I read it, asserts facts, so you can't be indifferent as to whether the assertions are true or not. Mirror Vax 23:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think in one respect, Vax is right.  It doesn't seem to discourage meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry, so why bother having it?  Morton devonshire 23:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't mind seeing it go myself, giving that it hasn't been very useful in my experience. That's why I suggested it be placed on TfD. Vax, I understand what you're trying to say, but the whole reason I blocked you was for the way you handled yourself. If you went to the talk page first instead of making the edits you did, there wouldn't have been a problem. I know I'm repeating myself, but if you're against this template, put it up on TfD. Judging from previous discussions on this talk page, you wouldn't be alone in your concerns. Nufy8 00:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patent nonsense 

message: I have reverted the recent change from "this is not a vote" to "this is not a majority vote". The problem is that the second statement may imply that this is for example a vote where unanimity is required, which is not the case. A "survey" might be a better term, but that implies a lot of power from the closing administrator. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 13:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be contextually obvious that unanimity is not required, but feel free to add a statement to this effect.  Just don't reinsert the factually incorrect claim that AfD discussions aren't votes, please.  Thank you.  —David Levy 13:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the link to the dictionary; you are right: "this is not a vote" is technically incorrect. However, "this is not a majority vote" is somehow misleading: when people think of votes, they still think in terms of "I say this or that, and someone will count". The dictionary entry suggested me that the correct way to express what we want to say is "this is not a ballot". Do you agree with this version? Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 14:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "ballot" seems okay.  I've made the change.  —David Levy 14:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Majority vote? 

message: I've moved the page, as the template has been used in deletion discussions other than AfD and used to refer to users other than just anon IPs. Any objections?--TBCΦtalk? 05:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good idea, although I think people are going to keep using AfdAnons as the name. I've fixed the usage notes, anyway. -Amarkov blahedits 06:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Created a redirect from Template:Nab for ease of typing. I concur that "AfDAnons" was not an ideal name. Tizio 11:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved 

message: I think having a category for AfDs with this disclaimer would be a good idea, to get more attention from Wikipedians in cases where the AfDs are more or less dominated by sock/meat puppetry and single purpose accounts. Memmke 08:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we could call it something like "AfDs in need of attention" or "AfDs with heavy outer influence". Memmke 08:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid that might backfire. These aren't really AFDs in need of more attention, they are AFDs already having too much attention. It's more a note for the new users that vote spamming is pretty much ineffective, and a note to the closer (in case it wasn't already obvious to him). (Radiant) 09:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they're having too much attention from outsiders, not neccessarily from Wikipedians. Memmke 10:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category? 

message: There is too much "you're vote won't count" and not enough "welcome to Wikipedia!" now.  Also, tagging single purpose accounts could very likely be perceived by newbies as rude.  This old version looks much better.  I recommend reverting to that old version, to avoid biting newbies.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This used to be politer.... 

message: This template should be applicable for discussions outside of deletion debates. The  template somewhat catered for this, but has (sensibly, I think) been redirected here. But now this template needs to be updated.--cj | talk 09:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional uses

message: It bites the newcomers really badly.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 11:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm surprised this template's never been nominated for deletion 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Cerejota 04:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Not a ballot}}]]

message: I've changed "on a forum" to "on another website" since "forum" seems to be too narrow (such canvassing notices have also appeared on non-forum websites such as blogs, for example ). TML (talk) 05:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed wording 

message: The language used here is totally inappropriate. "Suspected" SPAs may be tagged. All they have to be is suspected to get a tag. There needs to be strong evidence not suspicion. This language has led to inappropriate tagging, like a nutritional biologist who edits a bunch of pages of vitamins, medical procedures, food toxicity, supplements and dietary intake gets tagged as an SPA for commenting on an AfD about a runner. Perhaps it was suspicious that this relatively light editor had a long period of absence (maybe a year or so) followed by commenting on an Afd, but he continued to edit other unrelated pages right after he commented on the AfD. This was such an inappropriate tagging that I felt  not only did I have to reverse it, but leave a comment on both user talk pages who attempted to tag this user. This word "suspected" is way to week. Especially noting that there is now a common misuses section of the SPA essay, of which many things that may lead to suspicion are specifically mentioned as things not to use SPA as a label for. It really looks silly when this note tells people to tag suspicious users. Then the person who makes the tag also makes a link to the WP:SPA essay, and that essay basically explains to the person being tagged why they shouldn't have been tagged in the first place. MATThematical (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: SPA Tags Inappropriate

message: Shouldn't the statement "However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome" read this way instead "However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcomed" (i.e., welcome -> welcomed)? Mercy11 (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Welcome

message: The current image displays what appears to be a ballot box with the wikipedia W on it. Without looking at the text, the image in itself appears (to me) to be encouraging voting, contrary to the intention of the template. It might be better if there was a black/red slash over it discouraging voting. Alternatively, the image could be changed altogether. One option could be (the rather imposing) :File:Notavote.svg, which is used on WP:VOTE.
Also, no matter which image is used, it should link to an appropriate help page (like WP:VOTE) instead of to the image itself.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: I saw this template and find it very hostile. The most hostile part is after the assume good faith part. It says to tag suspect single purpose accounts and canvassing.
A better phrase that keeps the same meaning would be:
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding (tildes) at the end.
Note: Comments by demonstrated single-purpose accounts or canvassed users may be tagged using: — User:username|username]] (talk • Special:Contributions/username|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  or Note: An editor has expressed a concern that username (talk • Special:Contributions/username|contribs]]) has been canvassed to this discussion. 
----
This is to avoid disruptive comments consisting of accusations against other users resulting in an AFD turning from a discussion to an accusatory cage match. 
Even better is to just leave out the "note" at the end of the template. Whiskeymouth (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very hostile 

message: Please remove "link=Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion" from the image link, so that clicking the image takes you to the image description page. This is required to comply with the file's licenses' attribution requirements. Thank you. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me)  03:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: —MRD2014 (Happy New Year!) 03:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 2 January 2017 

message: Please add the following:
Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: but I formatted a little differently. What do you think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That works for me. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 25 January 2023 

message: Replace commas with semi colons as described in this diff Toadette (Let's talk together!) 10:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 14 April 2024