Wikipedia talk:State route naming conventions poll/archive2

message: We're opening Part 1: Principle. This is the generic form of the convention, not terms for individual states. This is discussion only, not voting (yet). Also, we potentially have three admins and need two more. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  17:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Part 1 opens

message: Should we also include a naming convention for state road list pages as part of this poll? --TMF T - C 17:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are only one page per state - I don't see the point. We're going to be doing it separately by state anyway. --SPUI (T - C) 17:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: State road list pages

message: See Talk:List of numbered highways in Ohio. A number of people, many of which are involved here, are "voting" to move List of numbered highways in Ohio to List of Ohio State Highways because the latter "sounds better" and is "more consistent", despite no evidence of "Ohio State Highways" being a formal term that should be capitalized. This is why voting is evil - people engage in groupthink with no consideration for the way things actually work. --SPUI (T - C) 06:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Correctness should not be sacrificed for "sounding better" or even consistency. --Polaron | Talk 15:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Given the number of people that don't understand simple naming conventions, this process is flawed

message: Should we move the discussion from the proposal page to the talkpage (here)? It's getting way too cluttered and confusing. Format will be preserved to the best of ability. --physicq210 23:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fine, to be honest. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  00:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving of discussion 

message: Now that we have admins things look good, so if they get out of hand someone will look in on things. I'm on wikibreak for a while. I'll return sometime before voting ends though. If you have an urgent matter email me.
Oh yeah to start the voting process: once the voting begins, insert a header labeled "votes for this principle" under principles 1 and 2 (0 if you desire). You must have 100 edits to vote.
Take care and I'll return around the 31st. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  06:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We seem to have 6 admins but I think an extra judge will cause no harm. It's a place to start. Ashibaka tock 01:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes, unless there's a tie. Just hope that doesn't happen. --physicq210 01:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Out for a while

message: I strongly believe in of using common names for everything.  However I don't understand the use of a general Google search to identify common names in this instance.  The best way to find this info is to selectivly Googling the websites of local newspapers for things like 'auto accident' and 'road construction' along with a known three digit road number.  The key is to avoid "looking" for a specific designation.  Actually Googling the entire web for the names you are considering is a horrible method of discovering a common name.  I would imagine road designations would be one of the easiest common names to identify as they are likely to appear in newspapers every single day.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 20:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common  name indentification 

message: Exactly what determines the outcome of the vote?  My understanding is that after the vote by editors, the final decision will be made by the admin judges.  With 6 participating, I'm further assuming that a vote by 4 of them would be required to establish consensus support for any decision.  Vegaswikian 05:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct in both regards (at least, that's how I interpret the timeline instructions as well). --TMF T - C 05:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Correct. However, if its close I expect there will be some protest. --TinMan 16:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus and a result 

message: User:Nnnnnnnhytr does not have 100 edits, so that vote should be disqualified according to the poll rules. This is evidenced by this edit count (Essjay's). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gooday.1 (talk • contribs) 
:Agreed. One of the admins should be notified. --TMF T - C 22:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was an unsigned comment on Principle 1 from an IP... I assume that was from someone who didn't log in? Could someone check? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  22:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was me, sorry. I saw Essjay and thought my name. --TinMan 02:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Rschen was referring to the unsigned IP vote on the main project page. =) --TMF T - C 03:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP vote was from the person that didn't log in: . No violation here. --physicq210 03:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Vote struck out. --physicq210 02:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting violation

message: For quite some time, I've noticed that many editors have thrown out the "voting is evil" excuse. Frankly, I am forced to ask: so what other solution do you have? If not voting on this, then what do you want? I've been asking this question for weeks upon end, but no one has answered it except with more "voting is evil" propaganda. --physicq210 22:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For changes like this, I'm inclined to say that 'voting is evil' because many people would prefer the status quo, or would not want to vote for something that seems unfamiliar to them.  In this case, most of the people who say "voting is evil" is on the side of principle II (as am I).  To us, this is a issue of correct vs. incorrect, and hence we shouldn't have to vote to change something that is currently in a incorrect state to a better and correct new state.   atanamir 22:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, it's like Wikipedia is unprepared for such a massive change? --physicq210 22:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: not wikipedia, but rather a bunch of editors (if it was wikipedia being unready, the vote would be more like 49-2).  However, because people "aren't ready" doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed to what is correct.  It is an encyclopedia, after all. atanamir 22:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noticed that whenever there is a vote that is taking place that one person does not agree with in part or in whole, the "voting is evil" card is thrown out with little or no discussion taking place stemming from that.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't dished out voting is evil myself, but i'm trying to explain the thinking behind it in this case. atanamir 23:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, at least someone took the time to explain the rationale behind it. Thanks! --physicq210 00:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "voting is evil" excuse 

message: At 23:59 UTC on Aug 31 (I think it's 5 PM Pacific, 8 PM Eastern) voting will be closed (preferably by an admin). Use some thing that marks it as a closed debate (with the nice background color). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  22:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Voting for part 1 can be closed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  00:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Closed, page protected. Teke (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: We have to have some convention. 41% isn't consensus. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  06:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: We know this may not be the best choice available, but what do you want us to do then? --physicq210 06:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It may not have consensus support, and it may have been conducted almost entirely in terms of preference, rather than trying to follow disambiguation and common name practice.  But it's best "turnout", and the numerically clearest outcome of any such discussion, and as I said before, I very much doubt the ArbCom would be thrilled to have "lack of a clear consensus" construed as "licence to resume move-warring".  Alai 06:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that. --physicq210 06:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting ending tomorrow

message: Apparently there are many admins who are sick of this and want to block the next offender they see. Just warning you all. And I personally am not sure how ordinary courteous contributors can be turned into trolls. I'd suggest that NO INFLAMMATORY COMMENTS BE MADE AT THIS PAGE OR WP:ANI, or you risk being blocked by many. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  18:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think everyone is sick of it. 59% isn't perfect, but it's a very clear definition of the will of Wikipedia and the admins agree. The issue should be resolved if a certain single editor opposing this would drop it as has been suggested he do at WP:AN/I by multiple admins. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 18:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: We've made [[WP:ANI]]

message: I've protected the page. However, the process will continue as scheduled unless ArbCom or the judging admins object. (Part 2 will not be affected since it is a separate page that will be transcluded onto the main.) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  18:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah somebody unprotected it since it was a "conflict of interest." --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  21:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protected

message: I anticipated that we would all be stressed after Part I. So there is a rest period from now until September 4. Take a break, catch up on other stuff. Set up any transclusions, etc. Discuss more stuff on this page. But we're not officially going to voting or anything until September 4. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Break period