Battlestar Wiki talk:Think Tank/Poll Template

I can't visualize how this is going to work well, but I think it would take away from our normal way of getting consensus through discussion. We could just call votes as we always do, i thought. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 19:49, 10 July 2006 (CDT)

Since I can't post a visual aid, I'm sorry. I can't explain it any better than I did. There is an example out on the template itself, but I can't show you an example of how it can work without violating the rules. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 19:56, 10 July 2006 (CDT)

I'm not sure what this does that can't be accomplished with a new header, a few lines of text, and the (attractive) {{support}}, {{neutral}}, and {{oppose}} templates. --April Arcus 20:01, 10 July 2006 (CDT)

Example

According to admins, I can post an example here. Since I have created the template in hope that it passes this is an example of what it could do.

Where this "would" be placed if being used: Battlestar Wiki:New User Survey (Not the talk page).

New User Survey Project
Question	Status of Proposal
Date Started	21:22, 10 July 2006 (CDT)
Date Ending	21:22, 10 July 2006 (CDT)
Support	Oppose	Neutral
Shane
1 (100%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)

New User Survey Project
Support	Oppose	Neutral
1 (100%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)

This would be a quick reference tool for archive able purposes. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 21:22, 10 July 2006 (CDT)

Possible Application

If we ever had a "polling station" or other centrally located article that had links to all the current polls/debates/etc. that were going on, such a summary (with a link to the actual debate) might be handy for getting an idea of where things were at. Unfortunately, you do end up risking sync issues (if the summaries aren't updated). --Steelviper 06:39, 11 July 2006 (CDT)

Vote

When: To end 6 days from now. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 13:57, 18 July 2006 (CDT) Support Reached: Figure out where this template can be used.

1. Joe Beaudoin Jr. - Oppose I'm not too much a fan of polling. If there was a technical way we could implement this (say, a simple to use form that would update the counts), then I may support such an endeavor. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 02:24, 19 July 2006 (CDT)
2. CalculatinAvatar -
3. Day - Oppose I see this as a needless complication with enough potential hazards and real drawbacks which remain unbalanced by the good it would do. --Day ^{(Talk - Admin - SotS)} 02:20, 19 July 2006 (CDT)
4. Mercifull - Oppose Like Joe said if it were possible to implement some proper dynamic form extension then I would support this but it all seems too complicated the way you are proposing at the moment.
5. April Arcus -
6. Spencerian - Oppose. K.I.S.S. --Spencerian 15:34, 19 July 2006 (CDT)
7. Steelviper -

Note: All users are welcome to partake in the voting as well. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 02:26, 19 July 2006 (CDT)

1. Support Modified Use Below --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 02:33, 19 July 2006 (CDT)
2. Oppose The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 10:06, 19 July 2006 (CDT) - Agree with Joe and Day above; I think it would decrease discussion

Comments

Could be then as simple as {{pollvote|Question|Support|Oppose|Neutral}} and never have to worry about user input... so get rid of the "question", "time", "users", and "dates tarted". That's an idea. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 02:33, 19 July 2006 (CDT)

But what's the point without auto-updating percentages/numbers? And with auto-updating numbers, I'd be wary of the potential for lame, dumb bugs. I'm sure they could be ferreted out, but I don't see there being much of a pay off at all for the amount of work it could be. --Day ^{(Talk - Admin - SotS)} 14:58, 19 July 2006 (CDT)

The math that is working is: Roundup((Support/(Support+Oppose+Neutral))*100) --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 15:01, 19 July 2006 (CDT)

Has this extension been considered? --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 03:20, 20 July 2006 (CDT)