Failed Pcarbonn (talk) 08:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC) I favor the option of refocusing the OR and V policy pages, and to significantly improve the OR page to convey a more clear, specific message. This would make the ATT page unnecessary.[reply]
Failed "Vetoed" would be more accurate. In any case, the proposal to replace V and OR with this did not succeed, and I agree with Marskell that this should be set aside as an unsuccessful attempt. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Failed Support, this was proposed as a policy and was rejected. I don't see any reason to treat this page any differently than other failed policy proposals. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Failed Support after a couple days' reflection and in an effort to find consensus. This seems like the most objectively accurate tag, in the absence of an ability to form consensus in support of any other option. It's true that much of the document would still be consensus, but it's also a fact that the document as a whole failed to achieve consensus support. PubliusFL (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Failed Support After consideration of the options and discussion, I think this serves little purpose as a training tool and is just a failed attempt with the best of intentions. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Failed/Historical ... A clear indication that this is a failed or historical proposal is needed I think. In terms of moving forward, developing WP:5 would seem the logical place to start. Orderinchaos17:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tag as historical. The net result was more confusion, not less: it tried and failed to conflate three policies and a guideline which had of necessity been made distinct per consensus. — Athaenara20:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tag as failed. The net result was more confusion, not less: it tried and failed to conflate three policies and a guideline which had of necessity been made distinct per consensus. — Athaenara20:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Essay ... I don't know what opinion you are counting, but if you have not yet counted my opinion, it is that this page is more likely an essay at this point in time than anything else. HidingT
Supplement Could live with it (if supplement essay is intended, and if both WP:NOR and WP:V are mentioned as policies this is supplementing), but would prefer simple essay in that case. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Policy Having got over the outrage of returning to find WP:V and WP:NOR labelled "superceded", I now think this should be policy, for all the original reasons behind it. However, do not denigrade the exisitng policies. There is nothing wrong with overlapping policy, as long as everything is consistent, especially where the new version is better for newcomers.[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] (talk) 07:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have recorded JJB in the essay area since his other votes are third and fourth choices and to proposed, which is just a vote for no decision. His expressed preference seems to be an essay of some form.
JJB should be allowed to speak for himself. He put his name under that list; it should be allowed to stand unless he decides to remove it. FWIW, J Readings (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's probably for the best. Incidentally, there are a few more names that should be added (per discussion) and the list. J Readings (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went back through the talk page, for which the current version represents about a year. There are many clear and ambiguous statements by people. How do we interpret and draw the line. Some people are conspicuous in their absense, and may prefer to stay out of the discussion/decision. We have around 30 responses here and it is clear that "summary" does not represent consensus. Using this as policy has been clearly rejected. I think it is time to decide whether it is to be an Essay or Archive. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are 5 votes for Essay, which overlap with either process or archive, and in each case there is clear statement or an inference to this being a secondary choice.
Speaking for myself, my first reaction is that, by bizarrely refactoring an already smoggy debate, this page further darkens the horizon. Someone even edited out my joke vote (restored with this edit), which had attempted to point out how silly the debate is. I voted in all categories because any consensus is better than none, but this poll has done nothing but successfully demonstrate the community doesn't know what to do. I've already stated that what to do is not to argue over tags, but to reconcile the differences between this page and policy pages, until there is no doubt what the policy is. Perhaps after what has become a latest excursion into absurdity, folks may be more ready to consider that more difficult solution. JJB 19:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
