Template talk:Poll

Unneeded
This is completely unneeded and was not discussed anywhere first. This is also ugly as hell. SeaTerror (talk) 02:12, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

Looks more appealing then the old design, which had zero appeal. If you don't like the image, it can be changed, but this is the best way to do things, since it automates the time and registration amount, which is tedious to type, and actually has things in an organized fashion. 02:14, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistency is unneeded and I was kind of expecting you to bash on this. Currently we type out the polls which is kind of unofficial and unprofessional due to how different they all look. If it's ugly, please, freshen it up for me. I'm more of a programmer guy, not so much a designer.

I'm not keen on the design. I don't see nothing wrong the format were using for polls previously. -- 02:18, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

"which is tedious to type" So created because you're both lazy. Got it. This should have been discussed way before it was ever created. SeaTerror (talk) 02:19, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

The format is bad because it was inconsistent.

Hmm ST, let's discuss your "article format change" then, where you added useless spaces to every page. 02:21, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

Edit conflict:

If you read my post you would see what I typed. It's inconsistent and unprofessional to decide a SITE CHANGING MANNER on a poll that is manually typed out and is looking different every time, it's also making the rules unclear on what a poll should include.

Of course every poll is going to look different. They each all have different poll options. So none of them will ever look the same. SeaTerror (talk) 02:24, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

Oh wow, you completely missed my point. It's like saying infoboxes will look different because they have different names, of course they will. But the base is still the same, is it not?

Currently, we have no base, and everyone type the base differently. Which is my point.

Which is an idiotic point. It doesn't matter and is still easier to type out manually. These things need to be discussed first. SeaTerror (talk) 02:30, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

Alright so why don't you complain on every template that ever existed? Is infobox templates unnecessary too? Why don't we type out the information in text-form as you like? It's called consistency, and we have it all over the wiki. Don't see what there is to discuss.

Does this make it worse, if so, how?

Please answer that question.

Pretty sure only the Straw Hats have their own infobox templates. Your template also takes up a lot of unnecessary extra space with the background. This was created for no reason whatsoever except for you and others like yourself to be lazy. SeaTerror (talk) 02:50, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, this must be like the 5th time I've said it, it's for consistency, not because I'm lazy. If I was lazy I wouldn't make this poll template and just go fap or something, but I decided it was due time due to how unprofessional it looked to make one manually every single time.

Anyway, do you know what an infobox template is? Every character has one, they just have different options, great, now you know that. Please don't remove every infobox template from every character now.

Takes up extra space? How exactly? It takes up the same amount of space that today's poll do.

The new poll design is ok (picture could be changed, but that's not really important). Though it should have more space to explain the concept. I made a copy/paste-able poll in my sandbox awhile back, that I think is similar to most polls we've had in the last year or so (Personally, I've been basing them all more or less on the format of the poll in Forum:Klobis). It should have a place to clearly explain the issue at hand.

For simplicity's sake, I think we should also have a specific ban forum version of the poll, otherwise, we'll still have to re-write the specifics of those polls over and over again, which would still be a pain and would be inconsistent. The current poll also lacks the explanation that we decide the length of bans second, and that the editor in question cannot vote. 03:37, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

Probably wouldn't be hard to implement. Definitely sounds like a good idea. 03:52, June 30, 2013 (UTC)