This page is part of WikiProject U.S. regions space.

Update Proposals May 2005

Policy Changes

Hierarchy removal in article titles

1. Hierarchy in article titles shall be removed. If a region has a direction in its title, the article should appear at ---ern United States. If the article title includes a proper noun in it (other than "United States"), such as New England, the article should remain unmodified at that designation unless a disambiguation becomes necessary; at which point it should be moved to Region Name (United States). Regions that are described in terms of geographic features will appear as Geographic Feature states (for example, Gulf States).

Inclusion of a region in the U.S. regions template

2. For a region to be included on the U.S. regions template, a region must be composed of at least two entire states, and portions of at least two others.

Structural changes

Granting suffrage on policy votes

3. Suffrage will be granted, to users to vote on policy if user, has been in existence at least one week before the listing, and has at least 25 non-minor article edits logged, and joined the project as a participant prior to the beginning of the vote they which to participate in. Regardless of the previous requirements, a user whose edits, pages, or ideas are being discussed in policy may vote (once). A majority of project participants, may also grant suffrage once voting has begun.

Election of a coordinator

4. A coordinator will be elected by a simple majority of voters during an election period, that will last until all participants have voted or one week has passed since the vote began. The coordinator shall serve a term of one year, unless removed from office by a vote of no confidence supported by 4/5 of participants. Bans lasting for a period greater than 24 hrs are grounds for automatic removal, although a user may later serve as coordinator again if elected.

The coordinator’s duties will include, notifying participants of project proposals on their talk pages, explaining policy, and posting policy proposal or advising users who want to do so, and serving as our projects ambassador to all Wikipedias and sister projects. The coordinator will not omit participants from notifications, refuse to explain policy or attack a user for criticizing it or failing to understand it. Most importantly a coordinator explains and advocates policy the coordinator will not unilaterally enforce or set policy. If the coordinator chronically fails in his or her duties it is grounds for removal of office through a no confidence vote.

Voting

~~Please vote item by item. Note that the above suffrage policy is only a proposal and thus its guidelines do not apply to this vote. This vote will end at 06:16, May 13, 2005.~~ This vote was closed at 06:43, May 13, 2005 (UTC), by JCarriker, time having exceeded the vote deadline of 06:16, May 13, 2005.

Policy Changes

1. Hierarchy removal in article titles

Go for it (yes). -- Jmabel | Talk 06:31, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Yes. JCarriker 06:37, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Yes. DAVODD 06:14, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

2. Inclusion of a region in the U.S. regions template

Go for it (yes). -- Jmabel | Talk 06:31, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Yes. JCarriker 06:37, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Yes. DAVODD 06:14, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Structural changes

3.Granting sufferage on policy votes

Fine with me (yes). -- Jmabel | Talk 06:31, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Yes. JCarriker 06:37, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Neutral. DAVODD 06:14, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

4. Election of a coordinator

Fine with me (yes). -- Jmabel | Talk 06:31, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Yes. JCarriker 06:37, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. I do not think that establishing a lhierarchy of roles is in the wiki spirit. DAVODD 06:14, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree that this sets up a hierarchy, there is no extra power that comes with this role and certainly no extra importance. It's not really establishing something new, it's a role someone already serves and all this does is acknowledge it and give other people ways to fulfill it and a way to sanction the person should they over step their commission.- JCarriker 13:53, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
  - I like the idea of the duties to be performed. But why can't this simply be a volunteer. I am not impressed with the election of an individual "official" instead of keeping things open to all. DAVODD 05:09, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
    - It is a volunteer position, as no one runs if they don't want it, and the position is open to any partcipant. Some volunteer postions, or even elected ones on wikipedia have no way of allowing others in, or no framework to do so. This provides a where, when, and how to become our coordinator or at least the opprotunity to do so to anyone who wants the postion. It seems to me that it makes things easier on anyone who wants the postion. This position places responsibility on the coordinator to do things that regular partcipants can choose not to do. It doesn't take anything away from regular participants. -JCarriker 19:39, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Coordinator candidate(s)

JCarriker

Jmabel | Talk 06:31, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
A rather eccentric and nefarious indivdual, but Support nonetheless- JCarriker 06:37, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

JCarriker, it might make sense to copy the full proposals here, under each heading. They're not all that long. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:31, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Done.-JCarriker 06:34, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Vote results

Voter turnout: 60% of particpants. No non-particpants voted.

Proposal 1= 100% support
Proposal 2= 100% support
Proposal 3= 66.66% support 33.4% neutral
Proposal 4= 66.66% support 33.4% oppose
- Coordinator Candidate: JCarriker elected, ran uncontested

-JCarriker 06:49, May 13, 2005 (UTC)