Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll/Option4Demo

Q1. Which of the following do you support?

[You can vote any of the options, or vote 1st option, 2nd option and so forth]

In the alternatives given below, the original pages means: those policy or guideline pages that, in accordance with consensus established in response to question 2, should be merged into Wikipedia:Attribution. WP:ATT is not everywhere verbally identical with its sources. Its supporters assert it makes no changes in policy, but is better phrased.

= A. The original pages become inactive. Wikipedia:Attribution serves as a unified policy on their subjects.=

= B. Wikipedia:Attribution remains as the definitive policy, but the original pages remain active to describe the concepts in greater detail.=

= C. The original pages serve as the definitive policies (or guideline in the case of WP:RS), but Wikipedia:Attribution remains active as a condensed summary.=

= D. Wikipedia:Attribution becomes inactive. (Parts of it that reflect consensus are integrated into the original pages.)=

Q2. If the pages are merged should they include:

[Vote in the appropriate section, "yes" or "no".

=[[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]=

==Yes.==

==No.==

=[[Wikipedia:No original research]]=

==Yes.==

==No.==

=[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]]=

==Yes.==

==No.==

Comments

: NOTE: Please limit your statement here to 500 words. All replies to points will be refactored/placed onto the poll's talk page. You may change or edit your statement. If you want to endorse someone else's, you may endorse it, but only one total entry per person, please.