https://github.com/metabrainz/musicbrainz-server/pull/1000

Agreed with "Voting closes in 2 days", and agreed "Requires" is misleading. "For quick application: 3 unanimous Yes votes" might make more sense. I'd drop "Conditions" and "Data Quality": the latter has no effect now which means AFAICT all edits accept upon expiration anyway.

While we're discussing the edit page sidebar, I think a broader shakeup of it would help resolve potential editor confusion. This example was https://musicbrainz.org/edit/53420910:

Status: Open
This edit is open and awaiting votes before it can be applied.

Opened: 2018-06-02 17:43 UTC
Expiration: Expires in 2 days
Data Quality: Normal
Requires: 3 unanimous votes
Conditions: Accept upon expiration 
Raw edit data for this edit

For more information:
Voting FAQ
Editing FAQ
Edit Types

In my opinion,

• "Expiration: Expires in 2 days" should probably be more like "Voting: Closes in 2 days"
• "Requires: 3 unanimous votes" is misleading.
• "Conditions: Accept upon expiration" - I think this section should either be merged with "Requires" or removed.
• "Raw edit data for this edit" should probably be moved, because everything above and below it is about voting, not the edit data, and votes aren't a part of the edit data.
• The Voting FAQ link doesn't go to questions/answers and is titled "Introduction to Voting"

To be more specific, that's the 'will be' that I think can be confusing, as it can change from day to day. If we use "According current votes, the change will be accepted/rejected" then it sounds better to me. Maybe adding a link to the wiki about the voting system could be nice too.

But that's just my opinion and I can be wrong...

@Smeulf What exactly do you think is confusing if you see the actual status as "accepted in..." or "rejected in..."?

I don't think that "calculate what the result in x days maybe will be" (especially for beginners) is easier. Or how do you explain the fact, that 0 votes will be result in a accepted edit?

IMO if we're talking about the edit itself, 'pending for' would be good. If it's about the voting period, I'd say 'votes opened for X days'. I'm not for changing the text according the number of votes, as it could be confusing if it change many times.

I'm pretty sure that was changed some time ago. I've witnessed at least one sockpuppet voting incident, and the fact that all the voters' names were displayed was part of how we determined that editor was using sockpuppets.

IIRC votes are not always visible from the edit view while the edit is open, to avoid influencing other voters too much or something. Not sure if we already changed that though.

Yes, surely making the text adaptive isn't too tall an order?

Maybe something like:

Will be accepted in x days
or
Will be rejected in x days

Even better with the actual number of Yes- and No-Votes when hoovering over the already calculated date.

Example:

Will be accepted in 6 days

(with hoovering text "2 Yes votes, 1 No vote"
or
"0 Yes votes, 0 No votes")