Talk:Pairwise sorted methods

From electowiki

I just converted it to a category because it is literally a category of methods, but we could also keep the categories and article content separate and just have a one-sentence description in the category that links to the article, with the list in the article generated manually instead of dynamically. I'm open to either. — Psephomancy (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I suppose there are many instances where something could both admit a detailed description as well as being a category. For instance, the concept of preferential voting could have a page of its own (about ranking vs rating, say), and then there's of course the category "preferential methods". The same goes for e.g. weighted postitional methods. How should we handle such pages/categories? Kristomun (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Apparently, the Wikipedia standard is to have a separate article for the category itself, and link to it on the Category page. E.g. w:Category:Sugar_substitutes, whose first line links to w:Sugar_substitute. Kristomun (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the other way. Do you think we should do it that way? — Psephomancy (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I think so. Then I could e.g. link Borda Count and FPTP to a weighted positional methods category without dumping the whole definition of a WPM on everyone who visits the category list.
The Wikipedia standard seems to be that category pages are plural and the explanatory pages are singular (e.g. "sugar substitutes" category, "sugar substitute" page). Kristomun (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


Does anything interesting happen if the definition is changed to allow each alternative to beat or tie the alternative directly below it, rather than only beat? For example, can you get Schwartz efficiency by doing so? BetterVotingAdvocacy (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)