| Display title | Method evaluation poll 2008 |
| Default sort key | Method evaluation poll 2008 |
| Page length (in bytes) | 2,784 |
| Namespace ID | 0 |
| Page ID | 278 |
| Page content language | en - English |
| Page content model | wikitext |
| Indexing by robots | Allowed |
| Number of redirects to this page | 0 |
| Counted as a content page | Yes |
| Number of subpages of this page | 0 (0 redirects; 0 non-redirects) |
| Edit | Allow all users (infinite) |
| Move | Allow all users (infinite) |
| Delete | Allow all users (infinite) |
| Page creator | imported>KVenzke |
| Date of page creation | 17:58, 27 December 2007 |
| Latest editor | Psephomancy (talk | contribs) |
| Date of latest edit | 04:21, 12 February 2019 |
| Total number of edits | 6 |
| Recent number of edits (within past 180 days) | 0 |
| Recent number of distinct authors | 0 |
Description | Content |
Article description: (description)
This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | Please rate the following single-winner methods on a scale from 0 to 10, on functional merit alone. That is, leaving the issue of public salability aside, how well will the method perform in a large, contentious electorate? Decimal ratings are allowed. |
