electowiki talk:The caucus: Difference between revisions
→Categories
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (→Categories: response to User:BetterVotingAdvocacy) |
|||
Line 281:
: Is there some kind of technological solution that would allow users to see all the Condorcet methods on on page if they wanted to, but otherwise would keep it the way it is now? I just think it could be intimidating for a new user to see all sorts of wonky Condorcet methods on one page and lose interest in learning about any of them, for example. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 03:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
:: Not that I know of — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 03:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
::: [[User:Psephomancy]], I think my suggestion on this point would be that most articles should go into the deepest sub-categories possible, but for a minority of them (the most prominent ones, such as FPTP), they should be allowed to go into multiple categories where users might like to see them. Something like Schulze is probably the most prominent Condorcet method, for example, so it's reasonable to put it in both [[Category:Smith-efficient Condorcet methods]] and [[Category:Condorcet methods]] to maximize the odds that people to whom the information is pertinent will see it. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 06:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
| |||