Talk:Chicken dilemma

From Electowiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Merged chicken dilemma articles[edit source]

Prior to today, there was an article called "Chicken Dilemma Criterion" (which I'll call "A") and one called Chicken dilemma (which I'll call "B"). They needed mergeing. The Chicken Dilemma Criterion ("A") was a more complete article, but Chicken dilemma ("B") had a better title. So here's what I did:

  1. Moved Chicken dilemma ("B") to Chicken dilemma criterion
  2. Moved Chicken Dilemma Criterion ("A") to Chicken dilemma
  3. Copied the content from "B" to the top of "A", thus merging them into "AB" at Chicken dilemma
  4. Replaced Chicken dilemma criterion ("B") with a redirect to Chicken dilemma ("AB")
  5. Did some copyediting work

This article needs much more work, but I think I'm done working on it for now. -- RobLa (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Chicken dilemma section title[edit source]

Kristomun, why did you change the section title from "Definition" to "Definition of chicken dilemma criterion"? I can understand doing that when the article is brand-new, but I suspect that you may have broken that link (i.e. if someone on Reddit linked to the Definition section, their link will no longer go to the right section). In general, I think we editors ought to establish a practice of being reticent to touch section names. BetterVotingAdvocacy (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Because it's not a definition of the chicken dilemma. Electowiki has quite a few old pages where the threshold for revision is, I think, lower than on an ordinary Wikipedia page. For instance, some pages have an informal style and were originally written by Mike Ossipoff. As I understand it, the chicken dilemma page is one of these, so I did the edit with clarification in mind.
I see your point, though; if you think it's serious, then we could change "Definition of..." back into "Definition" and then change "Formal definition" into "Formal definition of...", as it's much less likely that anyone would have linked directly to the first subsection of a section. I think we're fine in any case (and the current change is a little more elegant), but if you disagree, feel free to do the change. Kristomun (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Kristomun, thanks for cleaning up some of Mike Ossipoff's writing. Mike was very influential in my thinking about electoral reform, but he seemed to prefer raw stream-of-consciousness writing. The sheer quantity of his prose made him less persuasive to a general audience than he would have been with shorter, well-constructed prose. I did a litte more restructuring of the article (consolidating the two definitions into a "Definition" section), but I didn't do a deep rethink of the article. We shouldn't feel bashful about trimming back his work, and restructuring it some more. It doesn't seem like it's necessary to have a "CD" and "CD2" definition, and those names are kinda terrible section titles. I hope we keep the titles as simple as possible so that hashtag links are easier (e.g Chicken dilemma#Definition), which is why I changed "Definition of..." back into "Definition".
User:BetterVotingAdvocacy, you'll notice that I added a section title to this part of the conversation. Could you make a point of adding section titles when you start a new conversation? Thanks in advance. -- RobLa (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)