| Display title | Talk:Solid coalition |
| Default sort key | Solid coalition |
| Page length (in bytes) | 803 |
| Namespace ID | 1 |
| Namespace | Talk |
| Page ID | 3918 |
| Page content language | en - English |
| Page content model | wikitext |
| Indexing by robots | Allowed |
| Number of redirects to this page | 0 |
| 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 | Closed Limelike Curves (talk | contribs) |
| Date of page creation | 01:17, 2 February 2024 |
| Latest editor | Closed Limelike Curves (talk | contribs) |
| Date of latest edit | 01:17, 2 February 2024 |
| Total number of edits | 1 |
| Recent number of edits (within past 180 days) | 1 |
| Recent number of distinct authors | 1 |
Description | Content |
Article description: (description)
This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | "A solid coalition is a group of candidates preferred to everybody else" (used in mutual majority criterion) reminds me of Smith sets, which are a weaker kind of "coalition"; every candidate in the Smith set has their own "coalition" which supports them against any candidate outside of the Smith set. Is there a term for these "coalitions"? I'm editing Wikipedia and trying to leverage this kind of analogy; if there's a (CC, CLC, Smith)<->(MC, MLC, MMC) correspondence, where the difference is in terms of how "strong" the coalition is, I think these criteria become easier to understand. |
