Template talk:Infobox voting method: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) m (Psephomancy moved page Template talk:Voting method to Template talk:Infobox voting method: Same convention as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Infobox_templates) |
No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Infobox voting method|condorcet=1|favorite-betrayal=0|title=Black's method}}
How would I, for example, indicate that some voting method passes the Smith criterion, or indicate that the utility criterion is incompatible with later-no-harm? [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 21:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
: {{ping|BetterVotingAdvocacy}}
: I changed three of the parameters to what I think is a better format, and made an example visual formatting for them. Added an example of use at the top of this talk page, with one parameter true, one false, and one omitted, for demonstration. Notice it added categories to this page automatically (which we should probably disable on examples somehow....)
: I think you can figure out how to adapt the rest to whatever you're thinking of. :)
: I wonder if the criteria would be best formatted as a dense table with checkmarks or something and abbreviations for the criteria that you can hover over if you forget what they stand for. — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 04:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
:: I'd like to note why I never used this tool. It seems to me a lot of this ought to be automatable, and that further, if we ever decided to make changes to some of the criteria in the table, that it'd break things and require a lot of work to fix. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 03:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
| |||