Talk:Schulze method

Schulze method is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 4, 2009	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

MarkusSchulze (talk · contribs) / Schulze method This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (User devised the method that is the subject of this article, assuming compliance with WP:REALNAME.)

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

"Condorcet method/wiki/Schulze method" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Condorcet method/wiki/Schulze method. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 02:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Local Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives[edit]

Since LIIA is one of the few criteria where Schulze and ranked pairs differ, should the article give an example where Schulze fails it or link to an external reference? WildGardener (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this example, the Schulze ranking is C > D > B > A. However, when candidate C is removed, then the Schulze ranking of the remaining candidates is D > A > B.

I had added this example in 2009 (diff). However, this example was removed by Daveagp in 2011 (diff). I didn't reinsert this example because I didn't want to be accused of starting an edit war. Markus Schulze 07:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the background! I didn't realize there was past history on this already. WildGardener (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simpler example[edit]

The 5-candidate pentagram example probably scares some people off. ;)

Maybe we could try simpler examples? 4 candidates is enough to show how Schulze differs from Minimax, without cluttering everything up with too many arrows (6 arrows total, and you can display them without intersections, vs. 10 arrows for a 5-candidate race). –Maximum Limelihood Estimator 17:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by expert / conflict of interest[edit]

MarkusSchulze, if you are the author / inventor of the Schulze Method ... first thank you for contributing to this article. Your expertise goes very far towards making this a great article. But, also, second, you have a potential conflict of interest when it comes to editing this article. The way I would balance these priorities ... please be extra deferential when it comes to disagreements with other editors. By all means, please argue strenuously (though politely) on the talk page if that is what it takes to make this article its best, but please stay very far away from edit warring (or edit skirmishes or edit stern looks ... you get the idea) when it comes to editing the article itself. It is the nature of authorship that you are both expert and potentially conflicted; so I ask you to adopt these measures to balance these priorities. (Actually, I'm not any sort of certified expert on the details of WP:COI; if you find that the formal advice is some other approach, please don't be shy about telling me.) Thank you — $Q$ uantling (talk | contribs) 20:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Quantling, it is a central aspect of the Schulze method that it can be proven that p[X,Y] > p[Y,X] and p[Y,Z] > p[Z,Y] together imply p[X,Z] > p[Z,X]. That's the whole point of why defeats are defined this way. If this aspect wasn't true then the Schulze method wasn't even well defined. But Closed Limelike Curves keeps removing this aspect. Markus Schulze 07:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused why you think this is different from transitivity. If we define "X has a beatpath win over Y iff p[X,Y] > p[Y,X]", this just seems to be saying "if X has a beatpath-win over Y and Y has a beatpath-win over Z, X has a beatpath-win over Z"—i.e. beatpath-wins are a transitive relation. –Maximum Limelihood Estimator 21:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]