Anweald

"Majority" v. "Margin"

Quite a time lag but I encountered your comment on this subject here. I was coming from a different direction than you but came there with the same proposal you had made; and, first, I endorsed your proposal there.

Now I've figured out how to request that the change be made -- the template is "protected"; administrator-only change -- but think we need a little more time, at least, before going ahead with a formal request. Your having made the request a while ago and receiving no negative comment is a (big?) plus.

Here's the "hurdles" we have to clear:

"It is requested that an edit be made to this fully protected template. ...

"[One should make] a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately.

"This ... should be used only to request edits to fully protected pages that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template. ..."

Here's the proposal I almost posted over there:

I would propose changing the element termed "Majority" to "Margin". I encountered the misnomer working on a three-candidate race (so only a plurality winner) but found this same proposal coming from a slightly different angle here when I poked around. I'm going to reach out to that editor to see if s/he has any other input. This may be inadequate as a full-blown proposal but it's a good start at least I hope.

If you insert that or other wording on the "over there" page and Show preview, you'll get those "should"s listed above. The "should"s seemed to set a bit too high a standard for my proposal to clear. At least, I wanted to check with you in advance. I expect the eventual proposal will certainly evolve some from the one above.

That all? It's all I can think of. Do you have anything to add? I may refine my orig. posting back at the Template talk page now -- linking this in, among other things -- because that will become our evidence of "consensus". You can be in touch with me directly but it's best also to add anything relevant to that talk page.

No guarantees on this. There could be a silent "Majority" majority. But ... let's see, eh? Swliv (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Great! Yes, I'd almost forgotten about it. A problem I've found since is that the two meanings of "majority" are in the dictionary, at least the OED, so the template usage is justified. In the UK people, at least journalists and those who don't care about arithmetic, often say majority when there isn't a 50%+1. But the proposal can simply be about removing ambiguity by side-stepping what the dictionary has. There is a potential for contention in that some people here don't want to admit that most of our democratic representatives don't actually represent democratically. I think we just have to avoid that point, it's clarity I was after. So I don't see a real problem with controversy, but perhaps consensus will have to be a period of waiting for objection. Thanks for joining with this. Anweald (talk) 22:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your further insight. We picked up another voice in favor at the template talk page. I have to admit my fervor such as it was has dampened some. But I could see letting it sit a bit and then pushing to a formal proposal absent real contention.

The comments about (marginal) necessity of the template line, whatever it's called, by the new commenter do make some sense to me too, I have to say. As to our dem. rep's: I do feel far from them in all this; an outlier looking over, or in, somehow; while still "believing in", whatever that may mean, and "working to support" the process. Well, we'll see. Thanks again. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)