Template talk:ACE2011
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Tikiwont in topic Voter log not visible
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ACE2011 template. |
|
New guides
editIf you would like to add your guide to the template, you can either add it yourself, or, since the coding is somewhat complex, just list your guide here and someone else will add it for you. Thanks! --Elonka 18:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- User:NuclearWarfare/ACE2011. Thank you to those who know what's going on. NW (Talk) 18:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Done. Doublechecked, good job. --Elonka 04:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Full randomization
editIdeally the template would randomize the order of the guides in addition to cycling which appears first. As far as I know there is no reasonable way to do so. While the switch method could be combined with additional sources of random numbers to generate a true random ordering, the number of permutations that would need to be coded would become unmanageable as the number of guides grows. Unless there is a radically better way of doing it, I think we will need to settle for the rotating alphabetical list. If anyone has a way to make a full random list work with the 20-25 guides we are likely to get, it would be great. Monty845 18:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- It's simple but a bit time consuming to make something that's psedudo random. You could make two dozen sets, with each set having a different pre-made order of guides - {1,3,9,2,4,5,8,0,7,6}, {5,7,9,0,2,6,3,1,4,8}, {8,4,0,2,1,7,9,6,3,5}, etc. - and randomize the sets. It accomplishes the objective of not having the same guide come first each time, and can be done using the same technique that SnottyWong uses and I once used, to "randomize" the colors of our signatures. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- The problem with that is that unless a great deal of care was taken each time a guide was added, some of the guides would on average end up in less advantageous positions then others. I don't think it would be any more fair then the alphabetical implementation, and it would be a lot harder to make sure it was as fair. Essentially, unless we manually assured full randomness in the sets, it would create the illusion of randomness without actually increasing it. Monty845 15:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- As long as the same ones aren't always up front or in the back all the time, it's sufficently random IMO. If we're not going to do it random, I say we should leave the order first come first listed. There's no reason to alphabetize them, so why bother? Sven Manguard Wha? 03:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- I want to meet the spirit of the RFA randomization suggestion, which I think is fairness in positioning to all the guides. The cycling alphabetical lists makes it easy to assure that the fairness element is met. As each switch list should be in alphabetical order, and each guide should appear first exactly once, every guide has a equal chance to appear in each position every time the server regenerates the template. No matter what positions a person thinks are most desirable, all the guides are equal. If we randomized, and then tweaked it so that guides were first and last equal numbers of times, there is still the question of 2nd position, or 2nd to last, or maybe middle position on the first line... Short of a truly random list generated each time the template is rendered, I think this is the most defensibly fair way to do it. Monty845 04:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- The issue with doing it alphabetically is that it dosen't look random. I'd much rather assign each person a number and use a Sudoku puzzle to generate the random orderings. It works for anything under 9, and can be made to work for anything above 9 as well. That makes it look random. Mind you, you're the coordinator, it's your call. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Just as an aside, afaik your the one who decided I was a/the coordinator (not that I object), so I don't think I have any special authority in advocating one way of doing it. The sudoku method sounds like a great idea for up to 9 guides, but I don't understand how it would be made to work with more then 9, could you explain that part? Actually, I'm not sure it would be perfectly fair except when we have an even multiple of 9 worth of guides, though it would be essentially random as to fairness. I have been experimenting with the soduku method in my sandbox User:Monty845/Sandbox2 if that would be at all helpful. Monty845 16:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think I have a sudoku based method working in my User:Monty845/Sandbox2, as coded it should scale to 27 guides, and should be both random and fair. If you could take a look and let me know if you think it is random enough (and not going to break anything). Additional guides are added to a sub template at User:Monty845/Sandbox3. Monty845 23:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- As it looks like Sven Manguard may not be around for awhile, I've gone ahead with the change, let me know if there are any problems/objections. Monty845 22:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think I have a sudoku based method working in my User:Monty845/Sandbox2, as coded it should scale to 27 guides, and should be both random and fair. If you could take a look and let me know if you think it is random enough (and not going to break anything). Additional guides are added to a sub template at User:Monty845/Sandbox3. Monty845 23:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Just as an aside, afaik your the one who decided I was a/the coordinator (not that I object), so I don't think I have any special authority in advocating one way of doing it. The sudoku method sounds like a great idea for up to 9 guides, but I don't understand how it would be made to work with more then 9, could you explain that part? Actually, I'm not sure it would be perfectly fair except when we have an even multiple of 9 worth of guides, though it would be essentially random as to fairness. I have been experimenting with the soduku method in my sandbox User:Monty845/Sandbox2 if that would be at all helpful. Monty845 16:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- The issue with doing it alphabetically is that it dosen't look random. I'd much rather assign each person a number and use a Sudoku puzzle to generate the random orderings. It works for anything under 9, and can be made to work for anything above 9 as well. That makes it look random. Mind you, you're the coordinator, it's your call. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- I want to meet the spirit of the RFA randomization suggestion, which I think is fairness in positioning to all the guides. The cycling alphabetical lists makes it easy to assure that the fairness element is met. As each switch list should be in alphabetical order, and each guide should appear first exactly once, every guide has a equal chance to appear in each position every time the server regenerates the template. No matter what positions a person thinks are most desirable, all the guides are equal. If we randomized, and then tweaked it so that guides were first and last equal numbers of times, there is still the question of 2nd position, or 2nd to last, or maybe middle position on the first line... Short of a truly random list generated each time the template is rendered, I think this is the most defensibly fair way to do it. Monty845 04:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- As long as the same ones aren't always up front or in the back all the time, it's sufficently random IMO. If we're not going to do it random, I say we should leave the order first come first listed. There's no reason to alphabetize them, so why bother? Sven Manguard Wha? 03:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- The problem with that is that unless a great deal of care was taken each time a guide was added, some of the guides would on average end up in less advantageous positions then others. I don't think it would be any more fair then the alphabetical implementation, and it would be a lot harder to make sure it was as fair. Essentially, unless we manually assured full randomness in the sets, it would create the illusion of randomness without actually increasing it. Monty845 15:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Please?
editSomeone add User:Ealdgyth/2011 Arb Election votes? I don't even want to try to add it myself... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Certainly, Done - Monty845 01:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- I added mine, but could someone double check and make sure I did it right? --Rschen7754 04:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Looks fine. Monty845 05:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- I added mine, but could someone double check and make sure I did it right? --Rschen7754 04:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Name change
editWould anyone object to changing {{ACE2011/Candidates}} to {{ACE2011/Guides}}? The subtemplate really doesn't have much to do with the candidates. --Elonka 14:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- My bad on that, I'm not sure what I was thinking when I named it that, but it makes no sense. No objection to changing it from me. Monty845 14:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Moved. I also updated {{ACE2011/doc}} and {{ACE2011/Format}}, which I think covers it, but please let me know if there are any other subpages or subtemplates which may need tweaking. BTW, it's a very clever way of handling randomization, kudos. :) --Elonka 04:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Apart from one page of disagreement, ;) you seem to be a great Wikipedian, Elonka! :)
- Great work! :)
- Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Moved. I also updated {{ACE2011/doc}} and {{ACE2011/Format}}, which I think covers it, but please let me know if there are any other subpages or subtemplates which may need tweaking. BTW, it's a very clever way of handling randomization, kudos. :) --Elonka 04:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Remove one
editSomeone who knows how to edit this template without breaking it should probably remove User:Ebe123/ACE2011, seeing as it's been deleted. Jenks24 (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, my
editWould someone please add User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes2011-- over my head. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
And User:William M. Connolley/ACE2011. I'm an embedded software engineer, I can't do this high-level stuff William M. Connolley (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Dagnabit, I thought I had the "gender gap" advantage here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Please add User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/AC. Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Done! (SG and WMC were also helped.)- Yes, the system was built for nine spots using a Sudoku puzzle as the order generator. I'm not sure how it works now. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- I have an R-script that implements a congruential generator recommended by Knuth. However, whenever I start to think of pseudo-random number generators, I fear for my soul, knowing that von Neumann warned that "of course, speaking of deterministic methods for producing random digits places oneself in a 'state of sin'". Indeed, I fear that I shall become like Neal on The Young Ones: ""We sow the seed, right. Nature grows the seed, and then, we eat the seed. And then, after that, we sow the seed, nature grows the seed, and then, we eat the seed. And then, after that again, we sow the seed, nature grows the seed...." Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- The primary source of pseudo randomness is still the sudoku sets that Sven Manguard proposed. The main template takes the remainder of the current number of edits to Wikipedia divided by nine as a pseudo random number to select one of the 9 sets, which were based on a sudoku puzzle. The template passes those numbers on to the first sub-template, which just formats the list, and calls the second subtemplate for the guides to insert, to allow for more then 9 guides, for each slot the template checks the number passed from the main template plus nine, and if it exists, adds it paired to the number called. Without more, this would cause the 10th guide to always be paired with the 1st, in the same order. So guide 1 would always be followed immediately by guide 10, guide 10 could then never be first in the overall order, and guide 1 never last. To avoid this, the second sub-template uses the current time to pseudo randomly cycle the numbers assigned to the guides. This both avoids the ordered pairing, and ensures that every guide has an equal chance to be in each position. The current setup will scale to 27 guides without needed to add more code. There is still some pairing that occurs, but it shouldn't be very obvious to the casual observer, and should be totally fair to the guides being paired, unless for some reason a guide writer objects to being in proximity to a particular other guide they are being paired with, but that seems unlikely to be an issue. Monty845 16:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- You had better ask Willam M. Connolley whether he objects to being paired with me! ;) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- The primary source of pseudo randomness is still the sudoku sets that Sven Manguard proposed. The main template takes the remainder of the current number of edits to Wikipedia divided by nine as a pseudo random number to select one of the 9 sets, which were based on a sudoku puzzle. The template passes those numbers on to the first sub-template, which just formats the list, and calls the second subtemplate for the guides to insert, to allow for more then 9 guides, for each slot the template checks the number passed from the main template plus nine, and if it exists, adds it paired to the number called. Without more, this would cause the 10th guide to always be paired with the 1st, in the same order. So guide 1 would always be followed immediately by guide 10, guide 10 could then never be first in the overall order, and guide 1 never last. To avoid this, the second sub-template uses the current time to pseudo randomly cycle the numbers assigned to the guides. This both avoids the ordered pairing, and ensures that every guide has an equal chance to be in each position. The current setup will scale to 27 guides without needed to add more code. There is still some pairing that occurs, but it shouldn't be very obvious to the casual observer, and should be totally fair to the guides being paired, unless for some reason a guide writer objects to being in proximity to a particular other guide they are being paired with, but that seems unlikely to be an issue. Monty845 16:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- I have an R-script that implements a congruential generator recommended by Knuth. However, whenever I start to think of pseudo-random number generators, I fear for my soul, knowing that von Neumann warned that "of course, speaking of deterministic methods for producing random digits places oneself in a 'state of sin'". Indeed, I fear that I shall become like Neal on The Young Ones: ""We sow the seed, right. Nature grows the seed, and then, we eat the seed. And then, after that, we sow the seed, nature grows the seed, and then, we eat the seed. And then, after that again, we sow the seed, nature grows the seed...." Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the system was built for nine spots using a Sudoku puzzle as the order generator. I'm not sure how it works now. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, if this guide [1] is included in the "official" list, then I think mine [2] should be on there as well. Particularly, since I'm experienced in guide writing and all. Volunteer Marek 05:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Request for addition and listing other guides here
edit- (1) If someone could include my guide, I'd be grateful (User:Carcharoth/ArbCom Elections/ACE2011). It is not complete yet, and the current stuff is only provisional, but it will be complete in a few days.
- (2) Other guides or various sorts exist. The authors may not want them added, but I thought it worth mentioning them here. I'm sure more can be found if those interested look around in userspace using certain search terms. The ones I found were: User:Volunteer Marek/ACE2011, User:Hipocrite/AC2011G, User:Scott MacDonald/ACE2011, User:CT Cooper/Arbitration Committee/December 2011 Elections.
- (3) In addition to User:Monty845/ACE2011 there are two other 'guides to guides' that I'm aware of: User:John Vandenberg/ACE/2011 guides and User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes2011/Guides. Personally, I find the latter two more useful, and they should at least be listed as well (if the authors allow).
Anyone know of any more? Carcharoth (talk) 08:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- I went ahead and updated the template with the new guides, except for User:Volunteer Marek/ACE2011, as I'm not sure it meets the "written in good faith" standard. As for listing the metaguides, I am ambivalent. I'd like to see a list of metaguides somewhere, but I'm not sure that the template is the right place for it. Currently these are the metaguides that I know of:
- User:Monty845/ACE2011 (which might be easier to maintain if the rows & columns were reversed)
- User:John Vandenberg/ACE/2011 guides
- User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes2011/Guides (very limited subset of guides)
- User:Sven Manguard/2011 ArbCom Voter Guide#Guide on guides (out of date)
- User:Volunteer Marek/ACE2011/meta (very limited info)
- Their usefulness (especially the last one) is debatable, and I could already point to multiple errors. Plus I'm concerned that there might be a slippery slope here, with someone creating a meta-meta guide as someone rates the metaguides, and then a meta-meta-meta guide to rate the meta-meta guides, etc. So my preference at the moment would be to just list the meta guides here at the talkpage, and leave it at that. --Elonka 16:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Could someone add my voter guide to the template?
editUser:Master&Expert/ArbCom Elections 2011. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Done. Interesting reading, thanks! --Elonka 16:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Voter log not visible
editThere seems to be a time condition that has removed the voter log from the template with the election closed. That doesn't seem to be warranted - rather to the contrary, but I'm not in a position to fix it.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up; I'm not sure all this complicated time-switch business is worth the bother. Skomorokh 19:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks to you. A new link is perfectly fine. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)