Talk:qualified majority

Listing supermajorities
I found the following qualified majorities sometimes used: 55%, 60%, 65%, 2/3 (66.6%), 3/4 (75%) or 4/5 (80%).

I find it useful to list them in the definition for best clarity. It adds value. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * It’s clutter, and an insult to the reader’s intelligence. Theknightwho (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The reader has no way of knowing that "55%" is sometimes a qualified majority. And it is not a matter of intelligence to know what supermajorities are actually used in the real world.

The definition reads:
 * A majority in a vote that reaches a preset threshold value significantly larger than 50%, such as 55%, 60%, 65%, 2/3 (66.6%), 3/4 (75%) or 4/5 (80%), often required instead of a simple majority for reaching a decision in particularly important matters such as modifying by-laws in an association.

It's not terribly long. I don't see why the reader would not want to know. It is especially useful to know that a majority as low as 55% is sometimes considered a "qualified majority".

--Dan Polansky (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * It doesn’t appear that you are interested in a discussion so much as repeating yourself until you get your way. If you are not willing to reply to my reasoning, then there is no point in engaging with you. Theknightwho (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning is that it "insults" your intelligence. It does not insult mine. I want to know, you don't. I want maximum clarity and explicitness. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My reasoning is that it’s more difficult to parse, and adds no value. They’re just examples, and we do not need more than one. Theknightwho (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We do have more than one example in open compound, for instance, and for good purpose. I would not have guessed that 55% is a "qualified majority". There is no great difficulty of parsing for a person of average intelligence. The result is still very short. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because one definition is bad doesn’t mean we have to ruin others as well. Theknightwho (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I implore you to seek compromise. My explicit listing of values starting with "such as" gives the most value and does not mislead, but since you oppose this, at least accept a hint at a range of values. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My compromise is that you get an example at all. Strictly, it isn’t necessary. Theknightwho (talk) 14:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not a compromise. We very often give examples in our definitions and so do other dictionaries. Examples add great value beyond abstract definitions. You are inventing your own rules here contrary to common practice. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s a compromise, because I would have preferred not to have one. However, I appreciate some people like them. I’m not haggling with you - I made it what I believed to be fair from the start. Theknightwho (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you know what usage examples are? Or collocations? I suggest you use them. Theknightwho (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * (outdent) We have widespread practice of exemplification and your individual preferences do not override them. If you want to change our exemplification practices, start a discussion in Beer parlour to get consensus for that change. This dictionary does not serve you personally only; it serves people with varied needs. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have explained how we give examples. Please read what I write before replying. Theknightwho (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

LOL, it must be great to be Dan. Everything he does is correct and anyone else needs to go and seek "consensus". Equinox ◑ 14:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe it to be verifiably true for anyone to check that we do a great deal of exemplication in our entries. I did not introduce that practice; I merely like it. We even have "Example" boxes to the right in some entries. I sought compromise by placing this information into a usage note but was reverted. What I see here is someone making new rules for others to follow, contrary to previous practice. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You’re arguing against an argument no-one made. If you cannot be bothered to learn how we give examples properly, that is an issue of competence. Theknightwho (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * open compound gives 3 examples: "high school, school bus, or science fiction". You don't get to decide for others what a "proper" exemplication in a definition is. On the model of open compound, we could give at least 3 examples. You don't like it, but it is our practice. Your notion of "properly" is not a project-decided notion; it is one that you have decided to impose here on your whim. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So what? The examples you gave in the context of this definition were causing clutter. Given you seem to be legitimately incapable of comprehending that I have already explained other (legitimate) ways to give examples, I can only conclude you are not a reasonable person. Never mind that you rarely bother linking anything properly, either. Theknightwho (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The way I used is "legitimate" as per previous practice. There is nothing in the project that forbids it. You are meking rules here on the spot. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, usage notes are for usage information about the term, and not the thing the term describes. This is well-established. You just never admit when you’re wrong. Theknightwho (talk) 14:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Usage note was a compromise to declutter the definition while providing the same info. Giving examples directly in the definition after "such as" is an established practice and is "legitimate". Your forbidding listing multiple examples in a definition is your original rule making contrary to previous practice. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Usage notes should not be used incorrectly as a “compromise”. I have suggested other ways in which you can put the information you want to already. Why don’t you try one of those? Theknightwho (talk) 15:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)