Wikipedia talk:Supermajority

message: Here is a great example of the need for objective ways to judge rough consensus in the absence of actual consensus, from WP talk:Consensus:
Let's discuss a practical example. The Wikipedia community is split on the use of diacritics in article names, but pages still have to be named. How does one build a consensus on such an issue as the number of people involved in the debate runs to more than 100 and the number who have changed their opinion on the issue could be counted on one hand? The problem is not so much new pages, but the moving of pages that already exist to fit in with one guideline or another because no wording which would unify the guidelines can be agreed upon. So we end up with debate after debate, see the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Norse mythology) for a good example of the consequences of this. If you can suggest how such a contentious issue can be sorted out without discussion of the number of participants which go to make up a rough consensus, I would be most interested to read it --Philip Baird Shearer 13:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diacritics in article names 

message: This page is not, will never be, and should never be given any level of credence. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and there are no hard and fast numerical thresholds - closing admins and bueracrats are always and have always been empowered to weigh the merits of arguments as well as the numbers of people making them. This is a fundamental aspect of how Wikipedia works. Phil Sandifer 20:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no question that several dozen administrative votes of one kind or another occur each day here. Ultimately I defer to those who aren't new here like I am. That does not mean that I believe more than 60% of them agree with each other on this issue, though.  I will refrain from calling for a vote for the time being. --James S. 22:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Simply put

message: The reason this page was created a few days ago was to get the supermajority numbers out of the Wikipedia:Consensus page, by request on Wikipedia talk:Consensus. Therefore, I'm removing the merge tag. --James S. 09:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge tag 

message: Whatever majority is decided to put into effect for AfD, the same majority has to be used for DRV.  User:Zoe|(talk) 00:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The numbers for DRV were considered rather carefully when it was crested out of VfU. DRV is not supposed to be, and usually is not, a re-run of XfD. DRV is supposed to consider primarily process errors. If a simple majority of those expressing an opnion at DRV feel that the process was in error that is a good reason to re-run the process. Only if a large supermajority (currently set at three-quarters) belives that both process and outcomne were wrong is DRV supposed to simply undo the closure without relisting in the appropriate forum. DES (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reciprocity

message: It seems that all the information on this page is in Wikipedia:Consensus except for the specific percentages that are being used for supermajority.  I can think of two good reasons to have this page redirect to Wikipedia:Consensus.  First, having the specific percentages stated on a centralized wikipedia page makes it seem that there is broad agreement in these numbers.  I don't think this is the case.  Second and more important in my view, is that any discussion of Supermajority should always be framed with discussion about how it is just a tool to help reach rough consensus and not a process in and of itself.   We don't want to send the message that Supermajority by itself is the method by which decisions are made.
I know that this page was created to try and help reach a consensus at Wikipedia:Consensus but since we now include the range of percentages on that page, is this one needed? -- Samuel Wantman 21:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Issues are not decided by supermajority, they are decided by consensus. *sigh* Kim Bruning 11:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have this page redirect to [[Wikipedia:Consensus]] 

message: This article states the equivalent of "A Supermajority poll is a process for attempting to ascertain if a consensus exists when it is clear that a consensus does not exist." This violates the basic rules of logic. This proposed policy is PATENT NONSENSE. pat8722 22:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's speedily get rid of this NONSENSE proposal

message: Objections? - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 12:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's better off as an explicitly rejected page. That way people wo do link to it can be shown the errors in their ways if they think Consensus = Supermajority voting. -- nae'blis 21:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Any objection to redirecting to Wikipedia:Consensus ?