text:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Voting systems

See also: wikipedia talk:WikiProject Voting Systems/archive 1, wikipedia talk:WikiProject Voting Systems/archive 2

Example
I am really impressed with the Tennessee voting example Rob added on Condorcet's method. It's brilliant in so many ways, in providing a (visible!) rationale for the different groups of voters to have their preferences, and most importantly in providing different outcomes for different systems. I would like to transition all the single-winner systems pages away from the Andrea-Brad-Carter-Delilah examples to the Tennesee example. Are there any objections?

DanKeshet 19:46 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I disagree. I think the Tennessee example draws away from the essential concepts of each voting system.  I think a simple Candidate A, Candidate B, and Candidate C model would better explain each individual voting system.  Reading the Tennessee model for Instant-Runoff Voting I thought had too much tangential content to explain IRV to a newbie. --Leep4life 01:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

My work, and more examples
First, I would really like some feedback on the single-winner systems. Do you feel that the pages are better now after the work I've been doing on them? Are they accurate? Thorough? Understandable to people without a background in the subject?

Second, I want to create more examples, that, similar to the one Rob used, help demonstrate tactical voting behavior, and highlight differences between systems. It would be my preference if, like the Tennesee example, this one gave a rationale for the voters' preferences.

For the runoff pages (Instant-runoff voting and runoff voting), I would like to introduce an example like so:

41% A > B > C 20% B > A > C 10% B > C > A 29% C > B > A

In this example, there is an incentive for a few voters from A to falsely put C at the tops of their ballots, lifting C into the final runoff, where it will lose to A. Does anybody know a made-up but plausible or historical example where this could or did happen? I think the made-up examples without any reasoning really fall flat.

DanKeshet

Praise and suggestions
Slowly, but surely, I feel like this area of wikipedia has started to become very useful. I believe that it is currently the second-best all-around resource on voting systems on the web, behind the ACE Project, which is quite excellent. (And, of coure, there are tons of pages on individual systems or criteria that are much better.) Google searching finds that outside people are starting to link to Voting system as well as Duverger's Law and Condorcet's method, especially on Usenet, but also on the WWW.

So, I'd like to suggest two quick campaigns to improve the project:

 * Images! I think the Image:Sample-nz-ballot-small.jpg complements the written explanation very well.  If anybody has pictures of real ballots of different kinds of elections, I think that would be a really great addition.

 * A thorough review of 142's contributions. Particularly: disapproval voting, tolerances versus preferences and the many links to these two in other articles.  I have previously had these pages deleted, because I believed they were incomprehensible, though seeded with facts.  (142 then rewrote them.)  It's mentally grueling to be in an edit war on this alone, so I would feel much better if a few of us got together and either edited them or decided they were unworthy of editing and agreed to delete them and keep them deleted.

DanKeshet

I don't think they should be deleted. Pages with those titles should exist, and they are probably not the worst pages on wikipedia. Besides, deleting them would just be picking a fight. Rewrites would be cool, but I don't care enough about those two topics to try and help there (I'm more of a maintainer than a creator of wikipedia content, coming up with lots of new words in a row is hard work). I agree about the exessive inbound links, and have moved or removed a couple of them.

pm67nz

Images! You are so right, Dan. I hope it doesn't break local laws to take pictures of ballot papers! :) I'll see what I can find.

Regards 142 - I'll take a look at the two articles you mention for starters, certainly. If I recall, they're biased, but just about better than nothing at all - so hopefully we can tweak rather than delete. Martin 18:23, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi Dan -- Sorry for taking so long to respond. I agree fully with pm67nz. As long as the excessive inbound links get curbed, this seems fine. -- RobLa 08:02, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Complexities
Articles about voting systems should also mention their time and space complexities. -- Dissident 03:22, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I added some basic computational complexity information to the Smith criterion and Schwartz set articles. CRGreathouse 02:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

My vision
Let me make my vision clear here: I want to produce occasional WikiReaders out of all these articles using the wiki-to-pdf script. It would open with Voting system, then move on to the criteria and theory, the systems themselves, the theorists, the electoral reform organizations, et cetera. In all, it would probably be about 50 pages printed. We could distribute it to voting reform groups, and they could adapt it for their purposes. For example, I could imagine an "electoral reform" caucus within a political party distribute a selected set of articles to convention delegates as a way of informing them of their options when it comes time to vote on a platform or on a reform proposal. Alternately, these could empower smaller electoral reform groups (small town reformers, say) to have correct, NPOV information on the different systems to distribute. Cool? DanKeshet 06:26, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

 * Nevermind, the image and table parts of wiki2pdf aren't working yet. When they are, it should facilitate easy creations of such a reader.  DanKeshet 19:43, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

Adjustment suggestion
As you are more familiar with voting pages structure, I suggest you take look and merge/move/list those pages where it is appopriate: Vote Simple Majority Voting Qualified Majority Voting --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:36, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

At-large voting
While adding an article on City Commission government, I noticed that at-large is a red link. I've been trying to figure out if this is already described in an article somewhere or, if not, which article would be most appropriate to include this in. Any suggestions? (cross-posted to Reference desk). older ≠ wiser 19:27, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * You are looking for bloc voting. I have updated the link in question.  Scott Ritchie 08:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

A cool example
Here is an example election which elects different winners by different methods using the same data. I found it on the Center for Range Voting puzzle page, where it is listed as "Warren Smith's improvement of one found by a high school teacher named (Brother) Patrick Carney." Perhaps we should use it somewhere.

 * A wins plurality,
 * B wins plurality plus top-2 runoff,
 * C wins sequential runoff (IRV),
 * D wins Borda count,
 * E wins Condorcet,
 * F wins Approval (assuming the top-three candidates are "approved" by each voter).

(posted by Scott Ritchie)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project
Hi, I'm a member of the Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles on voting systems? I know of Single Transferable Vote and Voting system as FAs, are there others? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Walkerma 04:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, certainly those two are worthy of inclusion on paper. I'll begin looking for others, and tagging them with  Scott Ritchie 07:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

IRV
Just a quick punt for Instant Runoff Voting. A lot of work has been done to this article since it was first listed here in the "articles which are a real mess" section, and I think it is now in its final stages. A few more man-hours work and we should have a featured article on our hands, so any support or contributions would be very helpful. Happy-melon 10:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Referendums in New Zealand
Hi. Currently the NZ collab of the fortnight is Referendums in New Zealand. Any body care to have a look at it and see if they can add anything? Cheers --Midnighttonight 08:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Additional Member System
Can people have a look at Talk:Additional Member System? --Midnighttonight 00:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Single Transferable Vote
Single Transferable Vote is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 22:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Stablepedia
Beginning cross-post.
 * See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★ MESSED  ROCKER ★  03:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

''End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.''

Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 23:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Ballot options
Hi there! the page on none of the above is bit of a mess and I've suggested splitting the RON section. Various institutions use options on ballots such as NOTA, RON, ABSTAIN and treat them in different ways. should we have separate articles for such options, or should we have a nice unified page about these types of "candidates" on ballots, and a discussion on their effect in the major voting systems? Spuddy345 03:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I think a unified article is best, since explaining the differences between them is arguably the most important part. 03:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Voting system\Electoral system
Is there a particular reason that this article uses "Voting system" versus "Electoral system?" In my experience, the term Electoral system seems more fitting and much more common. Even the template uses the term "electoral." --Electiontechnology 06:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oddly, my experience is exactly opposite yours: I can't recall ever hearing the term "electoral system" but I frequently read and hear the term "voting system". Is there any strong reason to prefer one over status quo? CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Really? Check out the Voting system entry the template is called "Commonly used Electoral systems." "Election Methods" is also fairly common. It seems to me Electoral System is the status quo. --Electiontechnology 19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I trust you if you say it's frequently used on Wikipedia. I meant that when I read about the subject (which isn't on Wikipedia, of course) I frequently see the term "voting system".  In fact I would say it's the second most common term for the broad field after the less-similar term "social choice theory".  "Electoral system" is so uncommon for me it sounds strange to my ears. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply I only meant on Wikipedia, I was just trying to give the most relevant example. In my experience the term "voting system" is much more likely to refer to the system used to cast, record, and tabulate votes. Anyone else care to chime in? --Electiontechnology 03:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I do research in electronic voting, and we consistently use the term voting system to refer to the mechanisms that produce, handle, mark, collect, and count ballots. "Voting" also has this meaning in the term electronic voting.  On the other side of the issue, the Citizens' Assemblies in British Columbia and Ontario consistently use the terms electoral reform and electoral system to refer to the method of converting votes into elected representatives.  Finally, if we allow "voting system" to mean "translating votes into seats", then there is no other term but "voting system" to mean "casting and counting votes" as well — confusingly, both would then be called "voting systems".  The only way to distinguish the two is to name them "electoral systems" and "voting systems" respectively.  For all these reasons, i support the renaming of the current Voting system page to Electoral system.  --Ka-Ping Yee 06:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

In the UK "voting method" usually refers to the "mechanics" of voting: eg at a polling station (polling place in Scotland) or by post (absent voting), by paper and pencil or by electronic machine or by telephone or by text on mobile (cellular) phone; "voting system" usually refers to the way votes are cast and counted: eg first-past-the-post (plurality), multi-member FPTP, closed party list, single transferable vote, MMP (= AMS), supplementary vote (top-two IRV). All of these "voting methods" and all of these "voting systems" are in use in the UK. "Electoral system" would encompass both "voting method" and "voting system". "Electoral reform" (as in "Electoral Reform Society") covers both "voting method" and "voting system", but much more emphasis has been and is given to reform of voting systems because the "system" has much more dramatic effects on represention than the "method".

Announcement of the state-by-state electoral reform series
Here is a to-do list:
 * Electoral reform in the United States by political division
 * Alabama - Alaska - Arizona - Arkansas - California - Colorado - Connecticut - Delaware - Florida - Georgia - Hawaii - Idaho - Illinois - Indiana - Iowa - Kansas - Kentucky - Louisiana - Maine - Maryland - Massachusetts - Michigan - Minnesota - Mississippi - Missouri - Montana - Nebraska - Nevada - New Hampshire - New Jersey - New Mexico - New York - North Carolina - North Dakota - Ohio - Oklahoma - Oregon - Pennsylvania - Rhode Island - South Carolina - South Dakota - Tennessee - Texas - Utah - Vermont - Virginia - Washington - West Virginia - Wisconsin - Wyoming - Washington, D.C. (District of Columbia) - American Samoa - Guam - Northern Mariana Islands - Puerto Rico - U.S. Virgin Islands Captain Zyrain 03:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Restoration of voting system criteria?
See Articles_for_deletion/Favorite_betrayal_criterion - I was not paying attention when this occurred but I think at the very least, summability criterion should be restored. I was having a discussion on summability in IRV talk and had to point to Electowiki. It's a new idea but is well-defined and clearly of some importance. - McCart42 16:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

 * It's interesting but WP:OR. I would be interested in explaining in the articles the minimum information needed to convey the votes, which is related to the summability criterion (which says, or tries to say, that for a fixed but arbitrarily large number of voters the information needed to convey the total vote is polynomial in the number of candidates).
 * For example, plurality voting takes $$\lg n$$ information from each voter and aggregates to $$\mathcal{O}(n\lg v)$$ total information. Of course it could also be conveyed as $$v\lg n$$ if there were a huge number of candidates, just by relaying individual ballots.
 * IRV takes $$\lg n!=\mathcal{O}(n\lg n)$$ information from each voter and aggregates it to $$\mathcal{O}(nv\lg n)$$ in total. (In theory it could also do this in $$\mathcal{O}(n!\lg v)$$, but this requires many voters and few candidates to be viable.  For 15 candidates there would have to be over 800 billion voters for this to make sense -- and then only on a 'national' level, not a precinct level.)
 * We can use information theory, just like complexity theory, without recourse to obscure criteria.
 * CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a good explanation of the quantities involved. However, I do feel that there are distinct classes of voting systems which can be represented; I'm just surprised that this idea of classification of systems by summability hasn't been published as a paper by any political scientists or mathematicians.  You're exactly right - it's OR and, at least for the time being, doesn't fit in an encyclopedia.  I do hope that it becomes published soon, as it is a vital thing to think about in terms of verification/security. - McCart42 23:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it has been. If you can find any citations you might be able to make new versions of the articles that were deleted (perhaps under new names).  I'll keep my eyes open, in any case.  I'm not sure how much goot it would be to find citations in pure math though -- there's plenty of use of big O notation in math, and I can't imagine mathematicians would feel it necessary or useful to put that into categories of the voting system sort.  Of course I could be surprised... CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Added this to requested articles. Electowiki has a good article on this which is derived almost directly from the old Wikipedia version of the page, and it is a very important criteria of voting systems.  It was deleted by an IRV supporter with a short period of deliberation which took many people by surprise.  Multiple articles were deleted in this way for notability concerns/OR.  Articles like this shouldn't slip between the cracks just because the criterion is too obvious to be published in a peer-reviewed journal; we might be waiting a long time for that information to appear somewhere else other than the web.  The information on summability is easily verifiable and should be presented. - McCart42 (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Visualizations of voting methods: a proposal to add to all relevant articles
I have found multiple independent sources for the visualizations mentioned earlier, and while they are self-published they are very important to this issue. Ka-Ping Yee has participated in a published study for the state of California on electronic voting machines and has some authority on this topic - however, in this case the simulations are so basic that anyone can verify the results themselves; I would encourage both authors to publish their sources if they haven't.

 * Brian Olson
 * Ka-Ping Yee

It is time we started to include these valuable resources in the articles on voting methods so that readers can understand the real-world consequences of each system. - McCart42 (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree that these images are valuable and would be clearly relevant to articles on voting systems; however, the problem is that they are, at this point, close to original research. It's true what MCCart42 says, anyone can verify them, but an ordinary reader cannot necessarily verify them simply, and possible controversial assumptions involved in their creation could result in the images creating a POV imbalance. This is a general problem faced by voting systems articles, and by articles in any field which has evolved rapidly on-line, where authors don't bother to go for peer-reviewed publication.

 * We can fix this, I suggest. There are resources that could be used to generate something quite equivalent to peer-review, and, if this were formalized, articles could be published in a fixed and citable form based on the results of the review. Indeed, the peer review could be far broader and far deeper than often takes place in present print publications. There are three tools now available that could be used in this; something new would need to be created in addition.

 * (1) electorama.com, the election methods wiki.
 * (2) the election methods mailing list.
 * (3) the Election Methods Interest Group.

 * (4) A "journal" that publishes articles.

 * The journal would have its own editorial board -- or even just an editor -- who uses open standards to determine that an article is approved; these standards should be as good or better than the common standards already considered adequate to meet WP:RS reliable sourcing The journal could have a print version (perhaps print-on-demand, but, hey, if enough people want it mailed to them....), but all articles would be available on-line, probably as .pdf or in other common form.

 * The place to start, I suggest, is EMIG, the election methods interest group, because this is designed to have a consensus-measuring mechanism. Note that EMIG will *not* take any controversial position, an EMIG poll does not bind anyone, it merely reports the degree of consensus that a proposition enjoys. EMIG uses, I expect (I founded it but do *not* control it; I propose, but consensus disposes) standard deliberative process as modified for on-line use; but delegable proxy allows some distinction between vocal individiuals and those who actually represent a broader constituency, i.e., are trusted. Further, it would be possible to build some mechanism for recognizing expertise.

 * Even before what would constitute formal article publication, specific questions could be directed to the election methods mailing list, as an example, and then a report on the results generated through EMIG. Currently, I've seen what are uncontroversial facts among students of election methods have a lot of trouble being represented in Wikipedia articles because, perhaps, there is no formally published, peer-reviewed source. However, peer reviewed publication, in the traditional sense, is not crucial for Wikipedia; what is crucial is verifiability.

 * As the matter stands, if a particular alleged fact is posted to the election methods list, and no cogent criticism of it appears, and the fact is supported by multiple correspondents, especially including known experts, the fact is ipso facto verified as expert opinion, because of the breadth of those who read that list and write for it. But this is still not usable, not quite yet, because there is no reliable "source" for the judgement described.

 * At one point I was discussing, frequently, the philosophy, history, and implications of the work of an author who published mostly in German, which I don't read. There was a controversial author who made claims about what was in that voluminous work. I was participating in mailing lists which included followers of this author, and serious critics of his work and sometimes of him personally. I found that I could consider charges against this author verified if a claim was made about him, quoting his writing specifically, discussed specifically, and nobody with access to the primary sources appeared claiming that he had been misquoted. (*Always* these charges would be denied, but often with ad hominem argument that the critic was a fanatic, writing in bad faith, etc. I.e., without evidence as to the actual claimed source.) This did *not* mean that implications from the alleged fact were true, those are judgements. It meant that the source was quoted and translated with reasonable accuracy. Note also that sometimes a counterclaim would, indeed, be made, with charges that the translation was slanted. I'm talking about situations where nothing like that appeared, where the implications were serious, where, therefore, it could be expected that knowledgeable defenders of the author would correct errors.

 * It's the same thing with, say, Yee diagrams. If we can document that these diagrams have been studied and reviewed, such that errors or incorporated bias would have been detected, we will have created a reliable source. There is nothing unencyclopedic about this: traditional encyclopedias consult experts; all we would be doing is formalizing an *open* process so that *decisions* can be made. By whom? By anyone who decides to publish based on those decisions. Any journal is vulnerable to a claim that it has an editorial bias; but if we do our work carefully, that claim would be without foundation, and could be dismissed easily.

 * I intend to, as I can, start making proposals on EMIG toward this end. My own activity is sporadic, it is the nature of my life and the conditions under which I work. This will really take off when others start to initiate EMIG projects as well.
 * --Abd (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure has been formed
I just wanted to let everyone know about the formation of WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure. We hope to cover all the major motions and parliamentary procedure terms. There will probably be a certain amount of overlap with WikiProject Voting systems and WikiProject Elections and Referenda. As mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Parliamentary_Procedure, voting-related topics are being classified under the headings of: There is a bit of overlap between voting system and voting basis, of course. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * voting method – Voice vote, show of hands, rising vote, etc.
 * voting system – Majority, plurality, preferential voting, etc.
 * voting basis – Majority, two-thirds, majority of entire membership, etc.

request for votes: Articles for deletion/Instant-runoff voting controversies (2nd nomination)
I would like to request that an anybody who is an expert on the subject please review Instant-runoff voting controversies for compliance with WP:NPOV and then post their comments (on whether it is NPOV, or is a POV fork) to Articles for deletion/Instant-runoff voting controversies (2nd nomination). 69.140.152.55 (talk) 06:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes, that would be appreciated. The subject article was started as a way for detail on the arguments being made about IRV to be explored; the claim (and real problem) with the main article was that finding NPOV was running into conflict with a desire of some to keep the article brief. And brief presentation of arguments, *designed* to be effective when brief, is POV imbalanced. (In fact, the very name "instant runoff voting" is exactly that, an implication that it is like runoff voting when the resemblance breaks down in practice.) In a controversies article, we believed -- this was a consensus of editors that created this article, and it's been edited and supported by both IRV proponents and opponents -- we could explore the topic in sufficient detail. That article has not perfectly realized the vision, and there is stuff in there that doesn't belong, and missing sources for statements that can be puzzling to those unfamiliar with election systems, but these are normal editorial problems and nobody is maintaining the article as either a hit piece on IRV or promotional fluff. --Abd (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Asset voting
The article, Asset voting is being considered for deletion. Comments may be made at Articles for deletion/Asset voting. --Abd (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

 * It's up for deletion again. -- Explodicle (T/C) 21:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Voting Requirements FLVS
this article is up for deletion: Voting Requirements FLVS

Voting System FAR
nominated Voting system for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.)  Fei noh a   Talk, My master 06:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Does this method exist?
I've been surfing around the Template:Electoral systems, but I haven't found any article describing one particular version of the largest remainder method: take the Hare quota and decrease it slowly until all seats are allocated. Does this method exist, or should we call it the NaBUrean quota? :P --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Gives identical results to D'Hondt. 187.143.7.74 (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge
This project doesn't look like it has much going for it. Wouldn't a merger with WikiProject Elections and Referendums make sense? Rd232 talk 01:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * strongsupport veryu similar and that seems more active. I didnt even know this exists.
 * Or perhaps let this be a taskforce of that project.(Lihaas (talk) 14:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)).
 * Neutral The concrete subject of specific elections is distinct from the more abstract subject of the methods used in elections, IMO. A taskforce, as Lihaas suggests, maybe be the way to go, though. ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't find any common ground with that project. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Voting system used in Arbcom elections: decision being made now!
People here may wish to indicate which voting system should be used for Arbcom elections. Feel free to compare and make your choices. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 10:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Comparative Politics Textbook
Hello all! I’m working with the Saylor foundation to create a series of original, crowd-sourced textbooks that will be openly licensed and freely available on the web and within Saylor’s free, self-paced courses at Saylor.org. We are using Wikibooks as a platform to host this project and hope to garner the interest of existing members of the Wikibooks and Wikipedia community, as well as bring in new members! We thought that some of your members may be interested in contributing to our book Saylor.org's Comparative Politics. (talk) --Thomas Simpson (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Lack of Definition
The Digital divide in the United States page thus far has lots of good statistical data on indicators for a digital divide in the United States so far. However, some characteristics described are not well defined if at all, such as the the term "Digital Society" (which especially applies to this WikiProject) and "Digital Literacy". I am aiming to develop definitions for these terms based from publications related to these topics and possibly developing other sections further with more recent data and constructing sentences to create paragraphs using the existing data to develop a way to read the article as an article and not just a list of bullet points. I will start looking at the following pages for helpful information and if anyone here can help, please do. Thanks.

Internet in the United States

Publications on Internet and Technology - Pew Research Center

Mobile Access 2010 - Pew Research Center

Technology - whitehouse.gov

Internet use in the contemporary media environment - Human Communication Research 2001

Interaction between States and Citizens in the Age of the Internet: "e-Government" in the United States, Britain, and the European Union - Governance 2003

narrowing the digital divide in low-income, urban communities - New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 2004

[http://crl.acrl.org/content/71/3/203.short Is There an Information Literacy Skills Gap to Be Bridged? An Examination of Faculty Perceptions and Activities Relating to Information Literacy in the United States and England - College & Research Libraries 2010]

The need for a digital rights management framework for the next generation of e-government services - Electronic Government, an International Journal 2004

E‐government and developing countries: an overview - International Review of Law, Computers & Technology 2004

Internet adoption and usage patterns are different: Implications for the digital divide - Information Economics Policy 2008

Internet Usage Statistic: How We Spend Out Time Online (INFOGRAPHIC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrpibgal (talk • contribs) 04:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Essay on voting on wikipedia
You are invited to comment. Homunq (࿓) 13:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review on Favorite betrayal criterion
The favorite betrayal criterion page has been deleted in accordance with Wikipedia policy; that deletion is now undergoing a review. Your comments are welcome. Homunq (࿓) 14:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

user template cat
Created Category:Voting user templates because they were getting lost among the myriad other political 'boxes out there. ⇔ ChristTrekker 14:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
 * – Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Copeland versus Condorcet
There's a discussion that may interest folks over on Talk:Copeland's method. In short, I'm proposing the following:

 * 1) . Rename the current Copeland's method article to Pairwise voting methods - this would clear up the confusion about whether pairwise voting methods should be called "Llull's method", "Condorcet's method" or "Copeland's method"
 * 2) . Transform this article into a history article - since Ramon Llull came up with the idea of using pairwise comparisons, we can have sections for #Ramon_Llull, Copeland's method, and Copeland's method (and possibly merge the "Arthur Herbert Copeland" article into this one).
 * 3) . Create a new Copeland's method article - that version could be based on oldid=1000095080 of the "Copeland's method" article.

At the end of this process, we could then clear up the confusion about the various Condorcet articles. See User:RobLa/Condorcet to see some of the articles I'm referring to. Thoughts? -- RobLa (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

 * I'm a bit confused. Are these the same thing? I thought Copeland specifically referred to the win-loss ratio. –Maximum Limelihood Estimator 17:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

2022 Alaska's at-large congressional district special election has an RfC
2022 Alaska's at-large congressional district special election has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. –Sincerely, A Lime 18:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Mentioning @RobLa, @KVenzke, @Robert Loring, @Rspeer, @CRGreathouse, and @MarkusSchulze as semi-active contributors to voting systems Wikipedia. –Sincerely, A Lime 18:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * First question has been resolved, second still hasn't and requires comments. –Sincerely, A Lime 18:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


text:
Julie Walters

Dame Julia Mary Walters (born 22 February 1950), known professionally as Julie Walters, is an English actress. She is the recipient of four British Academy Television Awards, two British Academy Film Awards, two International Emmy Awards, a Golden Globe Award, and an Olivier Award.

Walters has been nominated for two Academy Awards across acting categories—once for Best Actress and once for Best Supporting Actress. She was honoured with the BAFTA Fellowship for lifetime achievement in 2014. She was made a Dame (DBE) by Queen Elizabeth II in 2017 for services to drama.

Walters rose to prominence playing the title role in Educating Rita (1983), a part she originated in the West End production of the stage play upon which the film was based. She has appeared in many other films, including Personal Services (1987), Prick Up Your Ears (1987), Buster (1988), Stepping Out (1991), Sister My Sister (1994), Girls' Night (1998), Titanic Town (1998), Billy Elliot (2000), seven out of eight Harry Potter films (2001–2011), Calendar Girls (2003), Becoming Jane (2007), Mamma Mia! (2008) and its 2018 sequel, Brave (2012), Paddington (2014) and its 2017 sequel, Brooklyn (2015), Film Stars Don't Die in Liverpool (2017), and Mary Poppins Returns (2018). On stage, she won an Olivier Award for Best Actress for the 2001 revival of All My Sons.

On television, Walters collaborated regularly with Victoria Wood; their projects included Wood and Walters (1981), Victoria Wood: As Seen on TV (1985–1987), Pat and Margaret (1994), and dinnerladies (1998–2000). She has won the British Academy Television Award for Best Actress four times, more than any other performer, for her roles in My Beautiful Son (2001), Murder (2002), The Canterbury Tales (2003), and Mo (2010). Walters and Helen Mirren are the only actresses to have won this award three consecutive times, and Walters is tied with Judi Dench for most nominations in the category with seven. She is the only actress to win the International Emmy Award for Best Actress twice, for her roles in A Short Stay in Switzerland (2009) and Mo (2010). In 2006, the British public voted Walters fourth in ITV's poll of TV's 50 Greatest Stars.

Early life
Julia Mary Walters was born on 22 February 1950 at St Chad's Hospital in Edgbaston, Birmingham, England, the daughter of Mary Bridget (née O'Brien), an Irish Catholic postal clerk from County Mayo, and Thomas Walters, an English builder and decorator. According to the BBC genealogy series Who Do You Think You Are?, her maternal ancestors played an active part in the 19th-century Irish Land War. Her paternal grandfather Thomas Walters was a veteran of the Second Boer War, and was killed in action in World War I in June 1915 while serving with the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Warwickshire Regiment; he is commemorated at the Le Touret Memorial in France. Walters and her family lived at 69 Bishopton Road in the Bearwood area of Smethwick. The youngest of five children and the third to survive birth, Walters had an early education at St Paul's School for Girls in Edgbaston and later at Holly Lodge Grammar School for Girls in Smethwick. She said in 2014 that it was "heaven when [she] went to an ordinary grammar school", although she was asked to leave at the end of her lower sixth because of her "high jinks".

Walters later told interviewer Alison Oddey about her early schooling, "I was never going to be academic, so [my mother] suggested that I try teaching or nursing. [...] I'd been asked to leave school, so I thought I'd better do it." Her first job was in insurance at the age of 15. At the age of 18, she trained as a student nurse at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham; she worked on the ophthalmic, casualty, and coronary care wards during the 18 months she spent there. She decided to leave nursing and went on to study acting at the newly established Manchester Polytechnic School of Theatre (now Manchester School of Theatre). She worked for the Everyman Theatre Company in Liverpool in the mid-1970s, alongside several other notable performers and writers such as Bill Nighy, Pete Postlethwaite, Jonathan Pryce, Willy Russell, and Alan Bleasdale.

1971–1979: Career beginnings
Walters first received notice as the occasional partner of comedian Victoria Wood, whom she had originally met in 1971 when Wood auditioned at the School of Theatre in Manchester. The two first worked together in the 1978 theatre revue In at the Death, followed by the television adaptation of Wood's play Talent.

They went on to appear in their own Granada Television series, Wood and Walters, in 1981. They continued to perform together frequently over the years. The BAFTA-winning BBC follow-up, Victoria Wood: As Seen on TV, featured one of Walters's best-known roles, Mrs Overall, in Wood's parodic soap opera, Acorn Antiques (she later appeared in the musical version, and received an Olivier Award nomination for her efforts).

1980–1989: Educating Rita and Buster
Walters' first serious acting role on television was in Alan Bleasdale's Boys from the Blackstuff in 1982. She came to national attention when she co-starred with Michael Caine in Educating Rita (1983), a role she had created on the West End stage in Willy Russell's 1980 play. Playing Susan "Rita" White, a Liverpudlian working-class hairdresser who seeks to better herself by signing up for and attending an Open University course in English literature, she would receive the BAFTA Award for Best Actress, the Golden Globe Award for Best Actress – Motion Picture Musical/Comedy, and a nomination for the Academy Award for Best Actress.

She performed various comic monologues in The Green Tie on the Little Yellow Dog, which was recorded 1982, and broadcast by Channel 4 in 1983. In 1985, she played Adrian Mole's mother, Pauline, in the television adaptation of The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole. Walters appeared in the lead role of Cynthia Payne in the 1987 film Personal Services – a dramatic comedy about a British brothel owner. Then she starred with Phil Collins, playing the lead character's wife, June, in the film Buster, released in 1988. She also appeared as Mrs. Peachum in the 1989 film version of The Threepenny Opera, which was renamed Mack the Knife for the screen.

1991–1999: Solo TV show and dinnerladies
In 1991, Walters starred opposite Liza Minnelli in Stepping Out, and had a one-off television special, Julie Walters and Friends, which featured writing contributions from Victoria Wood, Alan Bennett, Willy Russell and Alan Bleasdale.

In 1993, Walters starred in the television film Wide-Eyed and Legless (known as The Wedding Gift outside the UK) alongside Jim Broadbent and Thora Hird. The film was based on the book by the author Deric Longden and tells the story of the final years of his marriage to his wife, Diana, who contracted a degenerative illness that medical officials were unable to understand at the time, though now believed to be a form of chronic fatigue syndrome or myalgic encephalomyelitis.

In 1998, she starred as the Fairy Godmother in the ITV pantomime Jack and the Beanstalk. From 1998 until 2000, she played Petula Gordeno in Victoria Wood's BBC sitcom dinnerladies. In the late 1990s, she featured in a series of adverts for Bisto gravy.

2000–2009: Harry Potter, Mamma Mia and authorship
In 2001, Walters won a Laurence Olivier Award for her performance in Arthur Miller's All My Sons. She received her second Oscar nomination and won a BAFTA for her supporting role as the ballet teacher in Billy Elliot (2000). In 2002, she again won a BAFTA Television Award for Best Actress for her performance as Paul Reiser's mother in My Beautiful Son.

Walters played Molly Weasley, the matriarch of the Weasley family, in the Harry Potter film series (2001–2011). Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is the only film in the series not to have included Walters. In 2003, the BBC voted her portrayal of Molly as the "second-best screen mother."

In 2003, Walters starred as a widow (Annie Clark) determined to make some good come out of her husband's death from cancer in Calendar Girls, which starred Helen Mirren. In 2005, she again starred as an inspirational real-life figure, Marie Stubbs in the ITV1 drama Ahead of the Class. In 2006, she came fourth in ITV's poll of the public's 50 Greatest Stars, coming four places above frequent co-star Victoria Wood. In 2006, she starred in the film Driving Lessons alongside Rupert Grint (who played her son Ron in Harry Potter), and had a leading role in the BBC's adaptation of Philip Pullman's novel The Ruby in the Smoke.

In summer 2006, Walters published her first novel, Maggie's Tree. The novel, concerning a group of English actors in Manhattan and published by Weidenfeld & Nicolson, was described as "a disturbing and thought-provoking novel about mental torment and the often blackly comic, mixed-up ways we view ourselves and misread each other.". Another reviewer, Susan Jeffreys, in The Independent, described the novel as "the work of a writer who knows what she's doing. There's nothing tentative about the writing, and Walters brings her experiences as an actress to bear on the page. ... you do have the sensation of entering someone else's mind and of looking through someone else's eyes." Walters starred in Asda's Christmas 2007 television advertising campaign. She also appeared alongside Patrick Stewart in UK Nintendo DS Brain Training television advertisements, and in a series of public information films about smoke alarms. In June 2008, Walters appeared in the film version of Mamma Mia!, playing Rosie Mulligan, marking her second high-profile musical, after Acorn Antiques: The Musical!. The same year, she released her autobiography, titled That's Another Story.

In 2007, Walters starred as the mother of author Jane Austen (played by Anne Hathaway) in Becoming Jane. Walters played Mary Whitehouse in the BBC Drama Filth: The Mary Whitehouse Story (2008), an adaptation of the real-life story of Mrs. Whitehouse who campaigned for "taste and decency on television". Walters commented, "I am very excited to be playing Mary Whitehouse, and to be looking at the time when she attacked the BBC and started to make her name." Filth won Best Motion Picture Made for Television, and Walters was nominated for Best Actress in a Miniseries or a Motion Picture Made For Television, at the 2008 13th Annual Satellite Awards.

In 2009, she received a star in the Birmingham Walk of Stars on Birmingham's Golden Mile, Broad Street. She said: "I am very honoured and happy that the people of Birmingham and the West Midlands want to include me in their Walk of Stars and I look forward to receiving my star. Birmingham and the West Midlands is where I'm from; these are my roots and in essence it has played a big part in making me the person I am today". Her other awards include an International Emmy with for A Short Stay in Switzerland.

2010–2019: Independent films and supporting roles
Walters played the late MP and Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Mo Mowlam in the drama Mo for Channel 4 broadcast in early 2010. She had misgivings about taking on the role because of the differences in their physical appearance, but the result was highly praised by critics.

In July 2012, Walters appeared in the BBC Two production The Hollow Crown as Mistress Quickly in Shakespeare's Henry IV, Parts I and II. In the summer of 2012, she voiced the Witch in Pixar's Brave (2012). In 2012, she worked with LV= to promote one of their life insurance products targeted at people over 50. Walters was seen in television advertisements, at the lv.com website and in other marketing material helping to raise awareness for life insurance.

Walters appeared in The Last of the Haussmans at the Royal National Theatre in June 2012. The production was broadcast to cinemas around the world through the National Theatre Live programme. On 18 November 2012, Walters appeared on stage at St Martin's Theatre in the West End for a 60th anniversary performance of Agatha Christie's The Mousetrap, the world's longest-running play.

In 2014, Walters portrayed Mrs. Bird, the Browns' housekeeper, in the critically acclaimed Paddington (2014). Walters reprised her role for the sequel, Paddington 2 (2017), which has also received universal acclaim. Upon the 2014 release of Paddington, Walters designed a "Primrose"-themed Paddington Bear statue, which was located in Primrose Hill (one of 50 placed around London), with the statues auctioned to raise funds for the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC).

Walters played the part of Cynthia Coffin in the ten-part British drama serial Indian Summers aired on Channel 4 in 2015. In 2015, she appeared in the romantic drama film Brooklyn, a film that was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture. Her performance in the film earned her a nomination for the BAFTA Award for Best Actress in a Supporting Role.

Walters voiced the Lexi Decoder (LEXI) for Channel 4 during the 2016 Paralympic Games. The graphical system aims to aid the viewing experience of the games by debunking the often confusing classifications that govern Paralympic sport. Set in London during the depression, Walters played Ellen, Michael's and Jane's long-time housekeeper, in Mary Poppins Returns (2018).

2020–present: recent work
In 2020 Walters starred with Colin Firth in The Secret Garden (2020). Also in 2020, Walters featured as the narrator for ITV documentary For the Love of Britain.

On 25 December 2021 Channel 4 aired The Abominable Snow Baby, in which Walters appeared as Granny, providing her voice for the animated television short film.

In May 2022 it was announced that Walters would star in Truelove, an upcoming drama series from Channel 4. That same month, Walters narrated the BBC documentary The Queen: 70 Glorious Years, which took a look at the Queen's life in her seventieth year on the British throne. In March 2023, however, she pulled out of filming Truelove due to "ill health", according to The Times, and her role was taken over by Lindsay Duncan.

Personal life
Walters' relationship with Grant Roffey, a patrol man for the AA, began in 1985 after a chance meeting in a Fulham pub, where Roffey admitted to voting Labour. He was invited to repair Walters' washing machine, a whirlwind romance ensued and the couple became parents to their only child, a daughter, whom they named Maisie Mae Roffey (born 26 April 1988). The couple delayed marriage until they visited New York City in 1997. The family live on an organic farm operated by Roffey near Plaistow, West Sussex.

Walters is a lifelong supporter of West Bromwich Albion Football Club, having been brought up in Smethwick. She is a patron of the domestic violence survivors' charity Women's Aid.

Illness
Walters was diagnosed with stage III bowel cancer in 2018. Having had surgery and chemotherapy, she entered remission. This meant that she had to be cut from certain scenes in The Secret Garden and also had to miss the premiere of Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again. Walters did not announce her illness to the public until February 2020, when she said in an interview with Victoria Derbyshire that she would be taking a step back from acting, particularly from large and demanding film roles. Later that year, however, she stated that she would make an exception for roles that she was 'really engaged' with, including Mamma Mia 3!, which was in development as of 2021.

In March 2023, Walters announced she had withdrawn from appearing in a new Channel 4 drama, Truelove, due to ill health. She was replaced in the show by Lindsay Duncan.

Honours
Walters was appointed Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) in the 1999 Birthday Honours, Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in the 2008 New Year Honours, and Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire (DBE) in the 2017 Birthday Honours for services to drama.

Awards and nominations

 * Walters has won eight BAFTAs, six competitive awards plus two honorary awards. The first honorary award was a special BAFTA that she received at a tribute evening in 2003, before receiving the BAFTA Fellowship in 2014.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Julie Walters


text:
LilyPond

LilyPond is a computer program and file format for music engraving. One of LilyPond's major goals is to produce scores that are engraved with traditional layout rules, reflecting the era when scores were engraved by hand.

LilyPond is cross-platform, and is available for several common operating systems; released under the terms of the GNU General Public License, LilyPond is free software and part of the GNU Project.

History
The LilyPond project was started in 1996 by Han-Wen Nienhuys and Jan Nieuwenhuizen, after they decided to abandon work on MPP (MusiXTeX PreProcessor), a project they began collaborating on in 1995. Its name was inspired both by the Rosegarden project and an acquaintance of Nienhuys and Nieuwenhuizen named Suzanne, a name that means lily in Hebrew (שׁוֹשַׁנָּה).

Version 1.0
LilyPond 1.0 was released on July 31, 1998, highlighting the development of a custom music font, Feta, and the complete separation of LilyPond from MusiXTeX.

Version 2.0
LilyPond 2.0 was released on September 24, 2003, announcing a simplified syntax model and a much more complete set of facilities for notating various styles of music.

Design
LilyPond is mostly written in C++ and uses Scheme (interpreted by GNU Guile) as its extension language, allowing for user customization. It has a relatively large codebase; as of March 10, 2017, the source includes over 600,000 lines of C++, 140,000 lines of Scheme, and 120,000 lines of Python code.

It uses a simple text notation for music input, which LilyPond interprets and processes in a series of stages. In the final stage, music notation is output to PDF (via PostScript) or other graphical formats, such as SVG or PNG. LilyPond can also generate MIDI files that correspond to the music notation output.

LilyPond is a text-based application, so it does not contain its own graphical user interface to assist with score creation. (However, a text-editor based "LilyPad" GUI for Windows and MacOS is included by default on these systems.) It does, however, have a flexible input language that strives to be simple, easing the learning curve for new users. LilyPond adheres to the WYSIWYM paradigm; the workflow for typesetting music notation with LilyPond is similar to that of preparing documents with LaTeX.

LilyPond supports experimental musical notation. Its guitar facilities support alternative tunings, such as major-thirds tuning.

Software features
LilyPond's primary goal is to produce output comparable to professionally engraved scores instead of output that looks mechanical and computer-generated. An essay from the LilyPond website, written by LilyPond developers, explains some typographical issues addressed by LilyPond:

 * Optical font scaling: depending on the staff size, the design of the music font is slightly altered; this is a feature that Donald Knuth's Computer Modern font is known for. As a result, note heads become more rounded, and staff lines become thicker.
 * Optical spacing: stem directions are taken into account when spacing subsequent notes.
 * Special ledger line handling: ledger lines are shortened when accidentals are nearby, thus enhancing readability.
 * Proportional spacing: notes can be positioned in such a way that exactly reflects their duration. For example, with this setting, the space between consecutive quarter notes is four times greater than between consecutive sixteenth notes.

Overview of input syntax
The native input language for LilyPond is comprehensive, and consists of many commands needed for expressing any sort of articulation, dynamic, meter, etc. It is similar to that of TeX. The ability to embed Scheme code within a LilyPond source file permits arbitrary extensions to the input language and assists with algorithmic composition. Some general syntactic features are listed below.

 * Single-line comments begin with a percent sign.
 * Notes are represented in pitch-duration format: pitch is specified with Helmholtz pitch notation, and duration is specified with a numeral based system. The semantics of the pitch-duration format change depending on the active input mode; this is explained in depth in the LilyPond manual.  For example, in absolute mode,   is an A, one octave up from the base A (A3 in scientific pitch notation), of quarter note length.
 * Commands usually begin with a backslash (such as, or  ).  The function of the command in question determines where the command is placed; for example, if the command is used to indicate a fixed dynamic on a specific note, it is placed after the note.
 * Some common commands are represented symbolically to ease typing. One example is with slurs, where   and   indicate the beginning and ending of a slur, respectively.  Another example is with manual beaming, where   and   indicate the extent of the beam.

LilyPond's interface with Pango requires the input character encoding to be UTF-8. One benefit of this is that more than one language can be included in the same source file.

More complex output
Lilypond can also create extensively customised output. An example is the short extract of a Karlheinz Stockhausen piano piece below.

Collaboration with other projects
Several graphical scorewriters—such as Rosegarden, NoteEdit, Canorus, Denemo, and TuxGuitar—can export files directly to LilyPond format. Other graphical applications serve as front ends to LilyPond, including Frescobaldi and the LilyPondTool plugin for jEdit. Denemo integrates the PDF output of LilyPond in its display, allowing some editing operations on the final typeset score.

The Mutopia Project, which distributes free content sheet music, uses LilyPond to typeset its music, as does Musipedia, a collaborative music encyclopedia.

Emacs' org-mode contains support for embedding LilyPond scores into documents.

OOoLilyPond, a LibreOffice extension provides support for calling LilyPond to embed scores into documents.

Integration into MediaWiki
Lilypond is available in MediaWiki via the code. This, for example, transforms the notation

into

The above excerpt is a simplified version of Solfeggio in C Minor by C.P.E. Bach. More complex scores, including lyrics, are also possible within MediaWiki wikis.

Integration into text using lilypond-book
Integration of LilyPond musical elements into various document formats (both TeX-based systems such as LaTeX and Texinfo, and also DocBook and HTML pages) is natively supported through the companion program lilypond-book, developed and maintained by the LilyPond community. This allows users to embed musical elements within texts, such as musicology, song booklets, work sheets for teaching, and school examinations.

Integration into LaTeX
For integration into the LaTeX document preparation system, lyLuaTeX has been developed as a LuaLaTeX package to embed musical elements within texts. It includes features for matching layout and appearance of the musical elements with the surrounding text document. Music elements may consist of music symbols, song lyrics, guitar chords diagrams, lead sheets, music excerpts, guitar tablatures, or multi-page scores.

Comparison to other scorewriters
Finale and Sibelius are two proprietary scorewriters often compared to LilyPond. Andrew Hawryluk, a LilyPond user, wrote a series of articles comparing output quality between Finale and LilyPond.

Another scorewriter with comparable features to LilyPond is SCORE, but SCORE relies on manual positioning more than Lilypond does.

See also Comparison of scorewriters.

title: LilyPond


text:
Cold cathode

A cold cathode is a cathode that is not electrically heated by a filament. A cathode may be considered "cold" if it emits more electrons than can be supplied by thermionic emission alone. It is used in gas-discharge lamps, such as neon lamps, discharge tubes, and some types of vacuum tube. The other type of cathode is a hot cathode, which is heated by electric current passing through a filament. A cold cathode does not necessarily operate at a low temperature: it is often heated to its operating temperature by other methods, such as the current passing from the cathode into the gas.

Cold-cathode devices

A cold-cathode vacuum tube does not rely on external heating of an electrode to provide thermionic emission of electrons. Early cold-cathode devices included the Geissler tube and Plucker tube, and early cathode-ray tubes. Study of the phenomena in these devices led to the discovery of the electron.

Neon lamps are used both to produce light as indicators and for special-purpose illumination, and also as circuit elements displaying negative resistance. Addition of a trigger electrode to a device allowed the glow discharge to be initiated by an external control circuit; Bell Laboratories developed a "trigger tube" cold-cathode device in 1936.

Many types of cold-cathode switching tube were developed, including various types of thyratron, the krytron, cold-cathode displays (Nixie tube) and others. Voltage regulator tubes rely on the relatively constant voltage of a glow discharge over a range of current and were used to stabilize power-supply voltages in tube-based instruments. A Dekatron is a cold-cathode tube with multiple electrodes that is used for counting. Each time a pulse is applied to a control electrode, a glow discharge moves to a step electrode; by providing ten electrodes in each tube and cascading the tubes, a counter system can be developed and the count observed by the position of the glow discharges. Counter tubes were used widely before development of integrated circuit counter devices.

The flash tube is a cold-cathode device filled with xenon gas, used to produce an intense short pulse of light for photography or to act as a stroboscope to examine the motion of moving parts.

Lamps
Cold-cathode lamps include cold-cathode fluorescent lamps (CCFLs) and neon lamps. Neon lamps primarily rely on excitation of gas molecules to emit light; CCFLs use a discharge in mercury vapor to develop ultraviolet light, which in turn causes a fluorescent coating on the inside of the lamp to emit visible light.

Cold-cathode fluorescent lamps were used for backlighting of LCDs, for example computer monitors and television screens.

In the lighting industry, “cold cathode” historically refers to luminous tubing larger than 20 mm in diameter and operating on a current of 120 to 240 milliamperes. This larger-diameter tubing is often used for interior alcove and general lighting. The term "neon lamp" refers to tubing that is smaller than 15 mm in diameter and typically operates at approximately 40 milliamperes. These lamps are commonly used for neon signs.

Details
The cathode is the negative electrode. Any gas-discharge lamp has a positive (anode) and a negative electrode. Both electrodes alternate between acting as an anode and a cathode when these devices run with alternating current.

A cold cathode is distinguished from a hot cathode that is heated to induce thermionic emission of electrons. Discharge tubes with hot cathodes have an envelope filled with low-pressure gas and containing two electrodes. Hot cathode devices include common vacuum tubes, fluorescent lamps, high-pressure discharge lamps and vacuum fluorescent displays.

The surface of cold cathodes can emit secondary electrons at a ratio greater than unity (breakdown). An electron that leaves the cathode will collide with neutral gas molecules. The collision may just excite the molecule, but sometimes it will knock an electron free to create a positive ion. The original electron and the freed electron continue toward the anode and may create more positive ions (see Townsend avalanche). The result is for each electron that leaves the cathode, several positive ions are generated that eventually crash onto the cathode. Some crashing positive ions may generate a secondary electron. The discharge is self-sustaining when for each electron that leaves the cathode, enough positive ions hit the cathode to free, on average, another electron. External circuitry limits the discharge current. Cold-cathode discharge lamps use higher voltages than hot-cathode ones. The resulting strong electric field near the cathode accelerates ions to a sufficient velocity to create free electrons from the cathode material.

Another mechanism to generate free electrons from a cold metallic surface is field electron emission. It is used in some x-ray tubes, the field-electron microscope (FEM), and field-emission displays (FEDs).

Cold cathodes sometimes have a rare-earth coating to enhance electron emission. Some types contain a source of beta radiation to start ionization of the gas that fills the tube. In some tubes, glow discharge around the cathode is usually minimized; instead there is a so-called positive column, filling the tube. Examples are the neon lamp and nixie tubes. Nixie tubes too are cold-cathode neon displays that are in-line, but not in-plane, display devices.

Cold-cathode devices typically use a complex high-voltage power supply with some mechanism for limiting current. Although creating the initial space charge and the first arc of current through the tube may require a very high voltage, once the tube begins to heat up, the electrical resistance drops, thus increasing the electric current through the lamp. To offset this effect and maintain normal operation, the supply voltage is gradually lowered. In the case of tubes with an ionizing gas, the gas can become a very hot plasma, and electrical resistance is greatly reduced. If operated from a simple power supply without current limiting, this reduction in resistance would lead to damage to the power supply and overheating of the tube electrodes.

Applications
Cold cathodes are used in cold-cathode rectifiers, such as the crossatron and mercury-arc valves, and cold-cathode amplifiers, such as in automatic message accounting and other pseudospark switching applications. Other examples include the thyratron, krytron, sprytron, and ignitron tubes.

A common cold-cathode application is in neon signs and other locations where the ambient temperature is likely to drop well below freezing, The Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster (Big Ben) uses cold-cathode lighting behind the clock faces where continual striking and failure to strike in cold weather would be undesirable. Large cold-cathode fluorescent lamps (CCFLs) have been produced in the past and are still used today when shaped, long-life linear light sources are required. , miniature CCFLs were extensively used as backlights for computer and television liquid-crystal displays. CCFL lifespans vary in LCD televisions depending on transient voltage surges and temperature levels in usage environments.

Due to its efficiency, CCFL technology has expanded into room lighting. Costs are similar to those of traditional fluorescent lighting, but with several advantages: it has a long life, the light emitted is, bulbs turn on instantly to full output and are also dimmable.

Effects of internal heating
In systems using alternating current but without separate anode structures, the electrodes alternate as anodes and cathodes, and the impinging electrons can cause substantial localized heating, often to red heat. The electrode may take advantage of this heating to facilitate the thermionic emission of electrons when it is acting as a cathode. (Instant-start fluorescent lamps employ this aspect; they start as cold-cathode devices, but soon localized heating of the fine tungsten-wire cathodes causes them to operate in the same mode as hot-cathode lamps.)

This aspect is problematic in the case of backlights used for LCD TV displays. New energy-efficiency regulations being proposed in many countries will require variable backlighting; variable backlighting also improves the perceived contrast range, which is desirable for LCD TV sets. However, CCFLs are strictly limited in the degree to which they can be dimmed, both because a lower plasma current will lower the temperature of the cathode, causing erratic operation, and because running the cathode at too low a temperature drastically shortens the life of the lamps. Much research is being directed to this problem, but high-end manufacturers are now turning to high-efficiency white LEDs as a better solution.

title: Cold cathode


text:
Wikipedia:GNU LilyPond support/historical proposal

The TeX markup support has, so far, worked excellently. It fixes one problem, and fixes it well, whilst allowing migration to more fancy systems such as MathML in the future.

It has been proposed on the mailing list that essentially the same technique used with TeX be used to implement embedded GNU LilyPond markup in articles, presumably in tags. This will then be able to be upgraded to generate music markup, MIDI files, Ogg Vorbis files, et caetera later on.

This article is a placeholder for this discussion.

Can't latex render music as well? I know it would be strange to denote music with math tags, but tex renders many characters very well. In fact i think there is something called musiX-tex.

(http://icking-music-archive.org/mailman/listinfo/tex-music)

Reading the essay at the lilypond projects page i seen now where that fails. Still instead of outputing musiX-tex like it did in 96, LilyPond does output plain tex eventually. I don't know how the wikimedia engine renders tex as a png anyways. Does it just call latex2html to generate the images? if so the implementation of a music tag based system shouldn't be to difficult. I want to hear from people who would actually write music and add it to wikipedia. Sreyan 22:22, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

See also:
 * http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_markup