Talk:Strategyproofness

The content of Obvious strategyproofness was merged into Strategyproofness on 15 October 2025. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Reference 2 ("Group Strategy-proofness And Social Choice Between Two Alternatives" (PDF).) does not go anywhere valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.103.29.73 (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be some link here to Gibbard-Satterwaite theorem that deals with tatical voting?

"... it is most natural to the theory of payment schemes for network routing." Really? When I think of network routing, game theory isn't the first thing that pops up in my mind. I think the example of an ordinary 2nd price auction would be much more natural.

Rename to strategy-proof?

I've just reverted a change which turned the instances of strategyproof to strategy-proof in the article. I believe that is inappropriate if the title is strategyproof and that is the common name.

The question is though, is strategyproof the common name or should the article really be entitled strategy-proof? Dmcq (talk) 11:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google-Ngrams suggests both are used, with strategy-proof slightly ahead but not by much. 17:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:1482:A100:CD3C:32D4:595F:412A (talk)

Different definitions in introduction and Notation section

The first sentence introduces strategyproofness as a property of asymmetric games, but the term is later defined as a property of "mechanisms". It is not clear whether this is really equivalent. The introduction also uses the term "private information", but the definition given in the "Notation" section does not mention anything about truthfulness or information. The article needs to be more clear and consistent in these regards. Keinfehler (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Obvious strategyproofness here

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge Obvious strategyproofness to here on the grounds of short text and context. Klbrain (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to merge Obvious strategyproofness to this article. It is a tiny and minor content fork. I boldly merged it already which was reverted, so it could be expanded. Well, it was expanded and it still is a tiny stub article, nothing but a definition description and some examples. All of it can easily be merged into this main article. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:17, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the criteria for merging, the only one that could possibly apply is "4. Context". However I think that many readers likely have at least an intuitive understanding of SP so this is useful as a standalone article.

Merging IMHO would be clunky since the definition of OSP is non-trivial and will hopefully be expanded in future edits. Aviad.rubinstein (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – Oh come on, as WP:DA says, one of the reasons for merging is Short text: If a page is very short (consisting of perhaps only one or two sentences) and is, in your opinion as editor, unlikely to be expanded within a "reasonable" (unspecified) amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it into a page on a broader topic.

If you remove the unsourced stuff, this article is exacly 2-3 sentences. It would be ridiculous to let it stand on its own. FaviFake (talk) 08:24, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]