Talk:Vote-a-rama

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

article recreated, 13 August 2021
redirect to Reconciliation (United States Congress), 18 January 2017, see discussion.

A fact from Vote-a-rama appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 August 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the budget process in the United States Senate often ends in a vote-a-rama?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2021/August. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Vote-a-rama.

Wikipedia

U.S. Congress Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", or "Events".

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the budget process in the United States Senate often ends in a vote-a-rama? Source: "The Senate defines it [vote-a-rama] as 15 or more votes that happen on a piece of legislation in a single day (while vote-a-ramas are often done on budget resolutions, they can be about any piece of legislation, like the health care bill)", USA Today

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Dance in Suriname

Converted from a redirect by Sandstein (talk). Self-nominated at 13:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Epicgenius (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To T:DYK/P6

Senate, etc.

@Banana Republic, you have made changes to the lead that suggest that the procedure is exclusive to the senate. When writing the article, I found no source that establishes that this is so, although the sources do talk about it only in the context of the Senate. Could you provide a source for this assertion?

I've reverted your changes for stylistic reasons also: Per WP:REFERS, we do not start articles with "is the name of" or similar. We also try to be as concise as possible, particularly in the lead. Sandstein 14:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not incumbent upon me to prove that Vote-a-rama is used exclusively in the US Senate. If you believe it is used elsewhere, it's up to you to find the references saying that.
WP:REFERS does not apply to this article, because "Vote-a-rama" is not an official name. As the article says, it was a word invented by Senator Trent Lott.
Per MOS:BOLDLEAD, the article name should appear as early as possible in the first sentence:

Banana Republic (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Banana Republic,

(1) Per WP:BURDEN, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Because you added the statement that this is a procedure exclusive to the Senate, you must make it verifiable with a citation if challenged.

(2) Whether the name is official or not does not matter for the purpose of WP:REFERS. The purpose of that rule is to avoid talking about the name of an article in the lead sentence, rather than the subject of the article.

Sandstein 19:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be lost in semantics here.

The lead does not use the word "exclusive" -- that's your word. The lead correctly sums up the article to say that it is used in the Senate, and that's what all the references say. If you want to muddy up the waters, and claim that vote-a-rama is also used elsewhere, the WP:BURDEN is on you to show that it is used in other places (if it helps you understand it better, think of it as me challenging you on your assertion that vote-a-rama is used anywhere other than the US Senate).
The first sentence does indeed talk about the subject explaining that vote-a-rama is "a process in the US Senate in which Senators can propose an unlimited number of amendments". WP:REFERS does not preclude saying that it is an unofficial name for the process.

Banana Republic (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Answering the Third Opinion request. It seems like there are two content disputes, about whether to specify this process as a Senate process, and whether to include the words "unofficial name".

I think the sources present in the article support saying this is a Senate process. In most of the sources, this is implicit from context, but at least one makes it explicit: the USA Today piece says "Vote-a-rama: Here's what to know about the Senate practice"
The MOS discourages words like "refers to" because we usually talk about a subject, rather than about the words that describe it (Use–mention distinction). That's the case here too, we describe the procedure, and the naming of the procedure by Senator Lott is of secondary importance. Furthermore, I do not see the sources support explicitly that it's an unofficial name, even if quote marks in some sources may imply this. We already use quote marks, so I consider these words unnecessary.

As an aside, I don't see the first source supporting the term vote-athon. Femke (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Femke Thanks for your feedback! I'll adjust the lead accordingly. For "vote-athon", see the cited source [1], footnote 18. Sandstein 13:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, weird that my browser's cntl-F didn't pick that up.. Femke (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote-a-rama is NOT an official procedure

The intro sentence as currently written ("A "vote-a-rama" is a procedure in the United States Senate that ...") is quite problematic, because it not an official procedure. The problem is magnified with the link to the article about the official procedures of the US Congress.
The vote-a-rama is really a loophole in the official procedures and the name "vote-a-rama" was only coined in the last quarter century. I therefore think that the best description for vote-a-rama would be "an unofficial term for process within Reconciliation in which ....." Banana Republic (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Procedures of the United States Congress is only about formal procedures; the first sentence defines it as "established ways of doing legislative business", which implies informal procedures like the vote-a-rama are also included. Furthermore, by saying "an unofficial term" you say that the term is unofficial, rather than the procedure. The sentence could be changed to A "vote-a-rama" is an informal procedure in the United States Senate that. This would be a trade-off between conciseness and precision. Femke (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]