Talk:Vote-a-rama

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)


 * 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)
 * @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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * @Femke Thanks for your feedback! I'll adjust the lead accordingly. For "vote-athon", see the cited source, footnote 18.  Sandstein   13:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Brilliant, weird that my browser's cntl-F didn't pick that up.. Femke (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)