User talk:JamesMLane/Bush RfC (draft)

Snapshots

I'd like each version to include a link to a snapshot of the article as it would look with that version incorporated, but the versions may be undergoing some changes, so I suggest leaving that step until last. JamesMLane 07:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

About done

James, I am almost finished. It appears no one is wishing to write the proponent argument for version 3 so I'll leave that up to you as you have stated that you would like to see all the information in the main article. Time to push it forward for Rfc. I imagine you'll want to rearrange the arguments...whatever you think is best.--MONGO 05:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Being serious, should we have an american idol vote style and take among the 4 options the top two and re-vote? Or just pick whichever has the most? --kizzle 20:47, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize you guys were still working on this. You can delete my comment if you want and I will make a new reply when this is moved out of User space. NoSeptember ^(talk) 20:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If this were a formal vote, we might have to think about the exact system (preference voting? a run-off?). That doesn't arise here, though, because RfC isn't to generate votes that result in picking the alternative that receives the most votes. Even if one of the four alternatives were to get slightly more than a majority of the votes, that wouldn't mean we would just go with that alternative and move on. As Weyes said on the talk page, "It's a request for comment, not request for a majority ruling." Presenting the alternatives is intended to make it easier for people to catch up with the dispute. Otherwise, they'd have to wade through quite a bit of talk. (There's some argument that this poll really belongs on Wikipedia:Current surveys, but I do want people's comments, and my guess is that RfC gets more traffic.) As for NoSeptember's response, I have no problem leaving it there. We'll see if anyone notices that its date-stamp is earlier than the RfC posting.  :) JamesMLane 23:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good, lets get the ball rolling. --kizzle 23:44, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I like the idea that it is all about the comments. Probably too few people are actually trying to make the article more informative...most folks that edit here just do so to remove vandalism and with the Rfc, maybe we can all see what the rest of Wikiedia thinks...what is the "standard" amount of time an article is in Rfc...a week...a month?--MONGO 01:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)