Talk:DNA/vote

Vote has not started yet. We are waiting for an addition from POM, and perhaps reactions/discussions from others. Please add anything you feel is important to the current discussion. Thanks :-) FirmLittleFluffyThing 06:12, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The vote is now closed. See below for results
BCorr|Брайен 03:38, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

Proposal

First step in conflict resolution on the DNA article. Goal : let's get over the side issues :-)

The article is currently at DNA. Should it stay there, or be moved at Deoxyribonucleic acid. Which articles will be redirects ?

Voting options

The voting options are

keep the article at DNA. Have "Deoxynucleic acid" and "Deoxyribonucleic acid" be redirects
keep the article at DNA. "Deoxyribonucleic acid" is a redirect.
have the article at Deoxyribonucleic acid. "Deoxynucleic acid" and "DNA" are redirects
have the article at Deoxyribonucleic acid. "DNA" is a redirect

Voting system

List the four propositions by order of preference. The favorite is given 4 points, the least appreciated 1 point. The one with more points win.

For example, there are 4 options : optionA, optionB, optionC, optionD
User:Toto

optionB (yes, this option is really the best ihmo) -> 4 points
optionC -> 3 points
optionA -> 2 points
optionD (this option is ihmo really the least interesting one) -> 1 point

User:Tata

optionA (yes, this option is really the best ihmo) -> 4 points
optionB -> 3 points
optionC -> 2 points
optionD (this option is ihmo really the least interesting one) -> 1 point

Option A gets 6 points
Option B gets 7 points
Option C gets 5 points
Option D gets 2 points

The option A will be the final choice.

Who votes

Everyone. The vote will not be advertised

Deadlines

When does it starts : Wenesday (with perhaps a bit of delay for pom)

How long will it last : 4 days

Voting system question

[Peak:] I disagree with this voting system as I understand it. It seems to require that for a person's vote to be valid, a complete ranking of all the options is required. If one strongly objects to a particular option, one should not be forced to vote for it. E.g., if someone selects only two options out of 4, then that person's total contribution should only be 7 points. In this particular case, however, in the interests of making progress, I will indicate my preferences. However, if someone does want to avoid giving points to one or more options in the present vote, I would fully support that and reserve the right to alter my vote accordingly. (Personally I think that when there are more than three choices, a combination of approval voting and majority voting (to break ties) should be used.) Peak 00:27, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This voting system blowz. Below I have voted 1,2 -- however, 1 is the only option which is acceptable to me. 3 and 4 are both totally unacceptable, so (since I don't wish to give them any points) I have not voted for them at all -- however, 2 is halfway acceptable (the article should be at DNA, in accordance with the naming conventions); but, why should we not allow a redirect from deoxynucleic acid?

Why should I be forced to strategically choose between supporting an option I don't like (2) and assigning it points which may allow it to win instead of (1); or, not assigning points to (2) and if (1) does not win -- then I risk letting (3) or (4) win! This voting system blowz! Lirath Q. Pynnor

[Peak:] Lir is correct about the vulnerability of Anthere's weighted voting system to strategic voting, especially if votes can be altered. Allowing the withholding of votes (as I proposed (and Lir did)) helps a bit, but I would like to see more discussion given to appropriate voting regimes for Wikipedia (or has already taken place elsewhere?). Given Wikipedia's general ground rules, it seems to me that approval voting probably comes closest to what is needed amongst all the classical voting systems that are relatively immune to manipulation. Peak 23:13, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Vote #1: Article Location

The voting options are (repeated from above):

  1. keep the article at DNA. Have "Deoxynucleic acid" and "Deoxyribonucleic acid" be redirects
  2. keep the article at DNA. DNA. Have "Deoxyribonucleic acid" be redirects
  3. have the article at Deoxyribonucleic acid. "Deoxynucleic acid" and "DNA" are redirects
  4. have the article at Deoxyribonucleic acid. "DNA" is a redirect

Note: Anthere asked me to close the vote as she is not available for a few days. Therefore the vote will be closed at 00:00, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC). BCorr|Брайен 00:06, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

First preference first:

[Peak:] 2, 1, 4, 3

[Stewart:] 2, 1, 4, 3 (DNA is the most common term. Redirects are so trivial that I don't really care about them)

[P0M:] 1, 3, 2, 4 (changed vote)

Slrubenstein 1, 2, 3, 4

Cyan: 3, 1, 4, 2

Horatio: 1, 2, 3, 4 (since there is no "deoxynucleic acid" article it may as well redirect.)

Lirath Q. Pynnor: 1, 2

Current average votes for the four propositions (assuming Lir didn't really want to vote 0 (highest preference) for 3 and 4): 1..57, 1,71, 3.36, 3.36 In other words at this point proposition 1 is the winner, proposition 2 is in second place, and 3 and 4 tie for third place. P0M 10:35, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I voted 0 (lowest preference) for 3 and 4. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I realize what your intent was, but voting 0 is mathematically the wrong thing to do. If I put 0 into my spreadsheet the vote raises the status of alternatives 3 and 4 from 3.36 (nearly in fourth place) to 2.9 (just above third place). P0M 20:19, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As stated above, "The favorite is given 4 points, the least appreciated 1 point." -- there is no possible way that a vote of 0 points can result in a higher score, except by mathematicall error on the behalf of you and your spreadsheet. If 0 points are given, 0 points are given; the score cannot raise if a mere 0 points are assigned. Lirath Q. Pynnor

[Peak:] Lir's understanding of the rules is correct. (Go Lir!) Peak 22:56, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] Yes, you are correct. Sorry, Lir, my mistake. (Proposition 1 still looks like the winner.)

Discussion on the article location

moved from Talk:DNA

I would like to re-open the discussion of moving the content of this article to the title "Deoxyribonucleic acid", as Ben has suggested. The title "DNA" will redirect to "Deoxyribonucleic acid", so no links will be broken; we can leave the disambiguation note at the top of the article, in the same format as the disambiguation note at the top of Artificial intelligence. If no one objects, I will make the move in a day. -- Cyan 19:39, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Except since DNA is the most common name used to refer to this, that move would be a violation of the naming conventions. Lirath Q. Pynnor

True, but that's not necessarily a bad thing; exceptions are permitted when people agree to them. I put forth the suggestion that the setup for the AI set of pages would also be appropriate here; if you (or anyone) do not agree to the move, please state so clearly, and I will not move the article. -- Cyan 21:48, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think I just did state so clearly. Furthermore, DNA is also known as deoxynucleic acid (also DNA), so moving would be a violation of NPOV as well as the naming conventions. Lirath Q. Pynnor

[P0M:] Are you sure? Check for the two words in Google. They frequently occur in the same article, e.g., in list of chemicals preparations for sale, and appear to have different meanings. For instance, check out [[1]] P0M 04:20, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A number of sources use deoxynucleic instead of deoxyribonucleic. Lirath Q. Pynnor

[P0M:] I think we need a chemist to elucidate the difference between the two terms. P0M 06:04, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There are already two sections of this talk page dedicated to this subject, do we really need another? Bensaccount 15:45, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter, since the most common term to refer to this is DNA; which is where the article should be. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Agreed. (Yikes.) There are many articles at XYZZY where XYZZY technically has many other meanings. Peak 07:12, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] If two different words having two different meanings are both getting abbreviated "DNA" then that would argue for using the appropriate word. It's odd that Watson and Crick used different words in two articles on "DNA" in the same year. Surely there are chemists contributing to this discussion who can explain why different terms are used. Whatever is going on, it seems not to be a simple misspelling. P0M 06:53, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

(As a chemist). "deoxyribonucleic acid" is DNA. "deoxynucleic acid" is something different (doesn't have the ribose sugar) but unfortunately, the substitution of "deoxynucleic" for "deoxyribonucleic" is a common typo. We really shouldn't encourage use of a term that only exists in this context due to typing mistakes! It is possible that "deoxynucleic acid" is also abbreviated to DNA, but I think it is highly unlikely that this chemical of minor importance will ever have its own article and, in my opinion, no disambiguation of the abbreviation is needed -- I suspect that many other things share the abbreviation, DNA, but almost everyone is going to always associate those three letters with "deoxyribonucleic acid". Stewart Adcock 19:08, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

(Upon reflection, I'm adding an extra note) I need to go and look up what "deoxynucleic acid" actually is because I've just realised that the "deoxy" bit only makes sense with the sugar component. Watch this space! Stewart Adcock 19:11, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I haven't found a definitive answer, but I believe that "deoxynucleic acid" refers to a set of chemical compounds, of which "deoxyribonucleic acid" is a particular example (specifically, containing a ribosyl moiety). The fact that use of "deoxynucleic acid" is more often than not a typo still stands. Stewart Adcock 19:37, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It may be technically incorrect, but it is used intentionally -- not as a typo. Lirath Q. Pynnor

[P0M:] I believe Lir is correct. Crick and Watson use both terms in the titles of papers during the same year (1953 if memory serves). It's hard to believe that so many people out there are making "typographical" errors of this magnitude. If it is any kind of error, it is not just a typu (sic).

[Peak:] Sometimes fact is stranger than fiction. Consider:

Onelook.com indexes 966 dictionaries, not one of which mentions "deoxynucleic" or "deoxynucleic acid", whereas 36 define "deoxyribonucleic acid".

Google finds two pages for 'Watson Crick "Genetic Implications of the Structure of Deoxynucleic"', and 35 for the same but with "Deoxyribonucleic".

QED. Peak 06:48, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

P0M 14:46, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC): Chemistry profs locally say that "deoxynucleic" is a mistake, too. If "deoxynucleic" is considered correct, and if it doesn't have status as a "real word" with a different meaning, then I think it would be better to avoid perpetuating the error by mentioning it in this article. There should simply be a redirect.

[P0M:] As for the title, I would guess that FDR leads to an article on Franklin Delano Roosevelt and that technically the full name is to be preferred, but DNA has the advantage that it takes in the 2 forms of the "full" word. As long as the reader finds the article easily regardless of which one 'e searches for, it's same-same to me. P0M 02:25, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Should we include incorrect phrases if they are common?

this may be useful to the current decision...or not...and may be useful to next ones...so will be used later on as well

As many sources refer to DNA as the "genetic code of life" or as something which contains, transmits, or carries the "genetic code of life" -- I feel that phrase should be part of this article. Furthermore, it should be just as prominently displayed as "molecule of heredity,"; since such "alternate names" are traditionally placed within the first paragraph -- that is where "genetic code of life" should be placed. Lirath Q. Pynnor

This should not be done because:

You are only adding these phrases because you think they are common.
"Genetic code of life" is very abstract and can refer to much more than DNA.
"Molecule of heredity" is not an alternate name for DNA. It is a vague misinterperetation at best. "Molecule of heredity" should be a redirect to heredity because the typer has made a mistake (there is no such molecule). Bensaccount 22:40, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Regardless of your personal pov, the phrase "genetic code of life" is used by a significant number of textbooks, academics, celebrities, television programmes, and websites. Lirath Q. Pynnor

You just proved point number 1 above. Bensaccount 01:33, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Are you disputing that the phrase is used? Lirath Q. Pynnor

No im saying you are only adding the phrase because you think its commonly used. This doesn't make a phrase correct. Ex: Lakes and oceans are blue because they reflect the blue sky (not true). Bensaccount 04:10, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is your personal POV that the phrase is incorrect. People do use the phrase in reference to DNA; thus, the article should include it. Lirath Q. Pynnor

What you just said was basically: The phrase is correct because it is common (AGAIN). (and yes my POV is to disagree with you because of the 3 reasons above). Bensaccount 16:28, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, I never said the phrase was correct. What I said is that the phrase is sufficiently common, and thus the article must include it. You appear unaware that the Wikipedia maintains a policy of not determining what is and isn't correct -- we try to include all points of view. Lirath Q. Pynnor

It is acceptable to include all points of view when the correct one is in doubt. It is not acceptable to include points of view that have irrefutably been proven incorrect. Bensaccount 23:06, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It does not matter whether, or not, the phrases are correct. Regardless, since they are used, they must be included here. Lirath Q. Pynnor

You think we should include incorrect phrases? How about calling it deoxynucleic acid its also a common mistake. Bensaccount 23:55, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely. As you can see here [2] Hartnell College has intentionally used the term "deoxynucleic acid" in reference to DNA. It is our job to list and report all such usages, regardless of whether we personally believe they are technically appropriate. Naturally, you should feel more than free to write in the article why the term might be considered inappropriate -- however, I am merely asserting that the terms should be mentioned as part of the article. If you don't believe that this is standard wikipedia policy, you might wish to ask about this at the mailing list.Lirath Q. Pynnor

Ok I can understand how it could be useful to include incorrect items as long as they are:

Not included in the introduction as a correct description.
Corrected (or at least classified as incorrect).

Therefore I propose creating a section entitled Common mistakes or somesuch name.Bensaccount 02:03, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That would not be acceptable because it is our personal opinion that it is a mistake to use these terms. We must maintain an objective viewpoint. It would be appropriate to state, "Some people describe DNA as the "genetic code of life"; however, others object to this term because of..." Lirath Q. Pynnor

If you must include a line like "Some people describe DNA as "deoxynucleic acid" because of a typo, however, everyone who knows the real name of DNA object to this term because it is a mistake." it would go in the section entitled common mistakes. There is no reason to put this in the intro. Bensaccount 15:52, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your problem is that you can't accept something as being a fact unless it is commonly accepted. This is absurd. How would you describe even the simplest things like the shape of a square? "Some people describe the shape of a square as square; however, others object to this term because they think a square is a circle. In conclusion, a square may be shaped like a square or a circle." Bensaccount 16:03, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Even if more people think a square is a circle, it remains a square, so an article about a sqare shouldn't say that people think a square is a circle, it should say that a square is a square. (A completely different article could address the popular opinion that a square is a circle). Bensaccount 16:07, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A square is not a circle because more people think it is a circle. A square is still a square. DO NOT ARGUE THIS POINT!. (It will make me very angry).

It is the duty of every article about something real (encyclopedia or not) to report what is fact. Anything otherwise is a form of a lie. Bensaccount 16:15, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Allow me to simplify for everyone:

Everytime you write something, you know if you are telling the truth or lying. If you dont, you shouldn't be writing about it, you should be reading about it. There are times when lying is acceptable. This is not one of them. Popular opinion plays no part in this. Bensaccount 16:35, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If that were true then people who should be doing research and trying to figure things out among themselves would be stuck reading books instead of talking/writing to each other. People may know when they are lying, but many times people say incorrect things without realizing that they contain a hidden flaw. Newton wasn't lying when he wrote this Principia. P0M 06:16, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How many times must I repeat that I am not asserting that DNA is properly known as deoxynucleic acid or that it is properly described as the "genetic code of life". My sole assertion is that a significant number of people do refer to it as such; and thus, the article must report it in accordance with the basic guidelines of the wikipedia.
- Deoxynucleic acid is not a typo, there are people who deliberately use that term. The information should be at the beginning of the article, because in all articles we attempt to list alternate names/nicknames/metaphors at the beginning.
- As you stated, our goal is report what is fact. It is fact that people refer to DNA as deoxynucleic acid and as the "genetic code of life". Thus, we must report it. Lirath Q. Pynnor

So you think this article should not be about DNA but rather about what has been commonly said about DNA? If this is the article you are looking for, you are on the wrong page. Go edit some page like "What Watson and crick have said about DNA" or "What people who can't spell have said about DNA" Bensaccount 23:48, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I suggest you review the numerous pages on what sort of information the wikipeda wishes to include. Lirath Q. Pynnor

This article is about DNA not about what has been commonly said about DNA. Bensaccount 00:36, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Discussion on the vote proposal

Ant proposition

Feedback and criticism welcome

On what do we vote ?

Do you wish to vote soon according to a system like B [3].
Do you wish to vote for the more traditional set of paragraphs [4]
any of the two systems will be okay (default if no opinion is given)

Please add you names and opinion :-)

for voting on alternatives : Peak
for voting on simple sentences : Lir, Bensaccount

Voting system
I suggest that in both cases, the voting system be the same.
If there are 4 sentences for each point, you list all of them by order of preference. The favorite is given 4 points, the least appreciated 1 point. The one with more points win.

For example, there are 4 options : optionA, optionB, optionC, optionD
User:Toto

optionB (yes, this option is really the best ihmo) -> 4 points
optionC -> 3 points
optionA -> 2 points
optionD (this option is ihmo really the least interesting one) -> 1 point

User:Tata

optionA (yes, this option is really the best ihmo) -> 4 points
optionB -> 3 points
optionC -> 2 points
optionD (this option is ihmo really the least interesting one) -> 1 point

Option A gets 6 points Option B gets 7 points Option C gets 5 points Option D gets 2 points

The option A will be the one on the page.

Yes, there is a risk that two options get the same number of points. In this case, we'll secondary separate both.

Who vote
Only the people involved in the edition of the DNA may vote. This is not meant to say that other people opinion is not relevant, but I think here, we try to find a solution for you first.

see argument below

Poll or vote ?
It is a vote, not a poll. And it will be binding. For a full month. Hopefully, you will be able to focus on other matters meanwhile. Editions will be open again after one month.

I wait for your input to indicate when the vote start. Do you think you need much more time ? FirmLittleFluffyThing 05:53, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Criticisms

[Peak to Ant:] Unfortunately, I don't understand what you have in mind now. I thought we were going to vote on a list of alternative versions of the preamble. That is the only thing that makes sense (unless you want to have a multi-step process of enormous complexity). However, even given a list of alternatives, I am still unclear about: who may vote; how we are supposed to vote; how the votes will be counted; and how ties will be dealt with. (In short, I think you will soon see the wisdom of nominating an editor :-) Peak 06:27, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree that voting on alternatives will be much easier.

I still do not understand how you think that voting on fragments is going to advance the process, but however we get there, in the end, we need to vote on a fixed set of alternatives. Furthermore, since this new and so-far very confused process could take months, and since many people agree that the current version of the preamble is flawed (or simply wrong - see discussion above about "primary"), I would like to propose that the "near-consensus version" be posted in the meantime. That would at least show some respect for the successful vote that was held before. If all these consensus-building efforts are to be ignored as soon as they are complete, what's the point? Peak 00:05, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Here is precisely why I suggested the only voters should be the editors of this page, rather than the full community. From what I gathered, all those interested and knowledgeable on the mocular biology field are currently participating to the discussion. From what I gathered, other editors either 1) do not care 2), do not want to approach this page or 3) really can not understand what the problem is, because they see all propositions as acceptable. In the end, it is little likely that anyone other than you will come. Let's suppose they do...and vote in a sense that is basically opposed to the general direction you are as a group following, you will end up with a solution that may suit on average most people, but perhaps not suit at all the majority of you. So, we would risk coming to a point where *you*, the current editors of the article spent endless hours discussing fine points of details, to end up generally not satisfied with the outcome. I doubt *very much* that the outcome would be gladly welcome. Since most of the current propositions are acceptable to outsiders, it is best that you, the editors, decide yourself of what the proper version should be. That is my feeling :-) Of course, if you generally disagree, the vote will be open to anyone. I am just trying to help you get out of the black pot.

[Peak to Ant:] Well, you know what they say about good intentions. Peak 00:05, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How you will vote, I brushed it quickly. I will add an example above.

How long ? I suggest four days if all editors have voted. Up to 7 days otherwise

How to count the votes -> I put an example above

will the vote be binding : yes. During a month. Clearly, there will never be 100% consensus. So, that is not a poll. FirmLittleFluffyThing 20:05, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Last point I forgot...nominating an editor...I see not what you are saying...of course, proposing and discussing the various propositions is entirely in your (you as a group) hands. You (as Peak) are most welcome to participate. I noted that User:Bensaccount was doing a good job at doing synthesis and keeping track of things. He is proposing interesting alternatives for discussion directions, and I can't say that the whole topic has been neglected this week. On one hand, it would be nice that this does not go on forever, and I do not think there can be a 100% consensus between all of you, hence the voting proposition, which would be binding. However, it is clear that discussion is still occuring, propositions made, opposition voiced in a constructive way (I am for example thinking of Slru here), so let's take time and give it a chance.

Regarding the issue of the old near-consensus proposition which should be on the article, if all other editors agree that it be posted till the new near-consensus proposition is voted, fine, let's do that. If one editor does not agree and revert, I hardly see the interest. Again, there is no hurry. What does exactly bug you in the current version on the article ? FirmLittleFluffyThing

[Peak to Ant:] Please see my reply to your comment "I do not think there is a hurry." above. The problem is the inaccuracy of the word "primary". Peak 06:25, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The fact that other users refuse to admit the NPOV inclusion of alternate names such as "deoxynucleic acid" and "genetic code of life" is what bugs me. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I think we should "vote" on one sentence at a time, starting with the beginning and continuing until everyone wants to go do something else instead. I don't think the votes should be binding, rather, the process of "voting" should serve to fuel a directed discussion which we have still not gotten around to having. I think everyone should be allowed to vote and comment. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Again, when it comes to the process of discussing / editing this page I have to agree with Lir. Bensaccount 17:16, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If this is meant to be a "vote" page, I think everyone would be well-served by limiting the content to the actual vote, and put all other discussion on another page. I also urge contributors to wait a couple of minutes before contributing any content. The purpose of a talk page is to discuss specific changes to the article. Manytimes we bend this rule, and that is okay because only a few people are active in the discussion, and no complex changes are at stake. But in this case, I think we have a community obligation to keep the length of these talk pages from getting out of hand. The discussion of circles and squares, for example, is intrinsically interesting -- but has no obvious direct impact on the DNA page, is not explicitly about DNA, and is just a distraction. I am placing my vote above, where I think I am supposed to vote. SOmeone, please do some cleaning-up! Slrubenstein

[P0M:] I agree.

I moved back the discussion about squares and circles. Related to the other points (whether to keep discussion here or not) just do as you wish. I did this way because this is the way we do on the french wikipedia, so it seems natural for me to propose this.

What we do : When it appears there is no easy solution to a problem, or one that require participation from most editors, we set one page for each decision. We move on this page all the unsuccessful discussion on the topic (to isolate it from other discussions, and to ensure a new comer finds all the relevant information in *one* place). We put the discussion at the bottom of the page. Then we put a vote at the top. We keep the vote (or poll) at the top, with extremely short comments possibly. All discussion go at the bottom. During the voting/polling session, we go on discussing, and trying to convince each other. Meanwhile, we may at any time change our vote accordingly. When the voting/polling delay is reached, we freeze the votes. We then keep the page in its state, and update our policy or edit articles accordingly to what was decided on the vote/poll page. This one is always clearly identified and separated from usual talk pages.

For the worst example (this one is a very extrem case, we need to clean it up :-), see http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Prise_de_d%C3%A9cision/Administrateur.

For us, that works :-)

Sorry if it does not for you. Where do you put your discussions then ?

FirmLittleFluffyThing 15:58, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Voting results

As noted above, the vote is now closed. The results are as follows:

Option 1 was approved by the voters as the preferred choice. Option 1 is to keep the article at DNA and have "Deoxynucleic acid" and "Deoxyribonucleic acid" be redirects

Here is the tally and calculation:

OPTION Peak    Stewart POM     SLR     Cyan    Hor     Lir     TOTAL   SCORE
1      3       3       4       4       3       4       4       25      3.57

2      4       4       2       3       1       3       3       20      2.86

3      1       1       3       2       4       2       -       13      1.85*

4      2       2       1       1       2       1       -       9       1.29**

* 2.6 if 5 is the denominator instead of 1.85
** 1.8 if 5 is the denominator instead of 1.29

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 03:38, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

VOTE HERE

The voting procedure is as before, with the understanding that: 1) the TOTAL number of points is what matters (there is no need to compute averages); 2) the absence of an indicated preference counts as 0.

Thus, if there are five choices (a through e) and one indicates an order of preference "b c" then b gets five points, and c gets four.

Can we move on to the first sentence now? Or rather, the first part of the first sentence. Lirath Q. Pynnor

[Peak to Stewart;] I have modified the wording of #4 so that it allows the possibility of some discussion other than at the very end of the article. I don't think it will affect your vote, but please check. Peak 17:23, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's fine. Stewart Adcock 17:51, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Options:

1. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid)... -- with deoxynucleic acid mentioned in the opening paragraphs, but not at the very beginning
2. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid or deoxynucleic acid)...
3. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid)... -- with deoxynucleic acid not mentioned in the article at all
4. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid)... -- with deoxynucleic acid explained at an appropriate place in the body
5. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)... -- the near-consensus version, with deoxynucleic acid(sic) not mentioned in preamble.

Votes

Lirath Q. Pynnor 4,1

Stewart Adcock 5, 4, 3

User:Peak 5, 4, 3

P0M5, 4, 3

adam5, 4, 3

Dpbsmith 5, 4, 3