Template talk:QOTD Ranking

Brief summary of selection process
Proposed addition to the template to offer participants a brief overview of the selection process, and to set expectations regarding the weight of making suggestions or ranking suggestions:

''The Quote of the Day (QOTD) is the most prominent feature of the WikiQuote Main Page. Thank you for submitting, reviewing, and ranking suggestions!''

As with many processes on Wiki projects, the selection of QOTD is not simply a matter of vote counting. The average ranking is the primary factor in the selection; other considerations in the selection, independent of the expressed rankings of any number of editors, include: an assessment of the grammatical correctness of the suggestion, agreement with the sentiment or idea expressed by the suggestion, whether the statement made by the suggestion is considered true or may be read as false or partially false or hyperbolic, connection to this date in history such as the birthday or anniversary of death of the speaker of the quote, how often or how recently suggestions from the same speaker or from the same editor have been used, and personal preference.

Thus, a suggestion with a lower average ranking than others, or with fewer editors expressing supportive rankings, may be selected.

The selection of the QOTD is not considered closing a discussion, and the editor making the selection is not required to impartially assess consensus or to be an uninvolved; they may make suggestions, rank suggestions, select one of their own suggestions, or select any quotation of their choice.

The selection of QOTD is currently made by User:Kalki, typically around 00:00 UTC daily.

Thank you for participating!

Comments? JessRek6 (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC) Edited for length and clarity JessRek6 (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)



I was just about to leave, having already made a QOTD selection for today, and perhaps not having time to get back for further editing anytime soon, but noticed your additions here, and am delaying slightly. All in all your suggestions are more moderate than I feared they might be, but also a bit more extensive than I believe is actually necessary. At most I would prefer to extend them to such a layout as I mentioned earlier on the Admin noticeboard after the protection levels were reduced here. It would display somewhat in this form:


 * Ranking system:
 * 4 : Excellent – should definitely be used. (This is the utmost ranking and should be used only for one quote at a time, per person, for each date.)
 * 3 : Very Good – strong desire to see it used.
 * 2 : Good – some desire to see it used.
 * 1 : Acceptable – but with no particular desire to see it used.
 * 0 : Not acceptable – not appropriate for use as a quote of the day.


 * An averaging process for the ranking provided to each suggestion produces it’s general ranking in considerations for selection of Quote of the Day. The selections made are almost always chosen from among the top ranked options existing on the page on the date prior to their use, but the provision of highly ranked late additions, usually in regard to special events (most commonly in regard to the deaths of famous people, or other major social or physical occurrences), always remain an option for final selections.

I could see possible addition of some of your above suggestions as well, among the above assertions, but I generally would prefer to keep the instructions as short and simple as possible. Possibly an alternate coloration to the section in a pale yellow or blue might also be used, to make it stand out a bit more on the page. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 19:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "almost always chosen from among the top ranked" This wording inadequately describes the many various conditions under which the selection is not "among" the top ranked, which I think is sort of the point here, to be fair to participants to understand before investing time and energy in order to prevent misunderstandings going forward.
 * "on the date prior to their use" Let us collaborate to document the existing process; this wording makes it seem like our community has 24 hours advanced notice of the selection, which it does not.
 * "usually in regard to special events" Again, let us reflect the existing process; it is simply not the case that, when a quotation is selected that is not the highest ranked it is "usually" related to events. JessRek6 (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I was literally about to leave, and am currently in my outdoors clothing, but am again delaying slightly.
 * I believe it IS the case that the final selection is "almost always chosen from among the top ranked" — but on many and perhaps most pages the rankings tend to be rather FLAT, making shifts in rankings or additions of rankings often very significant as alterations. On the pages with prominent extremes the least favored quotes are simply not selected, and choices ARE usually made from among the most favored.
 * I can accept a dropping of "on the date prior to their use" from my summary as not actually necessary, but certainly did not intend to use it in deceptive way, and in the "existing process" I believe it IS actually usually the case.
 * You finally assert that "it is simply not the case that, when a quotation is selected that is not the highest ranked it is "usually" related to events" — and I reject that claim entirely. Again I will state that MOST pages have SEVERAL or even MANY quotes in ties for "highest ranked" — and thus alteration of a rank on ANY of these can be decisive — but that does NOT make the assertion false that the final decisions are from among the highest ranked — and certainly does NOT make true the assertion or implication that most late additions are not actually related to recent events — I assert they USUALLY are.
 * I have summarized a few objections to your above assertions, and now actually do have to get going. I do not intend to remain here more than a few minutes, at present, but presently believe I will probably be back within a couple of hours or so. So it goes. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 20:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC) + tweaks
 * As we discussed previously on your talk page, since you focus on average ranking, and since no average will ever exceed 4, and the way you reserve the right to involve yourself and make a fresh suggestion at selection time and rank it a 4, means that in practice, yes, I agree, the quote you select will always be "among" the top ranked, and so you effectively always reserve the right to yourself to literally select any quote you prefer on any given day. I believe in fairness to participants we need to be as explicit as possible about this aspect of the current process. JessRek6 (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

An audit of one recent week: To characterize this process as "almost always" or "usually" or "except on special occasions" selecting from "among the top ranked" would be misleading to participants. JessRek6 (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 2/10 - You selected your own suggestion, which had support only from yourself, even though the previous suggestions included 8 with support from editors other than yourself.
 * 2/11 - On Edison's birthday, you selected a quote proposed by another editor and that had support from one other editor, while not selecting from among 3 suggestions that had support from two or more editors other than yourself.
 * 2/12 - On Lincoln's birthday, you selected a quote proposed by another editor and that had support from other editors.
 * 2/13 - You selected a quote of your own preference that was not among the previous suggestions, even though the previous suggestions included 4 with support from an editor other than yourself.
 * 2/14 - On Valentine's Day, you selected your own suggestion, which had support only from yourself, even though the previous suggestions included 2 with support from two or more editors other than yourself.
 * 2/15 - You selected your own suggestion, which had support only from yourself, even though the previous suggestions included 2 with support from two or more editors other than yourself.
 * 2/16 - You selected a quote of your own preference that was not among the previous suggestions, even though the previous suggestions included 3 with support from two or more editors other than yourself.


 * I had several more things to attend to than I was initially considering earlier, and this remains the case, but I will definitely make a response to these assertions within the coming day or so.
 * I will state that I do believe you definitely seem to be extremely intent on mischaracterizing my actions in a very skewed and hostile manner, and with all manner of deficiencies or clear errors in assertions about the facts, in declaring your assessments. In response I will assess some of your criticisms and assessments of these pages and actions in regard to them, but I know it will take some time to meticulously expose what I believe to be some of the deficiencies and errors of your assertions, and I will likely expand the scope of the examinations extensively. There are perhaps some facts which you do accurately state, but there are more extensive facts you are clearly ignoring, and some assessments which I believe to be extremely incorrect. I do not plan to begin doing this immediately, as for at least a few hours there will be many other matters I will be attending to, and it is very possible that I might not post anything further on this matter till sometime tomorrow evening. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 00:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

This is not a noticeboard, it is a talk page, you need not defend the selection process here or anywhere else. After all, no one is complaining. My point in examining one week was to look together at what really happens, in service of suggesting that in the text we add we avoid constructions such as "almost always" or "usually" or "occasionally" that characterize how often a consideration enters into the selection decision. I am heartened that you view the above proposed text as moderate and an improvement. Based on your comments, I have edited it for length. I hope that there is some area of agreement. May I propose that the content, indicated above in italics, mainly the greeting and salutation, the invitations to participate, and some simple statements of basic facts, is non-controversial, and may be added to the template as we continue to collaborate on a concise summary of the considerations that enter into the selection decision? JessRek6 (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Extensive responses to misleading assertions
I believe I quite definitely need to defend the selection processes here, and I believe that you have definitely been implicitly or explicitly complaining in your present and recent statements. As I have already indicated I believe many of your assertions are VERY misleading, in some cases perhaps deliberately deceitful, and your final comments earlier that what I believe to be my quite honest and accurate assertions regarding matters "would be misleading to participants" to be among the most misleading of your own statements, and prompted me to attempt to expose how erroneous and FALSE I believe many of your assertions have been. In rebuking and refuting what I consider the very warped, skewed, unjustly derisive and simply FALSE assertions you have provided above I will make a few very relevant observations. You seem very skilled at using polite and considerate language in conjunction with some of your VERY impolite and inconsiderate actions and innuendos, and after you twice posted info which I believe far more likely to be exploited by vandals and trolls than any good faith editors I will adapt the Emma González statement which you had suggested and I happened to decide against using as QOTD on the 17th: I call BS.

On your User page you post 6 incidents of having made QOTD suggestions, and have checked off fully half of these as quotes which I had actually selected for QOTD:
 * QOTD suggestions
 * February 17 - Emma González in Fort Lauderdale (2018)
 * ✅ March 24 - Emma González at March for Our Lives in Washington D. C. on March 24, 2018
 * June 12 - Obama after Orlando (2016)
 * July 20 - Obama after Aurora (2012)
 * ✅ November 5 - James Fallows in The Atlantic after the Sutherland Springs church shooting (2017)
 * ✅ December 14 - Obama on Sandy Hook

You seem to have become irate regarding my assessments and decisions after I did not provide you the opportunity to check off a 4th on your very acceptable but very targeted agenda on the 17th. In relation to this you have cast aspersions on my judgement and procedures and long years of work on this project, and prompted me to spend a substantial amount of time and effort in recent days, between other tasks and duties, in beginning to counter what seems to me to be some of your perhaps casual but intense disparagement of my moral integrity and some of the conscientious and simply practical processes I have developed over the years, dealing with a preparations against a wide range of actual as well as potential problems.

I have stated that in doing daily work here in providing QOTD suggestions and selections for the many years since 2003, I have actually not only done MOST of the work of making selections, and nearly all of them since early in 2004, but also the work of seeking and providing MOST of the suggestions on MOST pages, and nearly all of them on some, and having already used what few suggestions others have provided on some pages, currently the ONLY suggestions remaining available on some are entirely those I have provided. This is the actually the case on the suggestion page for the upcoming QOTD for February 27, where other than the 23 suggestions I have posted, 13 of them already chosen, ONLY 3 other suggestions by ANYONE ELSE have been provided AT ALL, in ALL of the years in which it has been available, 2 of them very welcomed and already used additions by a broadly discerning contributor of many quotes to many pages, and one of them, actually the first QOTD for that date, was one simply posted by an anon IP in 2004, prior to any formalities at all having yet developed in the selection processes. I believe that the ACTUAL STATE about THIS PAGE and MANY others, and the actual quality and quantity of my contributions relative to those provided by others should definitely be taken into account and not a simplistic tally that is apparently aimed at implying or misleading others to assume that that I tend to choose primarily my own quotes AS IF that were simply indicative of an "unfair bias" or a devious procedure on my part — rather than very often a definite consequence of a relative paucity of well-ranked or even existing alternatives on MANY pages.

In seeking out the "last moment changes" which have occurred because of sudden events so far this year, I found that there have thus far been only 3. I scanned the January 2020 summary page, and the first was in regard to the death of Kobe Bryant, posted as QOTD of the 27th of January. I am not actually an avid fan of any spectator sports, but even I was familiar with many of the admirable qualities and accomplishments of Bryant, and I wept many times on that day at the circumstances of his death, and that of his daughter and their companions in that helicopter crash, and have wept many times since in many of the tributes which have been given by others regarding his life. On hearing of his death I immediately cast all other considerations aside, and sought out a quote of him to use for the upcoming QOTD. There were at that point NONE actually available upon his page, only quotes about him, and in searching the internet I found several admirable statements attributed to him, but could not sufficiently source them, but finally came across a very good one with a reliable source, and used it:

Reviewing the summary page for February 2020 I observed that the next "last moment change" after the death of Bryant had not been in regard to a death, but of a rarer event in the prominently historical statement made by Mitt Romney on his decision to vote in favor of convicting Donald Trump on one of the impeachment charges against him. I believe that only after using that for the 6th of February I learned of the death of Kirk Douglas, and the next day once again cast aside other considerations and used a quote of Douglas in regard of his death.
 * Correction : there were actually 4 such "last moment changes" because of sudden events — I had very clearly remembered the death of both Bryant and Douglas altering my procedures, and had been scanning for Bryant's QOTD, but actually in my quick scanning of the pages missed the earlier QOTD of Jim Lehrer just a few days before, on January 24th, after his recent death, when I posted:
 * Correction : there were actually 4 such "last moment changes" because of sudden events — I had very clearly remembered the death of both Bryant and Douglas altering my procedures, and had been scanning for Bryant's QOTD, but actually in my quick scanning of the pages missed the earlier QOTD of Jim Lehrer just a few days before, on January 24th, after his recent death, when I posted:

I start my larger exposition of activities and assessments with providing what I believe to be a broader, deeper and more accurate sweep of things with a more extensive and meticulous INDICATION of actual circumstances, starting with the very beginning of this month's edit's, and facts about the various options available, the relative rankings of available prospects, and perhaps sometimes some aspects of the considerations I have made in choosing one quote from among others, or seeking out further options beyond those initially available. I will also provide indications of the tallies of quotes from PREVIOUS years in relation to EACH of those dates, so that a far more extensive range of facts and considerations about them can come into play to anyone taking any note of our contending assertions about matters.

For many years in working the suggestion pages, I tended to rank nearly ALL the quotes which were provided by anyone, and many other participants did that also, but as I perceived fewer and fewer people actually showing any inclination to do that, or rank others than their own, and some acts of extremely skewing all the tallies to favor their own suggestions or preferences, I myself began to more seldom rank the suggestions of others in bulk, and now, for various reasons of time and circumstances, probably quite often provide many of them a ranking only when I actually select them, or actively choose not to do so, in favor of some others of similar ranking. In your above "audit" of a few days this month you apparently seek to denigrate me by declaring such assertions as "You selected your own suggestion, which had support only from yourself". '''I believe that in the last few years, and perhaps even the last decade of additions, MANY quotes, and perhaps MOST of the quotes added probably don’t have any rankings by others than those who posted them. '''As the years pass by, though there certainly are exceptions on some pages where good suggestions have been bountiful and even remain so, many of the remaining quotes which have been passed over for selection for many years on many pages are increasingly those which have NOT been highly ranked by anyone, save perhaps the person who posted them.

You seem to seek to imply or insist that I act regularly or even primarily in favor of my own suggestions, and do not provide fair or sufficient regard to the suggestions of others. I do not believe that claim is born out by the actual record of my many years of activities here. I have provided a link to the QOTD suggestion pages as the links of the birth and death dates of nearly all authors pages. I certainly have not attempted to impede others from making contributive suggestions to these pages, but over the years relatively few have done it, and personally aiming to maintain an abundance of riches on most pages, rather than a paucity of prospects, this has left the bulk of the current suggestions available on most pages as my own. I here provide a summary of the characteristics of the options available and the resulting choices annually made upon these dates in February since 2004 :


 * February 1 : Other than the 18 suggestions I provided, 10 of them already used, there have been only 7 suggestions by others, 6 of them already used, and only 1 currently left unused.
 * February 2 : Other than the 20 suggestions I provided, 12 already used, there have been only been 10 suggestions, 5 of them already used.
 * February 3 : Other than the 70 suggestions I provided, 11 already used, there have been 16 other suggestions, 6 of them already used.
 * February 4 : Other than the 20 suggestions I provided, 15 of them already used, there have only been 4 suggestions, 2 of them already used.
 * February 5 : Other than the 41 suggestions I provided, 15 of them already used, there have only been 3 suggestions, 2 of them already used, and the remaining one currently sustaining a ranking of a 1 and a 0.
 * February 6 : Other than the 27 suggestions I provided, 16 already used, there have been only 2 suggestions, 1 of them already used.
 * February 7 : Other than the 20 suggestions I provided, 14 already used, there have been only 5 suggestions, 2 of them already used.
 * February 8 : Other than the 17 suggestions I provided, 7 already used, there have been 18 suggestions, 9 of them already used.
 * February 9 : Other than the 22 suggestions I provided, 14 already used, there have been only 6 suggestions, 3 of them already used and one of those remaining ranked only 1 by me and 0 by another admin.
 * February 10 : Other than the 25 suggestions I provided, 14 already used, there have been only 11 suggestions, 3 of them already used. I have already observed that in recent years many quotes do not have rankings other than those provided by those who post them, and I believe you are rather deceitful in characterizing my selection for this date on this year with the crude summation: "2/10 - You selected your own suggestion, which had support only from yourself, even though the previous suggestions included 8 with support from editors other than yourself." The selection you disparage was a significant statement by a significant author which I had first posted in February 2017:


 * I had ranked it as a 3 on posting it, and I finalized it as a 4. Though I sometimes post a "2" or even very rarely a "1", I actually seldom post quotes I do not consider a 3, and I believe that over the years I have had more people agree than disagree with my assessments. The 8 remaining options provided by others have actual current rankings of 2.25, 2, 2, 2.3, 2, 3, 3, and 2.5. Most of those rankings on the lower scale date from prior to 2009, and the last 3, which include my own rankings of good quotes suggested by a well appreciated contributor date from 2013.
 * February 11 : Other than the 17 suggestions I provided, 11 already used, there have been only 7 suggestions, 6 of them already used. I believe you again QUITE DERISIVELY and with DELIBERATE DECEITFULNESS describe this year's choice for this date with the summation: "2/11 - On Edison's birthday, you selected a quote proposed by another editor and that had support from one other editor, while not selecting from among 3 suggestions that had support from two or more editors other than yourself." • In this case I believe that rank hypocrisy and deceitfulness are RAMPANT: I actually chose a quote from another editor — and ALL of the remaining suggestions save one are those I myself provided — some of which had rankings by other editors, but one of which I myself came to rank "0" as I eventually could not find a reliable source for it, and the other with other people's assessments only ranking a 2.6. The one other suggestion other than my own which remains as an option only has a ranking of 2.25 — while the one I selected by a well respected contributor was ranked 3 by himself on posting it in 2012, and also a 3 by me, until selecting it this year, at which point I boosted it with a 4.
 * February 12 : Other than the 18 suggestions I provided, 12 already used, there have been 22 suggestions, 5 of them already used.
 * February 13 : Other than the 25 suggestions I provided, 15 already used, there have been only 5 suggestions, 1 of them already used. Of this year's selection you state: "2/13 - You selected a quote of your own preference that was not among the previous suggestions, even though the previous suggestions included 4 with support from an editor other than yourself." ALL of the remaining suggestions on this page have a current ranking of "3" and thus ranked very good and eventually will likely be used. MOST of these are my suggestions, and in reviewing the page of the author of many of these statements I encountered one which I considered superior to any I had yet posted of him for that particular day, and posted it with a ranking of 4, and used it.
 * February 14 : Other than the 61 suggestions I provided, 16 already used, there have been only 4 proper suggestions out of 7, 1 of them already used on this date, 1 already used on another, 1 with a ranking of 2.25, 1 with a ranking of 2.5, the 3 others actually improper posts of insufficient notability or sourcing. This date's selection you summarize with the statement: "2/14 - On Valentine's Day, you selected your own suggestion, which had support only from yourself, even though the previous suggestions included 2 with support from two or more editors other than yourself." — again these 2 that were valid suggestions have for many YEARS ranked LESS than most of the other available suggestions on the page — and ALL the other options are currently my own suggestions.
 * February 15 : Other than the 17 suggestions I provided, 12 already used, there have been only 6 suggestions, 4 of them already used. In summary of this year's edit you state: "2/15 - You selected your own suggestion, which had support only from yourself, even though the previous suggestions included 2 with support from two or more editors other than yourself." — those 2 remainders have rankings of 2.5 and 1 — and that one is not even properly sourced.
 * February 16 : Other than the 26 suggestions I provided, 17 already used, there have been only 3 suggestions, none of them extremely high ranking at 2.3 and 2.5 for over a decade, and one of them marked "0" as unsuitable since 2012. In summary of this year's edit you state: "2/16 - You selected a quote of your own preference that was not among the previous suggestions, even though the previous suggestions included 3 with support from two or more editors other than yourself." In fact, seeing only a couple relatively poor alternatives to the relatively low ranked or unsuitable quotes, I searched and added several more by Henry Adams several hours before the deadline, most ranked as "3" and one of them ranked as "4".
 * February 17 : Other than the 20 suggestions I provided, 15 already used, there have been 8 suggestions, 2 of them already used. As I have already indicated my inclinations for this date had shifted from originally one to use a quote of Emma González towards at least a slight preference for one by Hans Morgenthau: "Political power is a psychological relation between those who exercise it and those over which it is exercised. It gives the former control over certain actions of the latter through the influence which the former exert over the latter's minds. That influence may be exerted through orders, threats, persuasion, or a combination of any of those." In seeking definite sourcing of the quote prior to using it, I encountered several other statements by the same author which I found to be even better, and resolved to use one of them instead, but failed to format and post any of these earlier in the day, and when I did arrive to make the postings, briefly considered prior options, but went with what I genuinely believed to be the best of the statements available for usage on that day, which reads:


 * February 18 : Other than the 53 suggestions I provided, 15 already used, there have been only 6 suggestions, 2 of them already used.
 * February 19 : Other than the 17 suggestions I provided, 16 already used, there have been only 8 suggestions, 1 of them already used, one remainder ranking at 2.5, and none of the others ranking more than 2 and two of them ranking less than that. This is one page which I believe will definitely require an influx of new and better options within the next couple of years.
 * February 20 : Other than the 26 suggestions I provided, 10 already used, there have been 15 suggestions, 7 of them already used.
 * February 21 : Other than the 16 suggestions I provided, 13 already used, there have been 12 suggestions, 4 of them already used.
 * February 22 : Other than the 31 suggestions I provided, 11 already used, there have been only 8 suggestions, 6 of them already used.
 * February 23 : Other than the 23 suggestions I provided, 12 already used, there have been only 5 suggestions, all 5 of them already used.
 * February 24 : Other than the 26 suggestions I provided, 13 already used, there have been 14 suggestions, most of these added only within the last 5 years, with 4 of them already used.
 * February 25 : Other than the 28 suggestions I provided, 11 already used, there have been only 9 suggestions, 6 of them already used.
 * February 26 : Other than the 7 suggestions I provided, all 7 already used, there have been 15 suggestions, 10 of them already used.
 * February 27 : Other than the 23 suggestions I provided, 13 already used, there have been only 3 suggestions, all 3 of them already used.
 * February 28 : Other than the 15 suggestions I provided, 12 already used, there have been only 8 suggestions, 4 of them already used.
 * February 29 : Other than the 11 suggestions I provided, 3 already used, there have been only 3 suggestions, 1 of them already used.

In summary of the above tallies:

I myself have, over the years, provided 740 suggestions on the 29 pages of this month, used 362 of these, and there have ONLY been a total of 342 suggestions OTHER than my own, and from this much smaller base, 114 of them have already been used, for a ratio of exactly one third of their total. I am not tallying the relatively low rankings many of the remainder have, but I believe that to be the PRIMARY factor in regard to why most of those remaining have not been used. I am here emphasizing the slightly surprising fact that over the years, though I have supplied a substantial SURPLUS for most pages, there have actually been, in total, FEWER suggestions even made by others than have actually been NEEDED to provide quotes for the month of February.

Though as I have stated, currently it is increasingly common for suggestions to have few or no rankings other than that of those who provide them, I believe that the rankings of others of many of my own suggestions which have been already used have generally been higher than that of most others, and especially so in regard of many of those which remain with relatively low rankings after many years, and which I now very seldom take into primary consideration, although I have very occasionally altered my own assessments of the incidental suitability of some of them for specific dates, and actually shifted my own low rankings to high ones to use a few of these.

In two of the pages listed in this month-long sampling I have already actually used ALL of the suggestions other than my own which have been provided.

— I believe that all of this indicates I have given very substantial consideration and use to the suggestions of others, and remain very conscientious in making assessments and any selections for QOTD, whether suggested originally by myself or others, or even people who have been extremely adversarial towards my own or most people's preferences.

I believe that only very skewed perceptions or conceptions of things would produce from the above facts any contention or efforts to imply that I am regularly or even primarily unjust or unfair in making selections. I have provided many suggestions, nearly all of which I believe to be worthy of eventual use in the years to come, and have very eagerly chosen many of those provided by others which warrant prominent consideration — and especially those clearly favored and not merely commented upon or ranked in the lower ranges by a majority of others. I again emphasize that the number of rankings of a quote is NOT a primary consideration, and I believe should not be — but rather the actual QUALITY of the quote for the date, as indicated by the average rankings, or in the case increasingly of many suggestions — their only rankings. Though prompted in part by some anger at some of your assertions, I actually am NOT resentful of having been impelled to make this response, because it has actually provided me an opportunity to meticulously review some things in ways I had never before done, get a clearer gauge of what many of the states of things on many of the suggestion pages actually have been and presently are, and develop greater sense of some of the actual statistics regarding the choices provided and decisions made. I am now likely to make a choice for the current QOTD soon, and then attend to other matters. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 19:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC) + tweaks

Late additions for special events
On 26 February 2020 you content to this template which notifies participants that a "late addition", that is, a quotation that was not among those previously nominated, may be selected, if associated with a "special event":

...the provision of highly ranked late additions, especially in regard to special events (most commonly in regard to the deaths of famous people, or other major social or physical occurrences)...

Recently on February 13, 2020 and February 16, 2020, you selected as QOTD quotations which were not among the suggestions previously nominated by our colleagues; no other editors had an opportunity to comment on these quotes, and no editors other than yourself had expressed any support for the use of these quotes as QOTD.

What were the special events associated with these selections? JessRek6 (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Div ID="1" Causing HTML Parsing Difficulties
I'm working on a random quote generator that pulls from the quotes of the day of Wikiquote, but on this page: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Quote_of_the_day/January, which references the QOTD Ranking template, there are two divs that have id="1", the QOTD Ranking template and January 1st. Would someone with editing privileges please remove the id="1" from the QOTD Ranking template, if doing that won't break anything on Wikiquote? --CyclingLinguist (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Request for edits to protected templates..
Lint fixed version in Template:QOTD Ranking/sandbox Code review requested. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)