Template:Did you know nominations/Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021
- 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 SL93 (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021
- ... that at 5,593 pages, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 is the longest bill ever passed by the U.S. Congress, but members of both parties complained they had almost no time to read it?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Fujiyama Mama
- Comment: There have been a lot of contributors to this article. I've listed the top eight contributors, with the original creator first followed by the others in rough authorship/added text/number of edits order.
Created by JEN9841 (talk), UpdateNerd (talk), Neutrality (talk), Novem Linguae (talk), Wasted Time R (talk), Antony-22 (talk), Oathed (talk), and JaredDLarsen (talk). Nominated by Wasted Time R (talk) at 00:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC).
- The proposed hook seems long and also unduly negative. I would prefer ALT 1: ... that at 5,593 pages, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 is the longest bill ever passed by the U.S. Congress? Neutralitytalk 16:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- ALT0 is under the 200 character limit in terms of hook length. I think ALT1 is on the dull side whereas ALT0 has some edginess/hook interest to it. Yes, ALT0 is negative, in the sense that Congress has become completely dysfunctional in terms of its appropriations processes. But pretty much everyone, including members from both parties, agrees that it is dysfunctional, so I do not believe it is unduly negative. And it is not aimed at any particular person or persons, so the BLP requirements for hooks are not violated. All that said, I can live with ALT1 if that's what the reviewer and promoter think best. There are other hooks that could be devised as well, and you are welcome to suggest some. Note that at the time I nominated this, the DYK clock had just ticked into the seventh day and I didn't know if the bill would even be signed or not, so I went with something that would still be true either way. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- "Longest ever" seems interesting enough to me; I would like to stay away from "edgy." I do not disagree with your point about the dysfunction, but most appropriations bills are not meant to be read cover-to-cover in the style of a novel, this bill was extensively negotiated over a series of weeks, and it also passed with a veto-proof majority. The selection of the "no time to read" complaints (as opposed to any of the other facts) does not seem quite fair to me. I would just stick to the length fact and let the reader click the article to learn more. Neutralitytalk 17:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Neutrality's concern. Each chamber usually passes their appropriations bills in the summer. By the time the two chambers try to reconcile the passed bills into the omnibus, the appropriations parts have already been read, debated, and vetted. If we keep the part about not having enough time to read it, I think some investigation should be done to make sure that there is a consensus in reliable sources that this is true. It might be a minority viewpoint. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- ALT0 is under the 200 character limit in terms of hook length. I think ALT1 is on the dull side whereas ALT0 has some edginess/hook interest to it. Yes, ALT0 is negative, in the sense that Congress has become completely dysfunctional in terms of its appropriations processes. But pretty much everyone, including members from both parties, agrees that it is dysfunctional, so I do not believe it is unduly negative. And it is not aimed at any particular person or persons, so the BLP requirements for hooks are not violated. All that said, I can live with ALT1 if that's what the reviewer and promoter think best. There are other hooks that could be devised as well, and you are welcome to suggest some. Note that at the time I nominated this, the DYK clock had just ticked into the seventh day and I didn't know if the bill would even be signed or not, so I went with something that would still be true either way. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
This article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. Either hook could be used, but I prefer ALT1. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
