Wikipedia talk:Motto of the day/Nominations/Archive 1

message: Hey, wouldn't it be great if someone could come-up with a motto referencing The Declaration of Independence? May the Edit be with you. T-borg (drop me a line) 18:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Declaration of Independence

message: Does someone think that this page should be archived. It is huge.--Seadog.M.S 02:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Strong Support Longest one I've ever seen! Tennis Dynamite 02:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My reason is that the oldest one is from August, maybe it could be split in months. Whenever I veiw this page it takes forever to load and sometimes it doesn't. When it does load it goes really slow. And I have never been to the page and my fan doesn't go on! PLEASE consider for the sake of others--Seadog.M.S 13:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Monthly is probably best for this kind of project. --Tewy 17:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Strong Support I agree, but how are archives made? Do we need an admin, or can we do it ourselves? | AndonicO 14:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question... I haven't a clue though.Tennis Dynamite 20:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I think that we should definitly let the oversears hear about this before we do anything, and no you do not need an admin to archive pages.--Seadog.M.S 20:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived 

message: If anyone wants to "wikify" some movie quotes, I recommend AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes for ideas. It's got the ones people are most likely to have heard (besides recent releases, such as Finding Nemo). --Tewy 17:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideas 

message: Can there be a standard way to indent comments and votes? WP:FAC and WP:FPC both use bullets, but there's a mix here. --Tewy 20:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's use bullets too, since the other nomination pages use them. | AndonicO Talk 20:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indentation 

message: Moved from Wikipedia talk:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review per Wikipedia talk:Motto of the day#Various talk pages… --Tewy 21:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page 

message: About #20 ("Wikipedia: as big as you think") I have one teeny quibble. My original suggestion used a comma, not a colon, since the Kansas slogan officially uses a comma. Do with that information what you will; it's just punctuation, right? - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 00:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was suggested in the original discussion that a colon would make more sense, as the comma doesn't really feel right, to be honest. And exactly how many people are going to notice, eh? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably just me, and honestly, I didn't even know it was a comma until I went to look it up for the motto. I think it's bad grammar, but I'm not a sloganeer. *shrug* - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 20:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you use a comma, the phrase is an incomplete sentence, whereas if you use a colon, it's acceptable as simply a phrase. Maybe Kansas just wanted to be rebellious. --Tewy 21:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yah, I'm cool with the colon, but now I'm chuckling at the thought of how WP:LAME it would be if I actually did pick a fight over this... - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 21:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  :-) --Tewy 21:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia: as big as you think

message: Moved from Wikipedia talk:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review per Wikipedia talk:Motto of the day#Various talk pages… --Tewy 21:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In review 

message: Moved from Wikipedia talk:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review per Wikipedia talk:Motto of the day#Various talk pages… --Tewy 21:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  archives 

message: What is the purpose of Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review? If you're watching the nominations page, changes won't show up because the Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations#In review section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review. Also, if the majority of the nominations page is the "In review" section, so it seems kind of silly to be transcluding nearly the whole page. --Tewy 00:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review 

message: You know, I kind of like not bulleting the outcomes of the discussions. Having it all the way to the left side makes it stand out a bit from the bulleted (and slightly indented) support and oppose statements. Wodup 19:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Closing

message: Why not include something like:
*If you find a motto, that's been done before, or resembles an already approved/rejected motto, when commenting on it please provide a link to the motto you think it resembles, so others know where to find it and compare. ? --May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 17:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: Isn't that a litlle early? April Foools Day is for just under 2 months. Simply south 11:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The earlier, the more of a chance we can think of a better joke! --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 11:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion lasts through February 24. That'll give about a month after the end of the discussion to determine consensus and implement the motto. WODUP 03:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, a note was left on my talk page, so I left a note on this project's talk page soon afterward. --Tewy 21:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The joke 

message: Could the nomination page organize edits more efficiently? It's currently very difficult for the nomination closer to find it there is an edit, as it's usually just included in the text of someone's comment. My idea is to include subheadings with the edit as the title. That also would allow the edits to be displayed in the table of contents. Here's how it would look:
=== This is a great original motto! ===
I think this pretty much exemplifies what a great motto is... --Tewy 02:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just change the first motto accordingly? It seems a lot less trouble to just modify it and when consensus is reached if the motto is approved, the approved version is ready to be copied. --May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 09:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My experience with that is that once the original nomination is changed, old comments appear to support the new version, which isn't necessarily true. This is especially important when the edit is drastically different from the original. It's probably best to save the original somewhere, even if not in this subheading form. --Tewy 20:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. In that case, I'm all for that. --May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 21:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What version is best? To simply state: "Edit 1 has replaced 'This is a great original motto' ", or to use the subheadings? --Tewy 23:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer subheadings. WODUP 05:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Me two. --May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 08:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote subs too --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 10:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That's kind of what I was going for with these subheadings; the original nomination remains in its own section, but the edits get their own as well. The subheadings link the similar versions together (because edits often only differ by a few words), and the separate sections allow each version to be closed separately. --Tewy 20:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: I think this pretty much exemplifies what a great motto is... --Tewy 02:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just change the first motto accordingly? It seems a lot less trouble to just modify it and when consensus is reached if the motto is approved, the approved version is ready to be copied. --May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 09:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My experience with that is that once the original nomination is changed, old comments appear to support the new version, which isn't necessarily true. This is especially important when the edit is drastically different from the original. It's probably best to save the original somewhere, even if not in this subheading form. --Tewy 20:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. In that case, I'm all for that. --May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 21:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What version is best? To simply state: "Edit 1 has replaced 'This is a great original motto' ", or to use the subheadings? --Tewy 23:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer subheadings. WODUP 05:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Me two. --May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 08:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote subs too --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 10:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That's kind of what I was going for with these subheadings; the original nomination remains in its own section, but the edits get their own as well. The subheadings link the similar versions together (because edits often only differ by a few words), and the separate sections allow each version to be closed separately. --Tewy 20:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a ''great'' [[originality|original]] motto! 

message: Edit 1. I think this is a big help. --Tewy 02:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits are all the rage now. 

message: Edit 2. --Tewy 02:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just change the first motto accordingly? It seems a lot less trouble to just modify it and when consensus is reached if the motto is approved, the approved version is ready to be copied. --May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 09:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My experience with that is that once the original nomination is changed, old comments appear to support the new version, which isn't necessarily true. This is especially important when the edit is drastically different from the original. It's probably best to save the original somewhere, even if not in this subheading form. --Tewy 20:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. In that case, I'm all for that. --May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 21:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What version is best? To simply state: "Edit 1 has replaced 'This is a great original motto' ", or to use the subheadings? --Tewy 23:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer subheadings. WODUP 05:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Me two. --May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 08:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote subs too --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 10:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That's kind of what I was going for with these subheadings; the original nomination remains in its own section, but the edits get their own as well. The subheadings link the similar versions together (because edits often only differ by a few words), and the separate sections allow each version to be closed separately. --Tewy 20:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why can't [[this]] be an [[edit]]? 

message: The "Awaiting decision" section is becoming very large. How about to coordinate the whole nominations section, this should be opened only at certain times of the year or put a quota on the number of noms until a later date? Simply south 20:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well...i've cleared all of that out already. Do you guys still need the community portal notice? Because from what i can see, you have more than enough mottos to last you through the year. --`/aksha 03:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? --Tewy 23:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motto nominations 

message: As Russian reversal mottos have become generally common, that is, at least four different nominations, how about notifying on the page the idea's already been used, so do not repeat it. Or better yet, post a short list of motto ideas, that are the most likely to be duplicated in the future? --May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 23:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: I believe that nominations with no support should be rejected. This includes rejecting mottoes with only weak support, only comments, etc. I think that we have enough mottoes that we can be a little more selective and a little less forgiving with mottoes that don't get actual support before they're closed. Please let me know if I'm crazy for believing this, or if it's something that you think we should do. WODUP 07:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have just contradicted yourself there. Technically, those with weak support still support. Simply south 11:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I intended support to mean full support where the motto is good enough to be wholly supported by others, not partially or weakly supported. We weakly support something because it's not as good as what we'd give a full support to. WODUP 12:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. What about those with (hypothetically) 4 votes support and 4 against? Simply south 15:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No consensus. WODUP 08:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It all comes down to consensus. If a motto has received few or no votes, or has an equal number of support and oppose votes, it has not reached consensus and should therefore not be approved. However, I believe that some mottos are simply nominated at the wrong time, and as a result don't gain enough votes. Therefore, mottos with few or no votes that show potential to gain support should be reopened. If they fail to reach consensus after this second trial, they should be rejected. Mottos with equal numbers of opposite votes should be rejected on the first trial, as they have gained enough votes, but have not reached consensus. --Tewy 20:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this idea, but if there are only weak supports then I think they should be re-opened. --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 02:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we relist a motto that received only weak support on its first trial, and it still received only weak support after its second trial (it's like we're saying we kinda like it), we should reject it. I think that we have enough mottoes that can be a little more selective. WODUP 08:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about 1 weak support = rejected, 2 weak supports = re-open? --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 09:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can relist all mottoes that receive very few comments or only weak support on their first trials. If after a second trial, however, a motto still only receives weak support, and the comments are not enough to determine that someone really likes the motto, I think it should be rejected. WODUP 09:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to reinforce my original statement by saying that nominations with few or no votes (that also show potential for approval) should be reopened once and only once more. If they have not acquired enough votes or reached a consensus by then, they should be rejected. This means valid nominations with a weak support (or even a weak oppose, it's up to the closer to determine if the nomination has potential for approval), or a few comments may be reopened. --Tewy 00:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing 

message: I ran across "message of the day" awhile ago, and I need to find it again.  Does anyone know what page it is on?  If so, please drop me a note on my talk page.  Thank you.  The Transhumanist   20:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost in wiki-land 

message: In the unique case of Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations#Houston, we have a problem., a dilema came about. Can a nomination that is similar to a previous nomination be approved if the previous nomination was rejected? In other words, should similar nominations be rejected only if they're similar to approved nominations? --Tewy 22:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm. How about this: if a motto was approved, and a similar motto was suggested, then the new motto would get rejected, but if the first motto got rejected, and consensus decides to approve the new motto, then it would get approved? —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 23:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just about what I'm asking/proposing. Does that sound like a good idea? --Tewy 23:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar mottos 

message: The proposal (I'm neither for nor against it): to Introduce a new section at the bottom of the In review subpage, where reopened mottos would be moved to (similar to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates#Older nominations requiring additional input from voters). This would only change where reopened mottos are located.
Possible names for the section are: "Nominations required additional input", "Reopened nominations", or just "Reopened".
Reason: The current system takes votes away from newest nominations, because it pushes them to the bottom. The proposal would give these nominations a fair chance. Of course, it would also slow the rate of additional votes for the reopened nominations.
It's all a matter of where you want the votes to go, and when. --Tewy 03:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reopened nominations location 

message: Just a heads up, but I've added an example of how to search google to find a similar motto, clarified and reordered the closing procedure, including adding a part on when to approve, reject, or reopen mottos, and moved the closing procedure to the bottom of the list, to avoid cluttering the top with a bunch of information new contributors don't need to read right away (as I explained in the edit summary). --Tewy 23:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some changes 

message: So many so why not 2\day? Maybe at the same time? Simply south 19:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that there should be only one motto of the day each day. Call me old-fashioned. WODUP 00:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, the coding would be more complicated. --Tewy 04:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Coding might be slightly harder, say add a "1" or "2" at the end of the subpage name. But "Mottoes of the Day", or "Motto of the First Half of the Day" isn't nearly as catchy  ---Without Wax Chrishyman 23:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about a thing similar to TOTD's "random" box? --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 06:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: User:Cremepuff222 developed this, if you're interested in a random motto. --Tewy 06:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't take all of the credit, Tewy (you too, Steptrip!). *Cremepuff222* 01:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mottos of the Day 

message: Some mottos (such as #In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas and #Ich bin ein Wikipedian.) require a link to the article to explain the meaning of the original quote. Can there be a standard, non-intrusive way to do this? WODUP used a → before the motto, while I was thinking something similar to a footnote symbol*. Other comments, ideas? --Tewy 03:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to articles 

message: # → Example motto.
# Example motto.*
# Example motto. *
==== Comments ==== 
* I like the idea of an arrow because it grabs the attention of users so they could find the meaning, but I also like the asterisk because it takes up less space.  ~Steptrip 14:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideas 

message: * I like the idea of an arrow because it grabs the attention of users so they could find the meaning, but I also like the asterisk because it takes up less space.  ~Steptrip 14:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: Should I make a request for MiszaBot II to archive this page?  ~Steptrip 00:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really not that much trouble to cut and paste a discussion into an archive, although I suppose it wouldn't hurt. --Tewy 18:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean actual talk page discussions, not motto discussions.  ~Steptrip 20:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that, and my above comment stands. --Tewy 00:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatic Archival 

message: I just got done moving forty mottoes onto the schedule page. Can someone or a few people start removing the mottoes from the approved page to the schedule regularly? I just don't want anyone to go through what I had to experience... ;) --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!)  02:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, just found the page. Maybe it should be better advertised? Or maybe I'm incompetent. Either way, I'm here to help now! Chrishyman 02:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Scheduled 7 Chrishyman 02:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or perhaps someone should nom this page for deletion, since no one uses it. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 02:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does get used, but the mottos are usually removed quickly to be scheduled. This is a nice page to store the mottos in their plain form (without the discussions), especially if more than one is being closed at once. --Tewy 17:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This page, along with all the other important pages, can be seen on the template that appears at the top of all the important pages. --Tewy 17:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Understaffed?

message: Moved from Wikipedia talk:Motto of the day/Nominations/Frequently used ideas#Britannica vs. Wikipedia: a FUI?. --Tewy 22:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, maybe we should include a disclaimer (such as "Do not explicitly mention a Britannica vs. Wikipedia reference as it will rarely be approved, however, if the links make the reference, the motto has a higher chance of being approved.") Is that good? ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 23:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds acceptable. I like it Chrishyman 21:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to transfer this discussion to WT:MOTD/N, where everyone seems to be. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we could include a specific, but generic, example, such as Britannica, meet your match. --Tewy 01:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would probably work well. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 21:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britannica vs. Wikipedia: a FUI?