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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

---

Declaration of Independence

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)

• No, I don't think so. David P. A. Hunter, [[Esq. III ^{Though I seem to speak madness,} _{there be method in 't.} Save Stargate SG-1! 01:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Archived

Does someone think that this page should be archived. It is huge.--Seadog.M.S 02:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support Longest one I've ever seen! Tennis Dynamite 02:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Monthly is probably best for this kind of project. --Tewy 17:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Good question... I haven't a clue though.Tennis Dynamite 20:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Ideas

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)

Indentation

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)

Let's use bullets too, since the other nomination pages use them. | AndonicO Talk 20:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This page

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)

Is this just a temporary page, or a change to motd policy? An explanation would be appreciated. --Tewy 01:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia: as big as you think

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

:-) --Tewy 21:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

In review

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)

am i allowed to start again on this?

"In review" This time it links to the nominations page Simply south 12:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

archives

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)

Hi. Please archive this page as it is getting longer than 150 kilobytes!!!!!!!!!! Thanks. AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)} 18:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• I would try to help but I've voted on everything... --Tewy 21:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review

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)

So that's why changes weren't showing up on my watchlist... Tennis DyNamiTe ^{(sign here)} 03:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Closing

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)

• Actually you're right; it does help. I glanced at this diff and somehow it registered to me that you had added the bullets, so I changed the procedure. Heh. I'll change it back to how it was. --Tewy 22:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

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)
  • I can't recall any incidents where this was a problem, i.e., where some voters said there was a previous nomination, but never provided a link. But it's probably better to be safe, so here's a modification to your wording: If you find a motto that is the same or similar to a previously nominated motto, please leave a comment on the new nomination that links to the old nomination, so that others will be able to compare the two. --Tewy 18:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • That's great! So, when are we putting it up on the page? --May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) ^{(drop me a line)} 19:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I've added it to the nomination procedure. --Tewy 21:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks. --May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) ^{(drop me a line)} 21:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
      • And this is a wiki, so anyone can make edits to the procedure. Just keep in mind that controversial edits should probably be discussed first. --Tewy 21:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
        • And now that we've got FUI... --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 01:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The joke

Isn't that a litlle early? April Foools Day is for just under 2 months. Simply south 11:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Edits

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)

• Oppose. It's not really that great --Tewy 02:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, you need to rethink this one. --Tewy 02:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Ok, I've added an edit 1 below. --Tewy 02:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Rejected original. Per edit 1's approval. --Tewy 02:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Edits are all the rage now.

Edit 1. I think this is a big help. --Tewy 02:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong support! Wow!!!111! That's SOOO much better! --Tewy 02:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Suppport YEAH!! --Tewy 02:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Per above. --Tewy 02:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Approved edit 1. Per consensus. --Tewy 02:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Why can't this be an edit?

Edit 2. --Tewy 02:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. It doesn't really say much. --Tewy 02:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• SUpport. I lkie it. --Tewy

Rejected. Per edit 1. --Tewy 02:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the strange arguments with myself. Sometimes I get carried away with examples. The main difference is the addition of the subheading, and where the approved/rejected vote is placed. I'm not sure if that vote should be added to each version, however. Any other ideas for organization and readability of edits? --Tewy 02:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I prefer subheadings. WODUP 05:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Me two. --May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) ^{(drop me a line)} 08:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I vote subs too --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 10:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Why...can't people submite a new nomination for the edit? So the original nomination would be a reject (or most likely even a withdrawl if the person who nominated it wants to replace it with the edit). And the edit would just act like a new nomination? --`/aksha 10:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Motto nominations

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)

• I probably would have had that cleaned up a while ago, but I can't uncontroversially close nominations I voted on. As for your proposal, coordinating something like that would be difficult. I suppose we could push to keep the size under 100kB or something, but all that's really needed is a willing few Wikipedians to (correctly) close nominations in either big chunks every few months, or as they come every few weeks. --Tewy 23:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

What do you mean? --Tewy 23:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

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)

• It is a bit time consuming for someone new to go through the archives to see if their motto has been nominated before, so I like this idea. Maybe a Wikipedia:Motto of the day/List of common mottos/Wikipedia:Motto of the day/List of frequently used mottos/Wikipedia:Motto of the day/List of frequently nominated mottos type of thing? --Tewy 00:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Exactly. By pointing out those motto ideas, we'll save ourselves and the other wikipedians the time to repeat a motto. But I was thinking of something more along the lines of Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/Frequently used ideas. --May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) ^{(drop me a line)} 07:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I think T-borg's is better, so I guess the shortcuts would be something like WP:MOTD/IDEA, WP:MOTD/FREQUENT or WP:MOTD/FUI. --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 22:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Or maybe all three? ;) --May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) ^{(drop me a line)} 22:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, let's get started... We are writing the original quote/proverb right? BTW, I liked T-borg's better because idea sounds better than motto. --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 22:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Can we change the template to this instead:

	Motto of the Day
	Schedule (Upcoming mottos) Discussion Approved Nominations (New mottos go here) Frequently Used Ideas

• Or at least something similar? --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 00:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me. --Tewy 01:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Ditto, I like it. --May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) ^{(drop me a line)} 11:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Closing

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)

You have just contradicted yourself there. Technically, those with weak support still support. Simply south 11:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

Okay. What about those with (hypothetically) 4 votes support and 4 against? Simply south 15:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No consensus. WODUP 08:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if we would get such a motto, but if we did, if it gets a lot of equal support and oppose votes, then I doubt the topic will be accepted, and most probably the motto will be rejected because of the controversy. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) ^{(drop me a line)} 18:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I agree with the above comment by Tewy. If someone supports a nomination, than someone somewhere will also like it. Unless it is opposed by others, I think that a nomination should always be re-opened if their is a fair amount of support. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

So in summary, nominations may be reopened only once and only if: they have not received enough votes to gain supporting consensus, but promise to if given a second chance. --Tewy 06:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Lost in wiki-land

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)

Conditions for approval

So, how many supports does a motto need to get approved again, 'cuz, I didn't quite catch that part. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) ^{(drop me a line)} 10:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Technically the procedure doesn't really say much more than to go with consusus. If there was a set number, it would change with the times, as more voters participated. Over at WP:FPC, they generally promote images to featured status by a 2/3 majority (e.g. 10 support and 5 oppose, out of 15 total). But they receive a lot more votes than we do. I was recently involved in some discussion with Cremepuff222 and Steptrip (click to see the discussions), answering your same question, and I ended up with these rules of thumb:

1. Nominations may only be approved if consensus favors support of the motto.
2. Nominations may be reopened only once and only if: they have not received enough votes to gain supporting consensus, but promise to if given a second chance.
3. All other nominations should be rejected, including those that have not reached consensus.

The idea is to keep closings as uncontroversial as possible, so I've also developed a policy of, "If in doubt, reopen." --Tewy 23:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, what if you've voted on a motto, consensus wasn't reached, and the motto was reopened. Can you vote again on said motto? —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) ^{(drop me a line)} 21:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A nomination is reopened to gain more votes, but doesn't restart the discussion and vote tally. I suppose you should think of reopenings as just deadline extenders. Votes added after a reopening are in addition to the existing comments. Therefore, if you voted again, it would be like voting twice (which of course isn't allowed). However, you can still change your vote, if you wish. --Tewy 02:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) ^{(drop me a line)} 10:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Similar mottos

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)

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)

That's just about what I'm asking/proposing. Does that sound like a good idea? --Tewy 23:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable enough to me. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) ^{(drop me a line)} 23:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Reopened nominations location

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)

Some changes

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)

Mottos of the Day

So many so why not 2\day? Maybe at the same time? Simply south 19:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Plus, the coding would be more complicated. --Tewy 04:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

User:Cremepuff222 developed this, if you're interested in a random motto. --Tewy 06:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't take all of the credit, Tewy (you too, Steptrip!). *Cremepuff222* 01:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Links to articles

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)

Ideas

1. → Example motto.
2. Example motto.^*
3. 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)
  • My thoughts exactly. Do we want an obvious, but potentially distracting link, or a subtle, but potentially unnoticed link? --Tewy 02:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• I strongly dislike the superscript footnote symbol because it is easily overlooked, however, an asterisk may work. WODUP 00:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, of course...why did I do that...the asterisk isn't supposed to be in superscript. I struck out the superscript version. :-) --Tewy 01:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• So...I guess the → is being used now. --Tewy 00:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Automatic Archival

Should I make a request for MiszaBot II to archive this page?  ~Steptrip 00:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

I mean actual talk page discussions, not motto discussions.  ~Steptrip 20:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand that, and my above comment stands. --Tewy 00:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sanctioned "Mass closer"?

Due to the backlog on closing motto nominations, I am proposing that there be a sanctioned "mass closer" in the case that there need be one. I am well aware to the situation caused by the "Overseers" in the last incarnation of MOTD, so if this position is created, there should be at least two, in case one of them voted on a motto the needs to be closed. Just like always, all users are welcome to close noms, this is just a position to clear out the backlog. Thanks,  ~Steptrip 20:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask the inevitable. As per your second part, what if both vote? Simply south 20:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This is completely unneeded. A wiki means that everyone can participate, and that includes closing nominations. Designating certain people with this power is superfluous and cannot lead to anything good. If you want to close some nominations, then close them, or contact someone else for help. But anything that even hints at "Overseers" should be removed, as it goes against Wikipedia's core principles. --Tewy 21:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Tewy: Any users can still close noms; this is just for clearing out the closing backlog. These users will not, I repeat, not be on a higher level than any other users, in fact, it's merely a title and a designated responsibility, nothing more do I have in mind. Simply South: They will have to ask another user, who has not participated in that nom, to close said nomination. Hope this clears up any murky water,  ~Steptrip 22:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I realize that. And it is exactly because of that that there doesn't need to be such a position. If the backlog needs clearing, either do it yourself or contact someone to remind them of what needs done. --Tewy 23:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that if more people get involved here and help close more nominations (I think that the only three are Tewy, Steptrip, and Chrishy man) we won't even need any "mass closers." --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, don't forget WODUP! ~ Magnus animum _{(aka Steptrip)} 00:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I am with Tewy on this one. Just do it yourself. If you can't, do as much as you can, and come back later, or ask someone to help you. And if you have no idea how to do needed processes on MOTD, just ask. I'm sure one of these great Wikipedians will tell you how to do anything. (PS: Thanks for the mentioning of my name above, I'm really getting into MOTD) Chrishyman 01:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Holidays

I'm not sure if we should designate a special motto for December 25. Wikipedia is international, and as such, I think that the only holidays we should "celebrate," if any, should be international or uncontroversial ones. If we designate December 25 as a special motto day, then we have to designate all the other major holidays of other religions, etc., as special motto days as well. It's probably best just to remain neutral. --Tewy 18:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say not to, because then we'll have a special day for many holidays and I'm sure that would make quite a mess (though I'm not opposed to having one for Pi Day, which is pretty much the most amazing holiday ever! :) ). *Cremepuff222* 18:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No one has complained in the past (not that I know of). Anyways, if someone comes up with a great motto, that isn't insulting, and has to do something to do with a holiday, I don't see why it shouldn't be on that day. Tennis DyNamiTe 21:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so if we decide it's acceptable, should we try to create these special mottos by setting aside specific sections, or just allow one if it comes up? To me it seems like the December 25 section is advocating that particular holiday, and saying that the day is special enough to deserve a special motto, while other days are not. --Tewy 01:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should make a universal motto that doesn't rely on a specific holiday, but rather a well-known figure such as Santa Clause. As for the date, if we have more than one motto, we could place them on a sort of "holiday week" (for example, all holiday mottoes for a few days). That's just my idea... *Cremepuff222* 01:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I should probably restate that I prefer to not have designated mottos on holidays, with the exception of international or uncontroversial ones (e.g. April Fools' Day). --Tewy 01:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel it should be non-religious ones. I have nothing against a Christmas motto, but my opinion on that is moot, however if someon put up a Chanukah/Hanukkah section, someone might not like the Jewish outlook. I would have nothing to complain about, but I try to go-with-the-flow alot, maybe someone else has an input? Chrishyman 02:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Since when was this political correctness started? Christmas, and Hanukkah for that matter, is just about celebrating cooperation, love, and compassion, whether or not from an religious entity. Also, for those who still are opposed with this and still abide by policy, you may wish to read this. Politically incorrect (and proud of it), ~ Magnus animum _{(aka Steptrip)} 23:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The December 25 section essentially guarentees a special motto on that day, as if promoting it. I think to be fair you either have to open sections for every other major holiday of every other religion, or, (a much easier solution), not promote any. If a good motto that contains a religious theme comes up, the controversy, if any, may be discussed on a case-by-case basis, but I don't think we should promote any one holiday, regardless of if it promotes cheer. There are other ways to do that. --Tewy 00:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Very well. Per WP:SNOW I could go on with obscure policies, but I won't. Instead, here is my new proposal, how about just a section labeled "Special Mottoes" where undivisive mottoes (such as those pertaining to Valentine's Day or New Year's Eve/Day) would go? ~ Magnus animum _{(aka Steptrip)} 00:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That's better. What I've been trying to say doesn't mean that I'm opposed to the idea of having a special motto on a special day, just that I'm opposed to the idea of trying to have a special motto on that special day. Your section would help organize similar nominations, which I suppose I'm okay with, as long as it didn't promote them. It would have to exist solely as a grouping device, and not as an encourager of special mottos. --Tewy 01:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I also still support my previous statement pertaining to the date on which the motto is used on, though. *Cremepuff222* 01:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Tewy:Right, what I'm now leaning towards is that just in the description field, the nominator could say on which holiday he or she wants it displayed, not a first-level header labeled "Valentine's Day" or "Easter". ~ Magnus animum _{(aka Steptrip)} 19:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... it seems I misunderstood what Tewy was saying. I personally don't see why a separate section is necessary for holidays, but if it helps, go ahead. Tennis DyNamiTe 22:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's just keep the heading as "Special Mottoes," since some people may not like seeing a special section for Christmas when they celebrate a different holiday such as Hanukah. But if it is an international holiday (like April Fool's) or a less known holiday (like Pi Day) I suppose naming the section the holiday wouldn't hurt. *Cremepuff222* 22:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying, just have a "Holiday Mottoes" section and include directions about what mottoes can go in that section (i.e. international non-inflammatory ones, such as St. Valentine's Day, New year's Eve/Day or ${\sqrt {day}}$). The directions should be something to the tune of:

• Please do not nominate any religious holidays.
• Keep all holidays neutral (e.g. please do not nominate Hitler's birthday).
• If you know of an unfamiliar holiday (such as Square root day or Pi Day), please do nominate it.
• Please make all mottoes creative.

If you think that this list is incomplete or should be modified, please say so below. Thanks, ~ Magnus animum _{(aka Steptrip)} 23:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I like Cremepuff222's idea of calling it "Special mottos", and Magnus animum's idea of specifying the occasion in the description. If we leave the heading's title vague, the section should remain neutral enough. We could just provide a disclaimer: This section is used to group holiday, anniversary, or otherwise special mottos that should be displayed on a specific day. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is an international community, and that your event may not be celebrated in every part of the world. Also, please specify the day your motto should appear on, should it be approved. --Tewy 03:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Tennis Dynamite:Well if I had my way, there would be no section at all, but I'm compromising. --Tewy 03:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Tewy:Should I make it live? ~ Magnus animum _{(aka Steptrip)} 11:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've renamed it to "Special nominations" and added the disclaimer. Anyone is more than welcome to make changes to it (see it here). --Tewy 02:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Understaffed?

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)

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)

Scheduled 7 Chrishyman 02:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps someone should nom this page for deletion, since no one uses it. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 02:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Britannica vs. Wikipedia: a FUI?

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Motto of the day/Nominations/Frequently used ideas#Britannica vs. Wikipedia: a FUI?. --Tewy 22:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Should "Britannica versus Wikipedia references" be a FUI? I mean, like Tewy said: "That's about the same as banning all vandalism nominations." Chrishyman 18:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Sounds acceptable. I like it Chrishyman 21:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Perhaps we could include a specific, but generic, example, such as Britannica, meet your match. --Tewy 01:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That would probably work well. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 21:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)