Wikipedia talk:Motto of the day/Nominations/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

---

When will my motto be closed?

I think the heading says it all. My motto, which can be seen here, has been there for a looong time, and it's been pushed really deep into the 'Awaiting decision' section. Can somebody close it for me? (I'm still fairly new to MOTD.) --EinsteiNewton 06:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Archiving edits

For the sake of simplicity, can we keep all versions of the same motto together until archival, even if some versions are rejected in the process? This namely refers to when one version is rejected and another is reopened. I can't imagine any one person remembering where to move a reopened edit to if its other versions are buring somewhere in the current (or previous) archive. --Tewy 23:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Sorry about that, Tewy. Archiving fifteenish mottoes at once gets pretty redundant... *Cremepuff222* 23:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You're not alone; this is just another tidbit that I think should be added to the policy to avoid discrepancy. --Tewy 23:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. *Cremepuff222* 23:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Formatting closings

Thanks for that, Tewy. It was starting to get on my nerves... :-) *Cremepuff222* 17:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I left a note on Magnus animum's talk page. --Tewy 17:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

New Closing script

Hey everyone! I just wanted to let you know that I've created a script to help with minor closings. Please note that it must be used in a section-by-section manner, else wise the script will not work. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 23:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Yip Yip. c'mon, we've fished a good one.Kfc1864Cuba Libre! 00:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Already done mottos

How about we check the upcoming mottos for conformity with the current policies, for example obvious linking to Wikipedia, Special:Mypage, Wikipedians, etc. This should produce better results. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) ^{(drop me a line)} 22:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's let that slide, since it would be very tedious to do (unless you have AWB, that is :) ) and since we should only implement that on the mottoes after the discussion was settled. ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 00:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, your call ;). —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) ^{(drop me a line)} 09:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Finish closing procedure, please?

Hello, everyone. If anyone is willing to move the mottoes from the "decisions to be acted on" section to their appropriate places I would be glad. Something has risen in "real life" that's gotten in the way of my closings. I've already closed them, so all you have to do is move them. Thanks, everyone! *Cremepuff222* 01:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll get on that. --Tewy 02:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Tewy 02:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Tewy. I've already closed today's mottoes! *Cremepuff222* "As cool as grapes..." 00:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Material

Why does it seem like most mottos are about vandalism? Couldn't there be more variety? Simply south 19:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

They're the easiest to think of because it's the classic good vs. bad, which makes for an exciting story, or, in this case, motto. --Tewy 21:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

);):-> :):):) c'mon, we've fished a good one.Kfc1864Cuba Libre! 00:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe

Maybe we have to make just a few Special:Random links neither.c'mon, we've fished a good one.Kfc1864Cuba Libre! 00:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

When we vote, can we make a fixed consensus to be approved, like 3 support votes or 2? and can we make Strong and Weak votes half a vote-worth or double? No time , any...... just a small query. c'mon, we've fished a good one.Kfc1864Cuba Libre! 00:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem with that proposal is that there are a very small number of votes per nomination. If there were more votes (at least 10), we could probably use a 2/3 majority system. But as it is, there might only be 3 votes for a nomination, and 1 vote would completely upset the ratio of support and oppose votes. --Tewy 06:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What about the Strong/Weaks? c'mon, we've fished a good one.Kfc1864Cuba Libre! 06:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying that at the moment, a "system" such as this isn't practical, because the closer has so few votes to work with. If the system of strictly counting votes was implemented, however, it would probably require a 2/3 majority, "weak" votes would count half, and "strong" votes would count normal. --Tewy 06:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Tewy. c'mon, we've fished a good one.Kfc1864Cuba Libre! 05:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Nomination limit?

Hello. I've noticed - and I hope you have - that AstroHurricane001 has nominated about 15 mottoes one sitting as he has done before. This prompts me to assert there should be a limit on the number of nominations a person can make per day/week. Any ideas or compromises? ~ ΜΛGиυs ΛΠIмυМ ≈ √∞ 00:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. But I think it should be very loose, like a guideline rather than a rule. *Cremepuff222* "As cool as grapes..." 00:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have asked AstroHurricane001 to reduce the number of his nominations, or at least spread them out over several days. --Tewy 02:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but is it really that disruptive? —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) ^{(drop me a line)} 11:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

T-borg, it wouldn't be that disruptive if this was the only time, but he has nominated 15 mottoes at a time nearly consecutively (see the nomination page). Doing this takes attention away from the nominations which were nominated before Astro's spree by placing them further down on the page, and giving his nominations more attention, which does seem rather unjust to the people who nominate mottoes frequently. I do agree with Cremepuff222; perhaps we can have a limit (e.g. no more than 3 nominations per day)? ~ ΜΛGиυs ΛΠιмυМ ≈ √∞ 15:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I support the idea of a nominations per day limit. Thanks for clearing things up. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) ^{(drop me a line)} 15:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a written rule about the number of mottos one can nominate sounds discouraging, especially to someone who has a lot of good ideas. I think politely informing them to slow it down a bit is more than enough to solve this "problem". --Tewy 18:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, everyone. Sorry about the annoyance level of my motttos, I do sometimes have way too many ideas (see User:T-Borg's talkpage). I give a weak support for your limit of 3 mottos a day maximum, and I'll try to put any extra ideas in my sandbox for later use, but that might cause problems, like causing me to hold off using them until later, or causing other people to use it and say it's their idea, which may further prevent me from using them because of the possibility of them having been already used by another user (so if I do setup these mottos on a sandbox, be sure to remove them if you nominate them). I will try to get involved in the archiving business if it doesn't freeze my computer. Sorry for any inconvinence. Thanks. -- AstroHurricane001^(T+C+U) 19:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The page history would allow you to prove you came up with the idea first. --Tewy 19:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Changed my mind, better you decide. I probably wouldn't object to anything. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) ^{(drop me a line)} 20:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Requests?

Could we have a section/subpage/whatever for people to mention either things they want more mottoes for that they can't think of how to write (e.g. "There need to be more WP:FP mottoes!") or lines they don't know how to turn into mottoes (e.g. "There should be a motto based on a Britney Spears song!")? Confusing Manifestation 02:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hm…interesting idea. Do you think nominators would respond? --Tewy 03:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I know I would. I tend to be more inspired working from a suggestion than just off the top of my head. We seem to need some system for coming up with new foci for mottos since people are constantly complaining of too many vandalism/Britannica/stub to FA/Wikipedian mottos. Confusing Manifestation 04:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

People are finally voting!!

Wow! I'm amazed at how many poeple are actually discussing the mottoes of of recently! That makes my job much easier. :) *Cremepuff222* "As cool as grapes..." 17:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It potentially makes all our jobs easier, Cremepuff. Anyone can close nominations, remember ;). —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) ^{(drop me a line)} 18:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Now we can employ the "reject if there's no consensus" rule, because there are enough votes, which means less reopenings. --Tewy 19:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What about...

I have an idea. Why don't we request our own project's banner for Template:Wikipedia ads? —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) ^{(drop me a line)} 18:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be nice. I already advertise MotD wherever I sign my signature! :) *Cremepuff222* "As cool as grapes..." 21:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

REquested.c'mon, we've fished a good one.Kfc1864Cuba Libre!My name is Maximus Caesar Zabidus 06:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I am making this as we speak. Miranda 13:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Miranda 17:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, quite a backlog...

I took a break from closing and the motto page is HUGE!! :) Can we form a task aquad to take care of all these nominations? *Cremepuff222* "As cool as grapes..." 22:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Task aquad?c'mon, we've fished a good one.Kfc1864Cuba Libre! 10:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

One in particular

Just bringing everyone's attention to a nomination I closed. See Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/Archive 6#Water, water everywhere and barely a drop to drink. I changed it to fit with User:Scoutersig's suggestion, which unfortunately came late in the voting process. --Tewy 08:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Monthly archiving

What does everyone say to a proposed monthly archive system, rather than starting new ones whenever the old ones become full? --Tewy 08:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Not so sure about that, the current way seems more flexible. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 10:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Soo...I heard that the old 2006 archives should be deleted soon. Should Biblio or I take care of that? « ANIMUM » 21:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Your call, Mr. "New admin" ;). —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 22:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The subpages should be deleted once they've run their course, yes. --Tewy 00:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I will delete all the subpages up to the month of May. « ANIMUM » 18:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Right then, happy deleting! ;) —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 20:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I almost forgot to subst the subpages first! But that's been done now. --Tewy 04:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Name

I am going to change my name if possible, to H135H, and that user is me.c'mon, we've fished a good one.User:Kfc1864Talk to me 13:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Closed nominations

I've closed about 10 nominations that were getting long in the tooth and were obviously accept or reject to me. They're currently on Nominations#Decisions to be acted on, so that anyone who disputes my reading of the reviews can discuss them further before they get archived/moved to the Approved page. There are plenty more that could probably be closed as either no consensus or barely approved, but I've left them for now. Confusing Manifestation 02:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

slooooooowwwwwwdown?

Hi. It seems that less people are actually voting anymore. What's going on? Too many mottos have no votes after such a long time, and a lot of them are good mottos, could it be that MOTD is losing popularity? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 14:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Summertime in the Northern Hemisphere? --Tewy 22:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yea, either that or writer's block has become a pandemic. :) —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 22:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral or not?

One of the rules for mottos are that they have to be neutral. Yet it seems like there are alot of mottos that include somthing about wikipedia vs britannica/uncyclopedia. That doesnt seem neutral to me. Opinion?--Sunny910910 ^{{talk|Contributions}} 10:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason for the inclusion of the word "neutral" was not so much to prevent biased mottos as it was to prevent offensive ones. I agree that the wording is a little confusing, however, is there another way to word it? --Tewy 19:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Next batch

Can someone close all of those awaiting decision or should i? Simply south 19:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If everyone closes a couple, we won't need a single person handling them all. Hell, I'm gonna do some myself now. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 20:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Procedure?

I'm not sure if I've got the procedure for closeing mottos right.

1. Anyone (non-admins too) can close the the motto
2. Mottos to be closed are those in the awaiting decisions section
3. Mottos are:
   1. Aproved if consensus agrees it should
   2. Rejected if consensus agrees it should or if it has been reopened because it didn't receive enough votes and still didnt receive enough votes
   3. Reopened if it didn't get enough votes or if there was no consensus reached.
4. Then the motto and everything under is moved to the decisions to be acted on section regardless of whether it was approved, rejected, or reopened.

Tell me if I got it right (or wrong)--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 14:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You've got the idea, but there are a few minor things. First of all (and you can argue against me on this), I think that if a motto has a whole bunch of votes, but there's still no consensus, it should just be rejected, for the reason that it may cause (did cause) controversy. Second, the "In review" subpage, the "Awaiting decision" section, and the "Decisions to be acted on" section, as well as the other MotD subpages are all used to assist the closer. The "Awaiting decision" section, for instance, is used to clear out the "In review" page, and the "Decisions to be acted on" section is like a holding tank for mottos that have been closed, but not moved to the approved or schedule pages yet. But all of these steps lead to the final act of putting the motto into its own subpage on its own day (e.g. Wikipedia:Motto of the day/January 1, 2008), and displaying it on the schedule page. If you wanted to combine a few steps, such as rejecting a motto and moving it directly to the archive, or approving a motto and moving it directly to its subpage, skipping all the other steps, that would be fine. If you want to do several mottos at once, however, it might help to pause, and place them in one of the sections before proceeding. Or if you wanted someone else to archive the mottos, you might want to close them and leave them in the "Decisions to be acted on" section. All I'm trying to say, though, is that the different sections help with the process, but are by no means necessary.

Other than that, yes, you are correct. Anyone can close nominations (this was made very clear after the downfall of "overseers" earlier this year), mottos that have enough votes but haven't been closed yet should be in the "Awaiting decision" section, and all closed mottos, regardless of whether they were approved, rejected, or reopened, may be moved to the "Decisions to be acted on" section (although reopened mottos may need to be moved back to the "In review" section more speedily). Assuming that you're looking to close some mottos, thank you for your interest; we can always use more closers.

Oh, and if the instructions are unclear, feel free to reword them! It's a long, complicated process to close mottos, and anything that can be done to simplify it is greatly appreciated. The same goes for MotD policies.

I think that covers everything. --Tewy 18:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Mottos get subpages? Or are you meaning the page with the motto calender? Simply south 20:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Approved mottos are placed into their "own" subpages for use on the MotD templates. I gave an example of what a motto subpage looks like, Wikipedia:Motto of the day/January 1, 2008, which contains only the raw formatting of one motto. These subpages are used in the templates to update daily, and display on the schedule page. --Tewy 22:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I think I'll just be doing the closings. Thanks again.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 09:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Can someone close the mottos PLEASE??? Pretty please, with ∞ cherry ice cream sundaes on top? Seriously though, we have mottos that were nominated/reopened as far back as July!!! Summer vacation is over, so shouldn't people be closing mottos, now that they're not busy doing summery things, or has editors' block really become a pandemic :S ? I'm too busy right now to close so many, especially considering there's more than a month's mottos to close! Has someone forgotten the 2-week closing rule? HELP! Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, there have been some more important stuff lately, like the recent obliteration of nonfree images from "List of" articles, those need the attencion, but we should gradually be able to close them, maybe we can see if some of the newer contributors are free, some are probably just worying about procedure. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 01:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Script usuage?

How do you use this closing script:

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//Created by [[User:Magnus animum]] to make MOTD maintenance work more easy.                             //
//Note: To close nominations using this script, it MUST be done section by section. If you want to mass  // 
//close, I suggest that you do it the old-fashioned way — manually typing the outcome of the nomination. //
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
function closemottonom() {
  result = prompt("What was the result?");
  reason = prompt("Why?");
  document.editform.wpTextbox1.value = document.editform.wpTextbox1.value += "\n" + "'''" + result + ":''' " + reason + ". " + "~" + "~" + "~" + "~";
  document.editform.wpSummary.value = document.editform.wpSummary.value + result + ": " + reason;
  document.editform.wpMinoredit.checked = false;
}

function closemottotab() {
  addTab("javascript:closemottonom()", "close nom", "ca-close nom", "close nom", "close nom");
  akeytt();
}

addOnloadHook(function() {
  if (document.title.indexOf("Editing Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations") != -1) {
  addOnloadHook(closemottotab);
  }
});

//

--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 17:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, doesn't work on IE.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 00:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow...

I can't believe how large this project has gotten... *Cremepuff222* 02:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If you mean that the backlog has gotten enourmous, I agree.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 00:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Closed mottos awaiting decision

I've just closed all the mottos in the awaiting decision section, if someone could move some of the mottos in the in review to awaiting decisions or finish the ones in Decisions To Be Acted Upon section, it would be appreciated.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 23:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I've noticed that alot of mottos had to be "rejected after reopening" because there wasn't enough votes. And some of them were acually pretty good, seems like getting more voters is a problem...--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 23:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, we already have a banner (see above), what else is there? —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 00:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont know, I've already just added advertisment for MOTD on my signiture. Perhaps we could add MOTD on the main page, it might work but...People might not favour it...--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)Neither will alone, or strenght alone} 00:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about that sig idea, some may see it as spamming. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 00:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, whats your opinion on the mainpage idea?--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)Neither will alone, nor strenght alone} 00:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Deffinitely too trivial a project, considering that no other project seems to be even mentioned on it. Maybe a suggestion at the community portal, though that won't stay up forever, it should bring some more people (we shoud say new mottos are welcome, but we're more in search of voters). —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 00:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The idea doesn't seem very welcome: Wikipedia talk:Community Portal/Archive 12#Motto of the day (although this does refer to actually placing the motto of the day itself on the Community Portal). --Tewy 02:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I see. Well, thanks anyway.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)Neither will alone, nor strength alone} 03:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Um, could someone close all the mottos that were last opened/reopened more than 2 weeks ago, because some of them are way overdue. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 12:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, you guys better be thankful that I have some time on my hands now. ;) —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 02:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the "In Review" to "Awaiting Decision".--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 03:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No prob, and please don't kill me if I goof somewhere. ;) —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 04:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have two options now, either you can wait 'till this afternoon for me to finish the rest, or someone can do that themselves. But make sure to place reopened mottos after the first motto for October 14, 2007. We do have to give it a chance, don't you think? :) —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 04:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Done! Finally! Phew, well, that wasn't too painful. Now, ladies and gentlemen, would you please, GET TO VOTING, NOW!!! ;) —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 17:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, guys, could someone close the mottos after this one, minus the last, just noticed they're overdue. Thanks. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 00:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I support\I oppose

How many supports or opposes are needed for a motto to go through or be rejected? And is it okay to relist some from archive? Simply south 10:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's based on consensus, but how many votes are needed for that, I'm not sure. Up until now three support votes minimum and no oppose votes has been the requirement. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 10:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Explanation

Yes, "Rock beats scissors, paper beats rock, wiki beats paper." is a used motto, but, I have a good explanation (I hope). See, with each new nomination, the risk of a motto, similar to, or worse - the same as, either unintentionally or not, a past nomination grows. That's why I nominated this motto, as a sorta "pop-quiz", so we can get a general idea of overall dilligense. I'm not saying we check the archives for each nomination, only for us to be on alert. This could be implemented in the future, if you like the idea. That way, we can keep ourselves in check. Eh he he, please don't kill me. ^_^' —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 06:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure, but if I remember correctly, I think I've seen a motto already used before, renominated as almost the exact same, approved, and re-added to the scedule. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Closing time

Hey, it's getting to be that time again, guys. Ready for closing nominations? —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 20:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just moved the ones needed to the Awaiting Decision section. Simply south 20:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well well well! I didn't expect that fast of a reaction! Nice work! —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 20:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about 14 days. The ones i moved were originally proposed over 30 days ago. Simply south 21:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

So? We close like normal. We shouldn't reject just because of that. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 21:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I know. I just though the timing things were in the review section were 14 days. But it doesn't matter and i could be wrong. Simply south 12:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Remembrance day motto

I've got a motto for next remembrance day.

In [[about:wikipedia|Flanders fields]] the [[WP:STUBS|poppies]] blow
Between the [[WP:USERPAGE|crosses]], row on row,
That mark our place; and in the [[metawiki|sky]]
The [[m:stewards|larks]], still bravely singing, [[WP:REVERT|fly]]
Scarce heard amid the [[WP:WARRING|guns below]].

We are the [[WP:RETIRED WIKIPEDIANS|Dead]]. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
[[WP:WIKILOVE|Loved, and were loved]], and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The [[WP:RFA|torch]]; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break [[WP:AGF|faith]] with us who die
We shall not [[WP:WIKIBREAK|sleep]], though [[WP:STUBS|poppies]] grow
In [[about:wikipedia|Flanders fields]].

I'm too lazy to find the correct links so I'll let you guys finish it. I hope you guys like it.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 20:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it's pretty cool 'n all, but I think it'd be a stretch if this made it, I mean, isn't it a tad too long? —T-borg (T | C) 22:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Well if anybody has any need for it, it'll be here.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 22:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Desicions

Hi. I decided on some of the mottos. However at one point I messed up and accidentally deleted the long nordo... word. Can someone restore the word and act on the desisions and move them to in review or the motto listing place and such? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's fixed, but didn't you mention in your comment you memorized it? ;) —T-borg (T | C) 01:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I did memorise it, but it's just that it's hard to get the accents correct. The spelling without accents is mermoriseable: nordostersjokustartilleriflygspanningssimulatoranlaggningsmaterielunderhallsuppfoljningssystemdiskussionssinlaggsforberedelsearbeten. To recite (speak) the spelling without accents takes me about 17 seconds. Anyway, enough bragging, but I was going to add more desicions until this happened and I had to go to bed. Well, it looks like not enough people are doing desicions. I could add more, but it looks like the new proposal makes it not going to. How about if a clear consensus is not reached within four weeks of the nomination, it is rejected? How about a total of +2.5 or above for approval? Support is worth +1, weak support worth +0.5, neutral worth 0, (if people said one thing then crossed it out and changed their vote, only count their most recent vote) Strong support is worth +1.5, something that shows very strong support is worth +2, weak oppose is worth -0.5, oppose is worth -1, strong oppose is worth -2, FUI is worth -5, submerge in kettle of sulfuric acid, etc, is worth -3, withdrawn is worth -10, if there is a comment without vote but they're leaning towards either liking or not liking it, give 0.3 in whichever direction, and count it as an actual vote if they have a bolded support or oppose, etc, in their comment, and neutral leaning towards support is +0.3, neutral leaning towards oppose is -0.3, Abstain is worth -1.5, and you cann add more to this if you wish. How about whether or not someone has reopened it, within 2 weeks, it gets rejected if it's below +2.5, approved if 2.5 or above? How about it gets reopened within 2 weeks, and regardless of whether or not it was reopened on time, if the motto is four weeks old or longer, decide on it eith approve or reject. I know some of this belongs farther below, but I don't have time to do so. What do you think? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 18:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think more than two people should discuss this, so I'm going to wait for the others to join in. :) —T-borg (T | C) 23:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

I'm not trying to get out of work here but how about this: the mottos that didn't get enough votes/clear consensus, that are now in the "Awaiting decision" secion get failed. My reasoning is this: the "In review" page just got shortenned big time, and with these mottos reopening it's gonna get cluttered up again, and as we know, little people are going to be willing to go through all the nominations, in a way it'll be a new start, we may even get more activity by posting a reminder we're not dead on the community portal. Well, any thoughts? —T-borg (T | C) 01:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Please see my comment in the above section and remember that most of the mottos in the awading decision section are more than four weeks old and would get rejected anyway. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 18:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is getting crazy

The list is growing and growing, while past nominations are becoming older and older on the list. If the rule is that there is no consensus after 21 days, the more than half of the list should be removed, right? They really should be either archived or removed from the list. Any other opinions? iMatthew 2008 17:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The problem is, nobody seems to want to close them anymore. This is ridiculous. I've tried to close a few, but I haven't time to actually move them or close them all because there just so darn many. The thing is, we need people to close them whenever they have time. I tried to vote on them and stuff, but I haven't had much time. Is this project rotting away? I hope not. If you have time, and have read the procedure for closing, then close the mottos (that you haven't voted on) if you wish. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 18:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Messy, messy, messy

This looks like a project in need of a major overhaul. Especially the Nomination and Scheduling process, but other things could stand to be rewritten, or the styling to be redone. Since I haven't done much with MOTD on this account, and quite a bit on an old account (where many, many, many new mottoes were posted daily), I do need to get back in touch with the processes that drive this project.

But here are a few questions:

• Who is still here, actively contributing with new mottoes, closing old ones and approving/denying/reopening as per consensus, scheduling, etc?
• About how many new mottoes are submitted daily?
• Who is for reworking the nomination process?
• Who is for restarting the whole project?
• What "needs" to be kept? Can old archives be deleted if this is restarted?

Please get back to me. Do not reply below this post, it is in many locations. Please leave all concerns here. Thank you QAE 01:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ideas

Seeing as we are here, i would like to propose an idea or two. The changes i was going to implement were:

1. an alternative reopening template that could be used, similar to {{declined}}, {{approved}} and {{thrown out}} so i created {{reopened}}. This is an alternative to {{relist}}.
2. make a reference that in a consensus, there should be a minimum of three votes although each may be weighed and this could be slightly subjective.

Another idea i was thinking about was, maybe similar to WikiProjects there should be a participants section or page, so that if people wanted to contact people on mottos or the project generally, they could go here. Simply south (talk) 20:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I like {{reopened}} much more. A change I might like to add, is to #2. Maybe make votes weighted?

• Strong Support = 3
• Support = 2
• Weak Support = 1
• Neutral = 0
• Weak Oppose = -1
• Oppose = -2
• Strong Oppose = -3

Then require a certain numerical value to be approved. This could get rid of subjectivity (and the annoying Extremely Tiny Amount of Support votes). Also, the participant page would be a good idea. Possibly an area for general voters, then a list of users that close nominations and archive them accordingly? QAE 22:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If the participants does go ahead, where should it be placed? A seperate area or part of the nominations page (split off but transcluded)? Simply south (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking a participant list could go on a subpage, linked from WP:MOTD. QAE 01:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Running dry

This page is running dry again. Just a note on the ones i reopened in December, it looks as though these will all be declined due to lack of consensus. Otherwise ther are also not many new ideas. Simply south not SS, sorry 19:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice you provided. Well, I think that most people were on holiday and many new mottos will be added shortly. I have planned to review and, eventually, to nominate new mottos on every Monday, but I was busy with work and other things during the last few weeks, and I did not get a chance to do it. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There is, of course, always the option of doing "reruns"... I know it's not ideal, however if we do get stuck it's better than having "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" appear for weeks at a time. Sticking some notices up at the community portal could also help attract some more attention. I've also in the past suggested a "best of MOTD" program; while that may be somewhat difficult to implement, it'll at least get us a week's worth of guaranteed mottos. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The current mottos run out on the 24th. Simply south not SS, sorry 19:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with MOTD is, when new editors find it, they think "cool!" and start contributing to it daily and vigorously (more or less what I did). But when they find out that there are bigger and better things you can do here on Wikipedia, they move on to them, and MOTD will go down in their priority list. Except for a few here, most editors would feel like that, I think. I don't see no solution for this, but when things go bad it'd be good if the regulars could drag us back in (like Simply south did just now). After all, some haven't really left, just lurking in the background ;) Chamal ^talk 12:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Or when they've been turned down. Chubbennaitor 20:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This project, just like any other, is open to anyone. If a motto you do gets declined, just have another go and don't be disheartened about it or take it too seriously. Simply south not SS, sorry 23:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Like myself. I'm still here, and I'll try my best to think up some new mottoes when I can. :) —La Pianista ^(T•C) 20:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to find some new ideas and !vote on the existing ones. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you think i should reinsert all or most of the recently decided ones? Most were reopened and only some of them were looked at meaning i declined many that had been reopened but with not extra votes. Simply south not SS, sorry 00:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that should be the final resort. I'll try to add some when I can. Also, just a thought, should we start inviting users to join?--LAAFan^sign _review 03:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It's worked before. That's why I joined up- I got an invitation from Hersfold. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, Motto of the day/Nominations! Thought you might be interested in Motto of the Day, a collaborative (and totally voluntary) effort by a group of Wikipedians to create original, inspirational mottos. Have a good motto idea? Share it here, comment on some of the mottos there or just pass this message onto your friends.

MOTD Needs Your Help!

Delivered By TopGearFreak 17:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

How about this? I stole the idea from the Wikiproject Wikify invitation banner here, using the {{BASEPAGENAME}} idea from Template:W-basic. Obviously, the 'Hi there, motto of the day' part would change to the user's name. We could create a page called Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Invite a member, or something like that. TopGearFreak 17:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm really surprised we got this far, actually. I received a notice in September warning me of the possible end of MOTD (I failed to yield any good ideas for a motto), and yet here we are, four months later. I think Pjoef is right about the cessation of new nominations, but I will nevertheless still try to help add more. The banner seems a good idea too. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 08:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the banner idea. We could never tire of too many contributors. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 20:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

So will I create the template with my banner on it? TopGearFreak 21:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead if you want. I also think it is a good idea. Simply south not SS, sorry 17:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Hmmm... the banner is nice, I like it. Still, some users might respond better to a more individualised message... I would say use your judgement when deciding between posting that banner and using a more personal message. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Good news

We now have enough good mottoes to last us until Feb.11. And, there is a bunch of good mottos on review that look promising. Simon^KSK 01:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Help with FUI and Approved area discussion

Help with FUI

Frequently Used Idea needs updating. Basically we need to go through ALL the nomination archives and pick out the motto that have occurred twice or more so that the Frequently Used Idea page can be updated so obviously those mottos aren't used again, at least for a while. Any suggestions on what to do, how to do ths and who is willing too? It is too big in my opinion to be tackled alone. Simply south (talk)

-I'll help. Wikiert ^{T S C} 17:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Thanks. Simply south (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Approved area

On a separate note, perhaps we should vote whether the approved area should stay or not. Current processes and the previous overhaul in certain areas in my opinion seem to make this area obsolete now. Simply south (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Obviously, I can't vouch for SimonKSK and Simply S, but I never use that page, I just schedule the mottos straight away. Queenie 20:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• I don't think we need this. It's not like we get a huge load of mottos that we need to use this as a waiting bay. But unless I'm mistaken, I think whether it is to be deleted or not has to be decided at MFD. Chamal ^talk 03:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• I don't know!?! In the past, the approved area has been used massively, but the current process is a little bit different. That page will be useful for us if we will have much more mottos in the future than now. I think it should stay. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: This should definitely go to MfD. Apropos, I would support its deletion. —La Pianista ^{Speak · Hear} 22:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I, although not entirely sure on whether it should be deleted or not yet, agree that it should go to MFD. Who's putting it there? Wikiert ^{T S C} 17:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Added to mfd at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Approved (2nd nomination). Simply south (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Someone has made a few suggestions for a new MotD Barnstar. I suggest everyone head over and offer their two cents at the Wikiproject Wikipedia Awards talkpage. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Archival

I seem to be the only active archivist left. However, i will be unable to edit for the next week, possibly from tomorrow or Wednesday. I need someone to take over this role in the meantime. What is also not good is that again we are running dry and related to the first the mottos run out a couple days before i am back. And here i go again.... Simply south (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I can probably help cover, if you can tell me how it works? Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

See Closing procedure Closing procedure and Scheduling procedure ... if I get a chance to do that I will. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 15:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it is better to follow this one for the closing. I know it says not to close those which you have been involved in but i have not been quite following this myself and as long as the decisions are what can be seen as uncontroversial it should be okay. Remember, unless snow, the mottos closed must be over 14 days (by seconds if you want). Simply south (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Checked Out! And thanks for the instructions. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Mottos or Slogans?

These mottos are starting to sound like slogans. Just a thought. Maybe we should change this to that? Hires an editor (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No. This meant to be whatever people can think of and relate to Wikipedia but in the end are mottos so this stays. Simply south (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Besides, a slogan is just a particuliar type of motto, so even if they are slogans, "Motto" of the Day is still appropriate. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Future

Please see Wikipedia talk:Motto of the day#The Future. Simply south (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Decisions (Special nominations old discussions)

I've created a new second level section (same level as Decisions (old discussions)) in the Decisions page where we can move closed decisions from the Special nominations page before archiving them. Once a special nomination has been closed (approved or rejected) it will be moved there. The next steps for archiving special nominations will remain the same as before (see: Archive 15 and Archive 25.) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I was wondering what to do with the old special nomination requests. Creating that section for old discussions will help with the layout of the page. I, however, like the section title "Special nomination decisions (old discussions)" better, but we can wait for some more input by the others. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 22:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It has been like that a few times but it is good to separate them out IMO. Simply south (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

It say in a couple places that we should wait 14 days before closing a suggestion. We seem to be having more and more situations where we are about to run out of mottos. Would it be a good idea to change this to 7 days? Just so that it's official, since that seems to be happening anyways. Hi878 (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

On times like this, a message is sent out reminding people, which i have done so. We'll see after a few days. Simply south (talk) 08:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, did anyone get to the banner ad that was advertising MOTD? --I dream of horses (T) @ 00:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. There are two, actually. And by the way: Shoutboxes aren't your thing, are they? :) And you linked the talkback to the wrong page. :) Hi878 (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I have also posted the MOTD's invite on some user talk pages on May 13. Thank you, Simply south, for passing on those reminders. It was a great idea, and we can now see the results of both actions. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 13:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No, IMHO it is not necessary. Generally, we do not decline/reopen/approve a motto until 14 days had passed, but there is the WP:SNOWBALL clause that can be used to approve or decline a nomination at any time. IMHO it is not necessary to change the 14 days limit. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 13:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Loss of session data

I had a loss of session data that ended up logging me out. So, just so you guys know, the original lady gaga quote is approved for July 14th. --I dream of horses (T) @ 01:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Get rid of {{Thrown out}}

I believe we should get rid of the {{Thrown out}} because we rarely use it. Secret Saturdays (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think keep it as it is still some people's preference e.g. Hersfold (when they come back). Simply south (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I like it, personally. I think that it is funny. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 16:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Closure Script

Some of you probably already know about the closure script here. I thought it was sort of weird, and doesn't work too terribly well in certain aspects. I went ahead and tweaked it a bit, to make the summaries sound a bit better, and to make it work with the templates and whatnot. You can find my version here. In the first box, you type "approved", "declined", or "thrown out". It will add the brackets on its own. Make sure to have the first letter lowercase, and have the first letter of the reason lowercase, unless you want the edit summary to look weird. :) Works on monobook only, it seems. Hi878 (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and when you used {{reopened}}, try and make the whole thing a complete sentence, unless you want the edit summary to look weird. The format of the summary is this: " Closing. Result was (result) (reason)", so you can see why you would want a complete sentence. Hi878 (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

One other thing: It will work with {{relist}}, but you have to put in the "subst:", and the edit summary will be funky no matter how you put it. But nobody uses it, anyways. :) And another thing: If there are multiple link ideas, you can do each subsection individually, of you want, but you have to do the main section manually, as it adds this to the bottom of the edit box. Anyone have any comments, or anything? I feel like you all are ignoring me. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 03:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, come on, give me some comments. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 22:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I know nothing about this thing. :( How exactly do I use it? Kayau Voting IS evil 12:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

First, click on the "edit" button in a section header (this only works section by section). At the top of the window, there will be a "close nom" button. Click it; a window will appear asking "What was the result?" Put in either approved, denied, thrown out, reopened, or subst:relist, all in lowercase. Then, it asks why. Just put in whatever the reason is, like "per consensus (3 in favor, 0 against)." You already know that, but I figured I'd put it anyway. Then, when both have been filled out, the line will appear with the closing stuff, and the edit summary will be filled in. Here's the way the closure is written out: :{{(result)}} (reason). ~~~~ And the edit summary: Closing. Result was (result) (reason). So, if you don't want the edit summary to sound weird, try to make it all a complete sentence, so that it ends up saying something like "Closing. Result was approved per consensus (3 in favor, 0 against). Anyhoo, I hope it all makes sense now. Hi878 isn't home. ^{(Can I take a message?)} 16:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't find it. Is it a 'tab' or 'button'? Does it even work on Chrome or IE? Or is it a mistake in User:Kayau/motdclosure.js Kayau Voting IS evil 00:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I know that it works with IE and Safari... Oh, it doesn't work with vector. That might be it. Hi878 isn't home. ^{(Can I take a message?)} 05:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure? I use the monobook skin. I'll try again. Shrug. Kayau Voting IS evil 05:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Still not working. Kayau Voting IS evil 05:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Weird... It is working for me. Well, I have to go now; good luck with this. Hi878 isn't home. ^{(Can I take a message?)} 05:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It works well - Kayau, are you sure you actually put it into your Monobook? Go to your scripts page and add:

importScript('User:Smaug123/motdscript.js');

to the bottom line. --Smaug123 (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh; doesn't work now. I think that I have killed it, seeing as I am mostly guessing as to how to make it work. But I shall prevail (or at least give up and stop trying to make it work with those new templates)! ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 06:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Template

I was wondering whether a template could be made, which could be called like this: {{Appr|6|1|per consensus|July 2, 2010}} and would produce something like:
(begin)

Approved per consensus, with 6 for and 1 against, for July 2 --Smaug123 (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(end)
So, what it would need would be: {{Appr OR Rej | Num for | Num against | reason | Date in (Month Day, year) form}}
I would make it myself, only I can't find out how! What does everyone else think? --Smaug123 (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done, see Template:Appr. To get one use the code {{subst:Appr|Number of supports|Number of opposes|Reason|November 24|2024}} and get:
Approved per consensus, with 6 for and 1 against, for July 2 Kayau Voting IS evil 05:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to experiment with it in my general sandbox. Kayau Voting IS evil 05:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I shall experiment. --Smaug123 (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Perfect - it works! Thanks! Smaug123 (talk) 12:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Done a rejected one too; see Template:Rej. The documentation is linked from the discussion page. --Smaug123 (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to try and make it so that the closure script that I have works with the templates (and only the templates :)), so once I'm done, you can all tell me what you think. It won't work at all right now; so give me a few days to either finish or put it back to the way it was. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 05:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I've created this for all those who are interested. Does anyone other than me use that template? :) Anyways, you would use it like this: {{subst:Thrown out2|For|Against|reason}}

I don't use the Rejected template - I prefer not to be putting people's efforts in the bin! ;-) --Smaug123 (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's funny. :) And I doubt that any of the MotD crowd (okay, maybe not "crowd") would take it as an insult. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 06:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Crowd may be a little optimistic, yes! I don't think Thrown out would be taken as an insult, but it's the symbolism of the thing :) --Smaug123 (talk) 06:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, what if I am just a mean person and think that everyone's work belongs in the garbage? :) By the way, would you happen to know more than I do about javascript (which would be any knowledge at all)? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 06:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

:) I know a little JavaScript, but not a huge amount. I can see what I can do on the script - can you link it please? --Smaug123 (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Hi878/motdclosure.js I had no idea what I was doing; I was just making guesses. Hopefully, you can do something with it. I'm sure you'll be able to figure out what I was aiming for. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 06:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to go now, so whatever you come up with, erm... Well, leave a link here to wherever the (hopefully) finished product is hiding. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 06:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, new version at User:Smaug123/motdscript.js --Smaug123 (talk) 07:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Or you could get it from User:Hi878/motdclosure.js to help my ego... And Smaug, see my request/demand on your talk page. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 07:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

No, no! Get it from my page! I insist! (seriously, my version is expanded with more functions) --Smaug123 (talk) 07:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Mine is a copy of yours, and I have the documentation in the right place. :) By the way, is there some place we could put this so that people see it, or should we just hope that everyone sees it here? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 16:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I put instructions on the homepage, under Script, or something like that. --Smaug123 (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: Noes! My ego! Just read your note properly, and realised my dreadful mistake re documentation :) Just off to change the instructions... --Smaug123 (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so, now that I've beaten you, everyone, use mine. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 19:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

If you must... but I claim as much credit as I can under the Creative Commons license :) --Smaug123 (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you did fix it... :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 19:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Just so you all know, I have renamed my script to User:Hi878/motdtools.js, since it now has voting in it. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 04:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Archiving mottos

Is the project page being archived by Cluebot or some such bot? It's getting very long... --Smaug123 (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The archiving bot is MiszaBot, not ClueBot. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

So it is getting archived, then. I just wanted to check, as it seems to be getting a bit overdue! --Smaug123 (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it was; I only said ClueBot doesn't know how to archive. Sorry Kayau Voting IS evil 06:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Cluebot III, as linked (but not stated, sorry) is an archiving bot - at one point I had my talk pages archived by it :) --Smaug123 (talk) 07:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I made a mistake because of the pipe. Kayau Voting IS evil 08:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

Below is a discussion:

→ Saat kaç?
("What time is it?")

Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 22:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Weak Support ??? Maybe? But what is the point? ~~ Hi878 (Come yell at me!) 00:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Weak Support ~ I think that the point is the automated time&date displays (^___^). Question: Sorry for my ignorance, but was Mustafa Kemal Atatürk the first man to ask what time it is? (I'm kidding, of course) What is its origin (and meaning)? Is it a book or a quote taken from a speech or something? –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Weak support - yeah, it's no difference from saying quelle heure est-il or even saying it in English... Kayau Voting IS evil 08:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Reply they were the last words spoken by him before he died; he said that because he wanted to live to see the ecomonic growth and Liberalization of Turkey before he would die. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 04:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Approved per consenus. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 03:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

--END--

Is this really consensus?! Three weak supports, and then it is approved by the author after four days? Isn't that a bit hasty? --Smaug123 (talk) 06:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd always thought we were kind of against meta:Polls are evil. I'd never bothered to put it here though, last year or earlier this year if you'd put something on a talk page like this nobody will bother to look (usually). It's awesome that somebody else agrees with me. No offence intended, secret saturdays; I believe it's a general situation. Kayau Voting IS evil 06:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

If nothing else, the nominator should never close their own noms. And with only weak supports, the closure was definitely too soon, seeing as the guideline is 14 days. There wasn't exactly much tie for any opposes to pop up, which is no doubt why you are supposed to wait. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 06:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I also stated that we should not close our own mottos in the guideline, though Secret Saturdays' been here ages before it was written, so I guess (s)he probably didn't read it. Now, if we could link to meta:polls are evil in the guideline... Kayau Voting IS evil 02:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

And then there is the fact that it was closed far to soon; I oculd understand closing it like this after 10 days, but not after 3 or 4. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 03:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it looks like snowballing but isn't. But are we actually going to do something about that? Kayau Voting IS evil 05:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll give him a trout, and direct him to this discussion. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 05:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Great idea! Kayau Voting IS evil 05:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm really sorry about closing the motto very early. I'm not going to lie, this was abad habit since day one as shown in previous mottos, but now I know that this is unexcusable. As compensation, I'll move it back to "In review" and delete its place in the schedule. I also promise to quit doing it for now on. What do you say about my proposal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secret Saturdays (talk • contribs) 09:18, June 26, 2010

Good. I'm glad that you understand why we were a bit upset; I think we can believe what you said. As long as you remember to sign posts. ;) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 16:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Will do :) Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 16:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I say as I forget a space between two words... ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 16:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Process\procedure

There are some parts here that i think need to change or sorted out based on what gone on in the past year.

Nominations

Motto criteria

Your motto should:

• Reflect the community or purpose of Wikipedia.
• Be short; it's a motto, not an essay. While there are exceptions to this, (see, for example, this one), most of our mottos are short and snappy.

Many of the recent mottos have been many lines long

• Be funny or serious; but nevertheless, interesting.
• Be powerful; it should provoke a reaction or draw attention, not just another "blah blah".

Your motto should not:

• Be similar to another approved motto.
• Be offensive or inflammatory.
• Be too obscure (so no little-known Yoda quotes, please).

I have seen many obscure quotes, such as that recent one from 22 Short Films about Springfield involving Seymour's dinner

• Contain redundant links (e.g. We want you! …to join Wikipedia., where the meaning is clear without the links).

Tip: avoid rarely used words that not everyone will understand. Remember, a lot of non-English speakers read Wikipedia.

Nomination procedure

To nominate a motto for review, simply add it at the top of the In review section using this format:

===== Example motto =====
Origin of the motto and your comments. ~~~~
* First comment goes here. ~~~~
** Any replies get indented again. ~~~~

====== Edit 1 of Example motto ======
'''Edit 1'''. Reason for edit, what was changed, etc. ~~~~

• Anyone can vote for approval. Simply vote Support or Oppose ('''Support''' or '''Oppose'''), and, if possible, leave a reason. Remember to always sign your posts on discussion pages. However, it is generally frowned upon if you vote twice in one motto so please stick to one vote, although multiple comments are allowed.

Maybe "don't support yourself" should be added

• Please note that this page uses the bulleted voting style, the same as on Featured picture candidates.
• 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.
• If you have an idea that might improve a motto by rewording, changing the links, etc., create an edit under a nested heading (see the above example). Simple spelling mistakes or punctuation errors may be corrected without creating a new edit; just be sure to leave a comment explaining exactly what you have changed.
• After 14 days, it’s decision time—the motto should be moved to the top of the decision section. Anyone uninvolved in the discussion is welcome to judge the consensus to either accept, reject, or reopen a motto. See below for the procedure on how to do this.

The second half of this has long since gone out of the window in that many people (including myself) have been involved with mottos we've approved\rejected\reopened

Decisions

Closing procedure

This page contains mottos that have been closed, or are about to be. The instructions below describe how to close a nomination. Any discussion on the In review page that is more than two weeks old or is obviously snowballing may be closed by following the process below and copying the whole discussion to the top of the #Decisions (old discussions) section below. Anyone can close a discussion; you don't have to be an administrator, however to avoid conflicts of interest, we ask that you not close any nomination that you either started or commented in, when possible.

Determine consensus, if any

1. Decide if the motto should be approved, rejected, or reopened. Keep in mind:

   a) Nominations may be approved only if consensus favors support of the motto.

   b) 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.

   c) All other nominations should be rejected, including those that have not reached consensus.

2. Try to keep closings as uncontroversial as possible. If in doubt, reopen.
3. Do not approve similar versions of the same motto. If the nomination contains edits, only approve the version with the most support. Reject the others.
   • The exception to this is if an edit is significantly different from the others, and has gained enough support to be approved on its own.

Display the result

Once the result of the discussion has been determined, add one of the following to the bottom of the discussion (without the bullet):

1. To approve: add :{{Approved}} for [[Wikipedia:Motto of the day/MONTH DAY, YEAR]] (optional comment) ~~~~

   If you are not certain what the next open date is, leave the link out and add the motto to the Approved list for future scheduling.

2. To reject: add :{{Thrown out}} (reason) ~~~~ or :{{Declined}} (reason) ~~~~
3. To reopen: add {{subst:relist}} or :{{reopened}} (reason) ~~~~

Then, move the entire discussion to the top of the Decisions (old discussions) section (direct link). From there it should be archived after a period of time. If you chose to reopen the motto, move it to the top of the In review section.

I was wondering whether there should be a section giving the possible reasons for approval\reopening\declining for one to choose

Example

Here is an example of what a reopened, then approved, nomination would look like:

==== Example motto ====
* Votes and comments. ~~~~

{{subst:relist}} ~~~~

* Additional votes and comments. ~~~~

:{{Approved}} for [[Wikipedia:Motto of the day/February 31, 2012]]. Enough additional votes have been added to form a consensus. ~~~~

What do others think? Simply south (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. If nothing else so that this section gets archived. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 23:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Archivebox

The first link in the archivebox is a redlink, that was never deleted. Am I missing something, or was the person who added that link? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 16:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Dunno. The following is a list of all subpages of "Wikipedia Talk:Motto of the day/Nominations/":

• Wikipedia Talk:Motto of the day/Nominations/Archive 2
• Wikipedia Talk:Motto of the day/Nominations/Archive 3
• Wikipedia Talk:Motto of the day/Nominations/BOOM!
• Wikipedia Talk:Motto of the day/Nominations/Decisions
• Wikipedia Talk:Motto of the day/Nominations/Frequently used ideas
• Wikipedia Talk:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review
• Wikipedia Talk:Motto of the day/Nominations/Specials
• Wikipedia Talk:Motto of the day/Nominations/inreview

I think that Wikipedia Talk:Motto of the day/Nominations/Archive 1 has been deleted or never existed. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

What about creating Archive 1, moving contents from Archive 2 to Archive 1, and from Archive 3 to Archive 2? Probably, Simply south knows more about this!?!?!? I left a note on his talk page. I think we will have to wait for his response. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep. By the way, Archive 1 never existed, or if it did, there is no deletion log... Anyhoo, someone should figure out the archives, and make this page start getting archives. I would, but I'm too lazy. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 19:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Taking a quick look, I noticed that some comments in the second archive should be in the nonexistant first. I'll just move them. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 19:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Now that I look at more than the first section, I see that nothing goes in the date range for archive 2. I'll fix it; you all can tell me what you think. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 19:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I am almost finished. Once I am, I suggest that we recreate the third archive page, and have that be where we start having stuff rchived to from the current version of this page. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 19:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, since Archive 1 has only four comments, I could just move all of Archive 2 in there, and we could start with Archive 2... I'll go with that. Someone revert me if they disagree. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 19:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Voting is evil

An imaginary situation:

→ This is Sparta!

• Support - Awesome! John Doe 00:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support - super cool - Joe Bloggs 00:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - A N Other 00:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Super Strong support - AWESOME! - Tom 00:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Super cool - Dick 00:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Excellent! - Harry 00:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - I don't see much meaning here, and besides, it's been used before. Albert Einstein 00:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. - a N Other 00:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

I think this is what will happen in the future if we count votes rather than arguments. Isn't this a really bad practice that we should all change? Kayau Voting IS evil 00:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, but here I think most do a good job explaining their rationale. And to certain extent, with mottoes, it is personal preference. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 02:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we all do a pretty good job explaining our rationale. Plus, as you say, personal preference, which, even though it is bad, would make counting votes would be more appropriate here. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 03:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

What I'm saying is there is an unhealthy trend across Wikipedia that is also seen in the MOTD: doing straw polls. Polls are evil and clearly empty arguments, such as WP:IDL and WP:LIKE, should be weighed less than those with real, concrete argument, IMO. Kayau Voting IS evil 14:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Wll, I don't know about other people, but I do that when closing, I just put "x for, x against" because that is in the template, and people can get a summary. But I am doing what you say. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 18:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

WHAT? (or WTF, which is more appropriate) Do you need a BEEEPing "rationale" for showing your support for a nomination? And, what can you say in this "rationale"? How much you like and love the phrase? The good linking? Well done? Good job? Thanks for posting? Nice shot? I don't think so! Hence here it is not a matter of keeping or deleting an article in the main space, which in both cases requires a very good rationale, but your opinion about a nomination, and, eventually, your suggestions on how to improve it with the best set of links and different interpretations. First of all, they are opinions and not votes, and, rationale or not, all opinions count equally. Who will decide which is the best rationale or what is right and what is wrong? Giving explanations, opinions, and suggestions on how to improve a nomination can be of great help and increase its value added, but nothing more than that. About the "count" question, there were mistakes in the past. I myself have committed at least one mistake when I approved a nomination that was not so good to be approved. Then, I decided to do not approve nominations for a month (it was a kind of self-punishment.) Since then, I always count the OPINIONS to avoid other mistakes and it really helps me to make decisions. Obviously, this is just my humble opinion. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

About the above imaginary situation. IMO, it will be approved per WP:SNOW (8 for and just 1 against.) I do not care if Albert Einstein is a genius or a goat. He explained his reason, and others may change their opinion (if they want to.) Also, I do not think it was the real "Albert" because he gave a rationale about his opposition, but he was not so cleaver and able to find a solution, and to make some suggestions on how to improve that nomination. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

A genuine situation

→ Friendship before statehood.

The state motto of Texas. I would like to have it released this December 29, the day Texas became a state.Secret Saturdays (talk) 00:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support Good message and links. Smaug123 (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support I like it. Get acquainted with other people, and the community, before becoming an admin. --I dream of horses (T) @ 18:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I'm fine with it, and it would make sense to use for the day Texas was admitted to the Union. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose ~ This is a great motto and and its message is highly relevant and educational, but from Alabama to Wyoming there are other 49 states and 49 dates. What about the other 200 countries in the world? –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/December 29, 2009 (per consenus) OC-Tex Express (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Reply - Whoa, whoa, hold on there, how is this consensus? Three to one is not consensus, and Pjoef brings up a good point that is at least worthy of discussion. How can you call this consensus? Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• I think it meant WP:SNOW. Secret Saturdays (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Reply Three in favor and one strong oppose with a well thought out rationale is not WP:SNOW, either. Pjoef brings up a good point which I think deserves discussion at the very least. You closers throw WP:SNOW around way too easily. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Nutiketaiel, though a supporter, does not agree with the approval of this motto. This is because pjoef's point was never addressed. Although there are 3 supports, this is not consensus. Kayau Voting IS evil 02:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Definitely a good point. However, it is also up to the closer to determine the legitimacy of the rationale. Doing it by straight up/down vote makes that easier. And, as I said and pjoef seemed to agree, how do you determine a legitimate rationale? Most of them are "like"/"don't like". We aren't talking RfA here. So...how do you propose we fix this system? And since this is a discussion right now, how do you see the current consensus in this thread? PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 03:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

We already have a great selection of mottos going down to August. I think the MOTD's quality standards has lowered since our definition of consensus has been lowered likewise. I strongly believe that reopening is a lot better than approving a motto when all there is is 'more supports than opposes'. It's about time to tighten up our standards the way we did before. No offence intended to any decision-makers. Kayau Voting IS evil 10:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps we could change the reopen limit to two or three, also? And the three templates, in my opinion, should be changed to leave out the "number of opposes/supports" part. In fact, I think that I'll go ahead and do that, since reverting me would be so easy. :) Anyways, the standards should be raised. When closing time comes around, if there are unaddressed points, then the reopener should point them out. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'll wait on that. I'll just change the script to not use them, and tweak a few other things. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I like your idea, but we need consensus first. Also, invalid points don't have to be addressed, like IDL or LIKE. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Adam Kontras (3rd nomination), for example. Kayau Voting IS evil 00:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I've updated my script. I suppose I should make sure I didn't break it. :) Let me know what you think of my changes. I changed the layout for all four types of closure, approve, decline, throw out, and reopen. And I know that invalid "points" don't have to be addressed. :) I mean actual poinrs (note my use of quote marks. :)) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to start a new section that has some changes that I would like to make with the MotD process. I'm taking some of these to there, in addition to another. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not completely right. First, it was 4 to 1 (you missed the poster.) Second, I think there was a sort of consensus. Third, this was the case I was referring to before. I was wrong, the nomination I was referring to is here. FourthThird and last, the following is the discussion Nutiketaiel and I had about that approval mistake: (posted by pjoef on 13 July 2010)

Pepsi Motto Approval

Pjoef, I don't usually do this, but I must object to your approval of the Pepsi motto. Two Weak Supports, a Very Weak Support and an Oppose to not make consensus, in my opinion. At best, that motto should have been re-opened for further discussion. I won't undo your decision, but I strongly urge you to return it to the in review page for further consideration. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not? I don't like that motto too, but there were 4 in favour (you must also count the poster) and only one was against. As you can read it has been approved per BLAND consensus. You can rest assured that it was not an easy decision to take. IMO, I did it right and in good faith, of course. I have to repeat myself: I didn't like that motto so much! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What is "bland" consensus, anyway? It just seems to me that three people weakly supporting it and one person outright opposed would be no consensus, not a "bland" consensus to use it. I'm not saying it can't pass, I just think that, with such a lack of consensus, it should have been reopened for further discussion rather than approved, and it's not too late to do that. I know that sometimes we get a little hard pressed for mottos, but the answer is not to approve bad ones without consensus; that will just make the situation worse by lowering our standards. I again urge you to return the motto to the in review page for more discussion. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be late, Nutik, but I have been away from the computer for a few days.
In my humble opinion, four votes in favour (you must also consider the poster) and one against, means that it had the necessary consensus. Also, I do not think that to review the decisions that have been made or actions that have been taken or, worse, the archived decisions, is a good thing to do for our project. In any case, and given the current situation, I have decided to suspend myself from approving mottos for a month.
Take care, and have a safe and happy new week. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:26, 5 October 2009

I think "suspending" yourself is an over-reaction, but whatever makes you happy. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

---

You must also consider that at the time we almost have the tank empty. There were few nominations and it was always a race against time. Also and IMHO the Q level of the mottoes was much lower than now. Anyway, from that point on (and one month later), I started counting the opinions. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Manual of Style...for mottos?

Should we create a Manual of Style for mottos? Or would this be overkill and killjoy?

I had in mind a few points, such as not linking I to WP:EDIAN (or using other obvious linkings), not making mottos exceeding a such-and-such number of lines, and a consistent method of attribution (do we link to the person we quote or to the place/piece of literature the quote was made?).

You guys can feel free to add upon this. If we already have such a thing as a MOS-MOTTO, forgive me, since I've been very busy in real life and haven't been as active on WP as I should. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 16:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Never mind: Wikipedia:Motto_of_the_day/Guidelines —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 16:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

I have "invited" ClueBot III to archive this talk page. Threads have to be two weeks old, and it will start with Archive 2. If anyone has any problems with thit, just go ahead and revert it. Shall I add this to the main talk page for MotD as well? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 22:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me... does consensus dictate that you are allowed to do this though? I !vote support ;) (sometimes I really hate Wikipedia's pretentious natterings consensus!) --Smaug123 (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I decided to Be Bold. :) Is this a support for what I did, what I want to do, or both? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 22:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I might have to ponder that, but I'll be bold here too and venture both. <this is Smaug123 signing off> --Smaug123 (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll blame you if I end up breaking something. :) I'll go ahead and do it now. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 22:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've finished, and I standardized the templates on all of the archives. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 22:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Should this be kept, or should it be added to the archives for this page? The page should be kept, because of the MfD notice, but should the comments be moved, or left there? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 22:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow... It just archived 43 discussions from this page, and 37 from the main talk page. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 23:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyhoo, back to my other question, should this be kept, or moved into the archives for this page? Or some other idea I hadn't thought of, I suppose. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 23:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Very Well Done, Hi878! I think this is the best solution and You did a great job & Thank You So Very Much for taking the time to do this for MOTD!!! I was just searching for this discussion, when I came across the one below. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

:) I feel good now. It's nice to know that someone noticed it, and likes the way I did it. :) Also, what do you think should be done about this page? Left alone, or merged with the archives for this page? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply: Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Approved is a redirect to Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations, so I think that Wikipedia talk:Motto of the day/Approved should be redirected to this page (Wikipedia talk:Motto of the day/Nominations) and the contents moved to one of the archives of this page. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll do that now. But not a redirect, because of the MfD notice. I'll leave it blank. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 14:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, done. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 14:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:ACCESS

WP:ACCESS advises against the → symbol due to inaccessibility for screenreaders. Should we perhaps use a different icon (and incorporate it into the MOTDtools script for ease of use) to present background information? --Smaug123 (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm all ears, if you have an idea. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It's been happening since Dec 2007. Kayau Voting IS evil 00:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

We should use: → It produces: → Anyway, the Unicode Rightwards Arrow is massively used on Wikipedia, and it is featured in the first row of the MediaWiki:Edittools (in the Copy and paste field.) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The icon solution (as per WP:ACCESS, Links, point 5)

[[Image:U+2192.svg‎|13px|link=Link|Link|alt=→]] Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

It will produce:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

But, we must check out if there are blue and red versions of the arrow and if there are problems with the existing templates for the Motto of the Day. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

comment I suppose screenreaders can't read these highly sophisticated images either? Just using common sense. And i suppose alt text won't help either - it will look highly ugly and confusing. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply - screenreaders can read alt text. The alt text won't look like anything - it's not shown except on rolling over. I think that is a good idea, with that image. How about a vote on it? (with rationale, if you lot are so bothered about exclamation marks) --Smaug123 (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

See #Idea_Six below for further discussion --Smaug123 (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure they can read alt text, but how would they even know that there's an arrow there? There is no point using alt text if they don't even know if there's something there. Kayau Voting IS evil 23:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply: By writing something like: "right arrow link pointing to..." in the ALT field. To read more about alternative text for images, please see: Wikipedia:Alternative text for images. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to make him an offer he can't refuse

Just looking at the archives and discovered that it had been nominated before! What a great fuss for nothing. Kayau Voting IS evil 00:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If it was rejected then it can be added again. Simply south (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Changes

In an above section, some ideas for changes were discussed. I also have some to add, and I figured that it would be best to start a new section to discuss these. Just to make this easy to follow, I'm going to make a subsection for each idea, and comments can be listed below each. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Ideas

Just so I can make another header...

That's about all I have. If anyone has any other ideas, put them in new sections under here, unless they are related to one of the dieas I have above. In that case, make a subsection in that section. :) I think I'm being overly organized... Anyhoo, That's all I've got. Let the arguing commence. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note that all discussions between July and November have since closed

A Request

Would anyone mind my closing these when consensus appears? I figured that I'd better ask, seeing as I nominated Idea Four... :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 05:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Closed Discussions - Put new ideas above this section!

Just to keep this cleaned up... ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 05:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

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

---

Idea Seven

The result was withdrawn by proposer. Kayau Voting IS evil 10:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

What I think is probably going to be my most controversial idea. I know that there was some form of leadership at some point, but I'm sure how it worked, and I don't care to do that much digging. Anyways, having some sort of group of (Five? Or seven? Seems like good numbers. I prefer five. Put what you think about this in your comment, if you support) elected leadership-type people could help, in my opinion. Perhaps leader is the wrong word to use... Anyways, I'll just explain it. Comment in this section if you like the idea of a leadership-type group. I will make more subsections to comment in for the various ideas I have for what they would do, that kind of thing. Only coment in those if you support the idea of having such a group. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing Closures

If someone feels that the decision for a nomination was flawed, they would bring it to the attention of this group, perhaps on some sort of notice board. There are two options for what could happen then, which I have listed below. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Option One

The leader-person who first saw the suggestion would re-close (or reopen) the nomination themself, they would decide what the consensus is (or if there is any). And if the they think that the decision was correct, leave it how it is, and reply on the noticeboard-type-thing. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Option Two

Another would be that the group would decide what to do about it. It would be a vote, and whateer has the majority would be what happens. If there isn't a majority, some sort of re-vote after reading the comments by the other people, or just leaving it the way it is. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

= Sub-Option =

I'm adding too many headers... But anyways, another option could be that the first is what always happens, and if the person who originally disagreed with the closing doesn't agree with the leader-type person's idea, then it could be put to a vote. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Controversial Closures

This is related to the idea above. If someone can't tell how to close it, they could put in a request at someone sort of noticeboard for one of the leader-type people to come and close it for them. And then, if the decision is contested, the above suggestion(s) could be followed. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Closing Discussions About Changes

If some sort of discussion like this happens, one would close a discussion, and implement the changes (if that was the consensus). The one who closes the discussion would not be able to have participated in the discussion. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose all options - hey, MOTD is no big deal. It is simply unnecessary to have a 'MOTD Committee' or something like that. It is a big waste of time considering how often we have emergencies! Kayau Voting IS evil 01:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with Kayau. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose all - true, and that's why we have a community anyway. --Smaug123 (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose all per above. Simply south (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose all: per iar and the creepy factor. —mono 23:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose all. There is no cabal. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Wow. I have just read through this whole section, and realized two things. First, I put way to much thought into this. :) Second, it is a bit ridiculous, isn't it? Since all we are doing is picking mottos. :) I have now recognized my insanity, and am going to come to terms with it by saying that I now think that this idea is ridiculous, and I think that no further discussion is necessary. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

---

Idea eight

The result of the discussion was implemented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayau (talk • contribs) 02:35, July 20, 2010

Add don't support yourself to the nomination procedure. As in adding that you support the motto when you are the one who has alreeady suggested it, unless someone is suggesting a slightly different version. Simply south (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Kayau Voting IS evil 23:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support. This seems to be really obvious, but there is no point in supporting your own motto because you submitted it and !voting for yourself is !vote stacking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AstroHurricane001 (talk • contribs)
• Support Oh, most certainly. I can't believe that I forgot this one. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - but perhaps there should be a line somewhere that indicates the fact that the nom is normally considered a support? PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 12:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - It's basically !vote stacking. No thanks. Simon^KSK 18:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Nominating a motto is supporting it. Am I right, Captain Obvious? —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 03:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

---

Idea Six

I think that Sonia's point point sort of kills any argument for supporting. And even if she hadn't pointed that out, there is still and obvious consensus, so I am declining this idea. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 04:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This idea is not my own, Smaug123 came up with it above, and I figured I'd just put it in here. This is what he said:

“ WP:ACCESS advises against the → symbol due to inaccessibility for screenreaders. Should we perhaps use a different icon (and incorporate it into the MOTDtools script for ease of use) to present background information? --Smaug123 (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC) ”

Put what you think in this section. If there is a consensus to make the change, we can have a discussion about what to change it to. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose It has always been this way, I don't think it really would be worth it to change it. Everyone knows the arrow, they automatically know what it means, changing it might confuse people that aren't aware that we changed it. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think there is actually another icon that is good enough. Kayau Voting IS evil 01:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: Please, read my comment above, but I will think further on the matter. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support Pjoef's version; see the sub-heading. --Smaug123 (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral. I'm not sure I understand the problem here. The community has gradually evolved over time to use the arrow symbol, and the new suggestion just appears to create an image symbol when we need to see whether the link is blue or red during preview. It's also more difficult to remember an alt code, when we could just go to the box under the editing window to find an arrow. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Reply - We don't need to remember the alt code; just miss out the alt code and use the link as alt text instead. I'm putting a new idea below. --Smaug123 (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
• oppose- Good grief. The symbol is even used in the Mediawiki interface. What is the issue? sonia^♫♪ 01:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sonia. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 23:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Sonia. Simon^KSK 18:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sonia and her above socks. What? —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 03:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose – We don't need images in our mottos; the symbol works fine. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

WP:ACCESS advises against the → symbol due to inaccessibility for screenreaders. Should we perhaps use a different icon (and incorporate it into the MOTDtools script for ease of use) to present background information? --Smaug123 (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm all ears, if you have an idea. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It's been happening since Dec 2007. Kayau Voting IS evil 00:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

We should use: → It produces: → Anyway, the Unicode Rightwards Arrow is massively used on Wikipedia, and it is featured in the first row of the MediaWiki:Edittools (in the Copy and paste field.) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The icon solution (as per WP:ACCESS, Links, point 5)

[[Image:U+2192.svg‎|13px|link=Link|Link|alt=→]] Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

It will produce:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

But, we must check out if there are blue and red versions of the arrow and if there are problems with the existing templates for the Motto of the Day. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

comment I suppose screenreaders can't read these highly sophisticated images either? Just using common sense. And i suppose alt text won't help either - it will look highly ugly and confusing. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply - screenreaders can read alt text. The alt text won't look like anything - it's not shown except on rolling over. I think that is a good idea, with that image. How about a vote on it? (with rationale, if you lot are so bothered about exclamation marks) --Smaug123 (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

How will they know there's something there when, er, there's nothing there? :P Kayau Voting IS evil 23:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing there, you say? It's got alt text and a link and everything, without me specifying it. Screen readers will say "Motto of the day alt text". EDIT - I didn't know what your argument was, but I've realised it. Anything in the HTML source will be analysed; anything with alt text will be recognised, so the picture will be found. --Smaug123 (talk) 11:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

---

Idea Three

I think hat there is consensus to add this, so I am implementing it. Pjoef, in response to your comment, sometimes it can be good to have a reminder. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 05:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Change the closing instructions so that they say that this is not a vote count, you must actually see if there is consensus. If there are any valid points that have not been addressed, reopen, and specify which ones. Basically, change it to move it away from the vote count that this is seeming to become, and more towards reading threough each comment, weighing the arguments, etc. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Kayau Voting IS evil 01:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derild4921 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I can see no reason why this would be opposed. --Smaug123 (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support sort of - see above. Simply south (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral. The idea is OK, but it's probably not worth all the effort to draw it away from a "vote count" scheme that won't make that much of a difference. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support since Wikipedia is all about consensus. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 00:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
• Request This one is going to pass without a doubt.Would closing and implementing it by me be acceptable? And also, would anyone object to me closing/implementing others that have an obvious consensus? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes - if WP:SNOW applies, then BE BOLD! :) --Smaug123 (talk) 11:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't think this quite counts as a winter wonderland. Simply south (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Good idea. Simon^KSK 18:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - That's the WikiSpirit! —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 03:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Since Wikipedia is all about consensus and our decision procedure is about consensus... there is NOT need to say that this is not a vote count simply because it is NOT a vote count! I think it's obvious. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with Pjoef, I'd hope that votes are already based on consensus rather votes - Idea 2 is about changing the templates {{Appr}}, {{Rej}}, and {{ThrowMotto}} but it doesn't say that that is how votes are already held. As above (my comment of Idea 2) I think that WP:POLL, Wikipedia is not a democracy and Wikipedia:Consensus not numbers all support this. Maybe it would just be a good idea to write in the Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Guidelines or something like that clearly to show that everything is built over consensus rather than votes, just to make it clearer. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 13:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
• Weak Support I like it, but I don't want MOTD turning into AFD.--LAAFan 01:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Wait. We're having a vote count, pretty much, on not having vote counts? sonia^♫♪ 04:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, I don't think so. We are just having a regular discussion. What you called 'votes', and what a lot of people call '!votes', are just ways to make their position clearer. Kayau Voting IS evil 04:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support – No !vote count, please. Good idea. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

---

Idea Two

The result of the discussion was Not done. Please continue further discussion on Idea Twelve above. Kayau Voting IS evil 00:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Change the three templates {{Appr}}, {{Rej}}, and {{ThrowMotto}} to not have the number of opposes and number of supports. This would make it seem more like an actual decision, and less like a simple vote count. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment what about making the number of opposes and supports optional parameters? Some people may still want to include such numbers even when they are counting points rather than !votes. Kayau Voting IS evil 01:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

  I think that it is too close to vote counting. I don't see much point in it, anyways... ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

  Oppose - What's wrong with vote counting? As long as we know that the opinions matter more than the votes, it's fine. If the opinions do not seem to match the vote count, then a rationale should be put in, but I think it's a good way to do it, providing a useful summary for the more clear-cut cases. --Smaug123 (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment ~ Those numbers help me a lot on taking decisions, and I am not using the templates you are referring to. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - as a summing up it is useful, otherwise you have to go down the list and read the comments. --Smaug123 (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose but we do need to encorage more discussion then just I like it. Simply south (talk)
• Weak oppose. It's still rather useful to count the !votes. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Tallying up the numbers is still useful, and actually, even more useful for people other than the closer, so that we can see how they were counting. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 13:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Smaug123. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 00:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm not seeing a problem with this. Simon^KSK 18:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Kayau's idea - Not much of a problem with it, but optional parameters are a good compromise. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 03:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Note they are made optional in idea 12. Kayau Voting IS evil 03:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support - I mainly support this because it links in with WP:POLL, Wikipedia is not a democracy and Wikipedia:Consensus not numbers. If there are only a couple more Supports than Opposes but all the Supports have good reasons, explanations and links and the Opposes have only signatures and I don't like it or something like that - then obviously this is a great idea, but I don't know how often that would happen and I worry that it could be used to get more mottos approved. I'd be careful if this rule is applied because the number of editors supporting or opposing a motto is still very important - it gives a vague idea of how the whole Wikipedia community would feel about it. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 13:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, but allow the numbers as optional parameters, although they should be used most of the time. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus (no change in policy) - community rather divided on this; there are strong arguments both ways. If anyone disagrees with my close, go ahead and revert it. THENEWMONO™ 19:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Idea One

Change the number of times that a nomination can be reopened to two. I do not think that there would be any harm in it, and it would give more time for specific points to be addressed. Sometimes, I have found that reopened nominations go ignored, so it continues to have no consensus, and is just declined. Given a second reopening, there would be less of this no consensus business, and an actual decision would be possible more often. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support per Hi878 Kayau Voting IS evil 01:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose ~ To reopen a nomination means to give it a chance, which seems to me more than enough. If a nomination is ignored after its reopening, it will be ignored after a second reopening. And then we would have a series of reopened templates without comments. 14 days (a.k.a. 2 weeks) is the correct time, and 28 days/4 weeks (ca. 1 month) are enough. If there are not enough discussions, the nomination must be rejected. In any case, nominations must be examined case by case. For example, if a nomination goes ignored IMHO it must be closed and rejected, but if there are some suggestions to improve it then it is not necessary to close it. It is something like the archival procedure of a page. A discussion on a talk page will be automatically archived if it has no replies in a predefined amount of time. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Reply I disagree. I don't think it is impossible, or even unlikely that no-one will comment upon second reopening. I mean, yeah, it used to be like this, but not anymore. Many contributors contribute on on-off doses, like simply south. Those contributors can always come back, look at that nomination, and comment. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral leaning to support - whilst this should be up to whoever's closing to decide, i think with especially with mottos that have had little discussion this would give them a better chance for a decision. These are really the cases when they should be reopened again. Simply south (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support. This would give a little more time for old motto nominations to be considered, but it could fill up a lot of space over time and doesn't improve the chances of their acceptance by a whole lot. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral leaning oppose - My biggest problem with this proposal is that I do not necessarily think there will always be consensus. Some people might support, others oppose, and they might both have valid points. Renominating it a hundred times won't change that. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 13:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral - If people didn't reach a decision the first time, it's highly unlikely they'll reach one a second time around. Simon^KSK 18:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Reply that was the case in 2009, but not anymore. Kayau Voting IS evil 10:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support - I don't see any major disadvantages to this, but I don't see any sweeping positive effects, either. In any case, it couldn't hurt. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 22:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - per PrincessofLlyr, I think mottos get approved with little consensus too often and this would just give them another chance to get through - though they have already been rejected or not reached a firm consensus for being approved. It reminds me of WP:ZOMBIE in a way, it seems to just be trying to avoid the consensus already reached and spend more time coming to the same conclusion. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 12:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose I don't like the idea of users refusing to let go of one motto instead of thinking of a better one.--LAAFan 01:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose – This seems pointless. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support As Hi878 says, can't do any harm. Mr. R00t ^Talk 02:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I now have a fairly good example of when this could be useful. Everyone, take a look at the discussion for "Magis". Since being reopened, quite a few new ideas have popped up, and they won't even get to have much time for discussion, because if we go by the two weeks and decide thing, it will be closed rather soon. Does it seem like this one should be closed? I would think not. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support - as long as common sense is used in reopening, then what is wrong? If there is obviously not going to be consensus, don't bother reopening, but it could really help some other mottos! --Smaug123 (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

---

 Declined although there was a small consensus that it should be discouraged. Simply south (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Idea Four

In the closing instructions, stress that you should not close nominations that you started, unless you are withdrawing it. Just to eliminate the problem of someone closing their own motto and having a biased view of what the consensus is. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support - that's the way I've always worked :) Kayau Voting IS evil 01:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose ~ Who has a biased view of what the consensus is, can not be allowed to close nominations at all. I have always closed my nomanitions, but PER CONSENSUS!!! There is no problem on doing this. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Reply - except you have a CoI all the time you're doing it :(. I know you're the most experienced among editors who contribute frequently (ie comment on most mottos, nominate once every now and then etc), but, IMO, things have to change. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• There was a period before when editors did not close their own mottos unless withdrawing but the change came about on one of the running dry sessions. Whilst it would probably be okay in normal situations not to close them yourself, in the emergency situations this should possibly happen. Simply south (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I remember reading somewhere that someone (you?) asked the MOTD contributors to help with decisions, right? That was long before I joined, so I don't know what it was like before that, Kayau Voting IS evil 23:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support. It's a good idea in principle, but if the consensus is strong then it shouldn't really matter if an uninvolved party closed the motto or the nominator did the same thing. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• oppose- This is not a bureaucracy. I really don't care who closes nominations, whether they have a bias or not. This will make things too complicated. If a user is closing nominations incorrectly, by all means ban them from doing so. But that will not stop the rest of us getting on with it. If one does not understand consensus, it will not matter if they are closing their own or others' nominations. I know that my recent RfA on another wiki was closed by my nominator with no objections; that was far more likely to have caused trouble. IAR is the reason why Wikipedia works. Let's not weaken it. Every time things get more and more bureaucratic, newbies find it harder to assimilate, and we become stuck deeper in a rut of instruction creep. Things are working all right in free-form, the dynamics are good, why change the atmosphere by making it legalistic? For God's sake, we're talking about a little set of links that goes on a few userpages for 24 hours. Hardly going to change the world, or even make much impact on the project. We participate because we want to and enjoy it (when frankly, there are heaps of more important backlogs to clear), and bureaucracy will diminish the enjoyment. sonia^♫♪ 01:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - while this looks good on the surface, we really should be judging from the closer's ability to determine consensus, not their COI/POV. Perhaps we could say that a nominator is discouraged from closing their own and others are encouraged to close nominations before they've gone so long that a nominator would feel that they should do so, but I don't think it should be made a hard and fast rule. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court}
• comment if so many of you are opposing it, why don't we DISCOURAGE it rather than PROHIBIT? Kayau Voting IS evil 00:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not much to say here. Simon^KSK 18:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support - It's a good idea. However, as Kayau has said (with whom I agree again), this should be discouraged, not prohibited. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 03:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support unless there is snowball consensus one way or another, in which the original creator can close the nomination. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support - I think that it would be hard to get a consensus to completely ban approving your own mottos as many experienced editors do this on a regular basis so I agree with Kayau, just strongly discourage it - have it in the Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Guidelines or something like that? WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 16:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Oppose While it makes me sad, I have closed many nominations of mine as declined; if it becomes an issue, then talk about it. THENEWMONO™ 19:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm sure people are mature enough to properly interpret consensus. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 6:36am • 19:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support Biased views are never good. Don't we have WP:NPOV? WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 22:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support A while back in school I learned about biased views, and I learned that a biased view turns into something very unbalanced, and anything unbalanced, especially a free-edit online encyclopedia, will catch up with you in the long run. Belugaboy^{how's my driving?} 22:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support per WP:NPOV. A biased encyclopedia isn't good. ~NerdyScienceDude 22:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Whoa, wait up. Wikicopter, Belugaboy, NSD, can any of you tell me how mottos on userpages fall under NPOV? Also, please read this to see where I'm coming from. openstrings 00:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

---

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Idea Five

Somewhat trivial, but remove {{Relist}} from the list of closing templates to use. It uses a different format than all of the others, which makes it look akward. There is no point in leaving it as an option, because it just looks odd, nobody uses it, and... And that's it. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support makes sense, but where is the list? Kayau Voting IS evil 13:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep, but discourage as obsolete. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Hi878 --Smaug123 (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is still the option preferred by some people and has been in the past. In fact it used to be used all the time until i created {{reopened}}. Btw Kayau see Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/Decisions#Closing procedure. Simply south (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. It's still a useful template. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • But for here? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 03:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - It's not really hurting anyone, but what's the point of keeping it around, if people don't use it? Simon^KSK 18:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support in favor of {{reopened}}. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 03:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support – {{reopened}} works better here than {{relist}}. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - {{reopened}} seems to have replaced it pretty much completely. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 16:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose ~ {{Relist}} is still active on Wikipedia, but discourage its use in favour of {{Reopened}}. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 16:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support in favor of {{reopened}}. ~NerdyScienceDude 03:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support for {{reopened}}, almost never used anymore. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 22:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

---

Approved but as guidelines only. Simply south (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Idea nine

Do people think that there should be a general list of reasons for approving, reopening\relisting and declining that peopole can choose from as for when they close the nomination?

Common reasons for approving

• Approved per consensus.
• Approved per WP:SNOW.
• Approved per weak consensus.

Common reasons for reopening\relisting

•  Reopened no discussion
•  Reopened no consensus
•  Reopened to give nomination a better chance of consensus being determined (or {{relist}})
•  Reopened not enough discussion

Common reasons for declining

•  Declined\ Rejected per consensus.
•  Declined\ Rejected per WP:SNOW
•  Declined\ Rejected no consensus
•  Declined\ Rejected no consensus after reopening
•  Declined\ Rejected frequently used idea WP:MOTD/FUI
•  Declined\ Rejected been done before and approved on (insert date(s) and link(s) from archive(s))
•  Declined\ Rejected withdrawn
•  Declined\ Rejected in favour of edit X

Please feel free to add reasons if i have missed them. Simply south (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support as long as they are not made the only possible ones. I don't think there should be any objections to a list like this as it will be very helpful to newbies. Kayau Voting IS evil 23:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support. This makes the decisions more clear, but would this lean towards the vote count scenario that you wanted to avoid? ~AH1^(TCU) 00:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't see how it would. Kayau Voting IS evil 01:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support I think just having this as a reference would be good, but, as Kayau said, these should not be the only possibilities. This would be added to the guidelines page, correct? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support I don't do anything besides this. As Kayau said however, these should be suggestions, not required templates.--LAAFan 01:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support – Good idea; makes them look like the AIV template {{AIV}}. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support if they are added as a list in the Guidelines page; Weak oppose otherwise (as I can't see them fitting anywhere else). --Smaug123 (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I think it's good idea to have these as guidelines on the guidelines page but I agree with Kayau in that these should not be the only possible ones. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 16:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Seems reasonable. As Kayau has pointed out, these shouldn't be the only options. ~NerdyScienceDude 03:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support per WP:SNOW. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 22:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

---

General consensus seemed to be mottos can be reused again if they have both different linking and a year has passed. Simply south (talk) 00:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Idea Ten

I've thought of another. :) People all have different opinions on this, so I think that we should finally figure out what to do about it. Do we let mottos be reused, or should we just instantly throw out the nomination if it was used before? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Throw out I think that if we let mottos be reused, we will get lazy, and perhaps not try as hard to dig up new ones. Plus, I like the fact that every day, there will always be a new quote that I haven't seen before (on Wikipedia, anyways). ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• I think this discussion will have no consensus, but I support anyways. Lots of people don't like the idea that mottos cannot be reused. Many editors have proposed saving up our best ones for future emergency use, or similar proposals. I think the most recent one is by OlEnglish. Anyway, since opinions are so divided I think there is no more point in discussing, but I support anyways. Kayau Voting IS evil 10:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Conditional support - I think we should be able to reuse mottos (but not their linking) after about a year. --Smaug123 (talk) 11:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I strongly agree with Smaug123! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
    • ...1 year, not the same set of links ...AND if it is not listed in Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/Frequently used ideas –pjoef (talk • contribs) 16:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - of Snaug123's idea. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 22:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - At the moment we pretty much throw them out, right? But I think some really good ones with totally different linking could be reused after an appropriate amount of time. But I can also see how that could encourage laziness, so this should only be a last measure/per motto thing. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 12:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Depends on how recent the motto was last used and how similar the linking is. If one motto one year ago was on being bold and the same quote is used today, but is about registering, I think it should be able to be used again. Derild4921☼ 13:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Neither support nor oppose, as this is the equivalent of a non-yes-or-no question. We should throw out the motto if it's directly based on a previously-used idea or quote, and keep it for consideration when it's only marginally similar to a previous motto. ~AH1^(TCU) 19:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Many mottos are reused and current policy is that they can be, if links are substantially different or if they have been declined in the past Simply south (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• In fact, wouldn't this make FUI obselete? If it is agreed on i think there should be a set number of times a motto that has been approved can be reused again. Otherwise there would be complaints from other people i think. Simply south (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Reply - Well for FUI we could put in the quote along with the linking so that people understand this type of linking has been done a lot in the past. Derild4921☼ 20:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Weak support - but on a short leash, perhaps something like Pjoef said, after a year and with different links. I would also suggest that we only use something like this when we are short of motto's, or we've got a particularity long string of dull ones. I can imagine getting people going through the archives digging up all the old ones and reusing them, so I'd proceed with caution. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 17:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

---

Approved if it can be designed and implemented. Simply south (talk) 00:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Idea Eleven

How about a new 'New Motto' link on the In Review page? Some sort of thing that (maybe in Javascript) adds a new motto template to the right section. This would allow a change such as the arrow/image of arrow thing to be easily accessible. It would just need an 'Arrow link?', an 'Enter text' and a 'Reason' dialog. --Smaug123 (talk) 12:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment good idea, but is it possible? And, will it be not affected even if, say, a few blank lines are added or removed? Kayau Voting IS evil 12:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
• You would need to make the arrow link optional for those mottos which are not attributed to anything else. Simply south (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral—It's a little repetitive since you're right there on the page, maybe one on the MOTD reg page? Belugaboy^{how's my driving?} 00:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Good idea, if you can make it work. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - It would be great if we could do it, but I wouldn't know how to so you'd have to find someone who knows what they're doing. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 17:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - If it's possible. Derild4921☼ 14:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support It's been done, via a redlink (in MILHIST's A-class review banners). WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 22:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Sounds like a good idea. ~NerdyScienceDude 22:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

---

Idea Twelve

Approved. Simply south (talk) 00:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Giant remake of {{Appr}}, {{Rej}}, and merging rej with throwmotto. Feel free to remake others as well.

Template code (Before)	Template Code (After)	Insert code (before)	Insert code (after)
{{ns0||[[Image:Artículo bueno.svg|18px|link=|alt=]] '''Approved'''}} - {{{3}}}, with {{{1}}} for and {{{2}}} against{{#if:{{{4|}}}|, for [[WP:Motto of the day/{{{4}}}, {{{5}}}|{{{4}}}]]}}. --{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>Template:4~}}	{{ns0||[[Image:Artículo bueno.svg|18px|link=|alt=]] '''Approved'''}} - {{ #if: {{{others|}}} | {{{others}}} | {{ #switch:{{{1|}}} | con = per consensus | snow = per [[WP:SNOW]] | weak = per weak consensus | emerge = per weak consensus and emergency status }}}}{{#if:{{{s|}}}|, with {{{s}}} for and {{{o}}} against}}{{#if:{{{d|}}}|, for [[WP:Motto of the day/{{{m}}} {{{d}}}, {{{y}}}|{{{m}}} {{{d}}}]]}}. --{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>Template:4~}}	{{subst:Appr|0|0|per [[WP:SNOW]]|February 30|2000}}: Approved - per WP:SNOW, with 0 for and 0 against, for February 30. -- Kayau Voting IS evil 02:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)	{{subst:Appr|snow|s=0|o=0|d=30|m=February|y=2010}}: Approved - per WP:SNOW, with 0 for and 0 against, for February 30. -- Kayau Voting IS evil 02:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC) {{subst:Appr|others=A special reason}}: Approved - A special reason. -- Kayau Voting IS evil 02:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
[[Image:Symbol declined.svg|20px]] '''Declined''' - {{{3}}}, with {{{1}}} for and {{{2}}} against. --{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>Template:4~}} [[Image:Nuvola gnome-fs-trash-full.svg|25px]] '''Thrown out''' - {{{3}}}, with {{{1}}} for and {{{2}}} against. --{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>Template:4~}}	{{ #switch:{{{1|}}} | dec = [[Image:Symbol declined.svg|20px]] '''Declined''' | throw = [[Image:Nuvola gnome-fs-trash-full.svg|25px]] '''Thrown out'''}}}} - {{#if: | {{ #switch:{{{reason|}}} | con = per consensus | snow = per [[WP:SNOW]] | noconre = no consensus after reopening | nocon = no consensus | fui = per [[WP:MOTD/FUI]] | b4 = has been used before at {{{rdate}}} | withdraw = withdrawn by nominator }}}}{{#if:{{{s|}}}|, with {{{s}}} for and {{{o}}} against}}. --{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>Template:4~}}	{{subst:rej|0|0|has been used before at [[WP:Motto of the day/Schedule/Archive 2000|30 February, 2000.}}: Declined - has been used before at 30 February, 2000., with 0 for and 0 against. -- Kayau Voting IS evil 02:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC) {{subst:ThrowMotto|0|0|has been used before at [[WP:Motto of the day/Schedule/Archive 2000|30 February, 2000.}}: Thrown out - has been used before at 30 February, 2000., with 0 for and 0 against. -- Kayau Voting IS evil 02:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)	{{subst:Rej|throw|s=0|o=0|reason=b4|rdate=[[WP:Motto of the day/Schedule/Archive 2000|30 February, 2000]]}} Thrown out - has been used before at 30 February, 2000., with 0 for and 0 against. -- Kayau Voting IS evil 02:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to make one for reopening - I'm too lazy to. Also try to avoid camel case as template names are case sensitive. Kayau Voting IS evil 02:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support I like this. I suppose I won't object to having the numbers be optional... :) I'm going to have the script stay the way it is, though, and people can put the vote count in manually. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support—Nice! Belugaboy^{how's my driving?} 00:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - looks good. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 17:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I like it. ~NerdyScienceDude 03:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

---

 Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 00:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Idea Thirteen

13 - How unlucky. I decided to move it here; anyways it's at Wikiquote:Wikiquote:Village pump#A question. Nobody's answered my reply yet but if more MOTD contributors could go and support, maybe they'll consider it. Kayau Voting IS evil 00:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I think we are doing quite well on our own. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 17:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
• It's not a bad idea, but I think Hi878's concern is that it'll become too structured. Maybe, just when they come across quotes we could use, that they could put them in a subpage that is transcluded onto the main nominations page, and someone will link them and move them out? It doesn't need to be too formal, just a "by the way, can you help us out" type thing. Also: How about the other way? I'm a proponent of enwiki editors branching out to other wikis, so what about us giving to WQ? How would we do so? Maybe we could (when we are quoting a person with a WQ page) have at the end of the motto a (more quotes by Foo). What do you think? sonia^♫♪ 08:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I agree with what she just said, we should build a kind of informal link with them and have a page where we can 'swap' motto's. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 18:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral - It's a good idea, but Hi878 does have a point. Derild4921☼ 14:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

---

Generally it seems that if the special nom fails it should either be left for the following year, or someone can just reopen the discussion as a normal nomination. Simply south (talk) 00:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Idea Fourteen

If a motto intended for a certain day (ie year specified) fails to reach consensus before that day (eg the Obama one), it should be rejected immediately unless another appropriate date can be chosen for it. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Question - Where is the Obama quote? I did a bit of searching, but I couldn't find. Derild4921☼ 14:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Reply it took a bit of looking, but I've finally found it. Kayau Voting IS evil 14:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Ok, Support as special noms are only for certain days, if the day passes how do we use the motto? Derild4921☼ 14:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support This sems like a good idea; better than leaving it there for a year. However, people should be able to open it on the In Review page again, since it wasn't truly declined. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 21:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Hi878; people should feel free to resubmit the motto, but get rid of it when it has got irrelevant. --Smaug123 (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose ~ IMHO it is better to leave it there until it is definitely approved or rejected. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 16:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I think motto's should be resubmitted in a year's time if it has missed a yearly event, rather than hanging around for a year on the page. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 18:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

---

Consensus is for the original barnstar, although the second will be kept as an option. Simply south (talk) 00:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Idea Fifteen

I'm representing Antonu (talk · contribs). As part of the Barnstars 2.0 programme, and me being the only one left who's active on both projects since Nutiketaiel left (hang on, that's unrelated), a reworked version of the MOTD barnstar has been made:

before	after

I prefer blue to green as that's the way we usually do it. What do others think? Kayau Voting IS evil 14:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not planning to participate in discussion about the color, but if the consensus will be to make it blue, just let me know about it on my talk page. I will redraw it to blue or any other color. Antonu (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have to say, I like the green better. Matching looks better this time. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 17:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Okay, given Antonu's choices, either the nice dark blue or green. I like them both. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 13:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Thanks for that Antonu. Looks fine; I don't mind either colour but if it is blue a little darker would be nice. sonia^♫♪ 19:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• I like the green too especially since it look a lot like chocolate ;)Derild4921☼ 19:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Change I'm sorry, but I like that way that the old one looks much more. The old star looked more... Real. And having all of the MotD stuff right on the same line looks... Well, ugly, in my opinion. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 21:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

  Reply um, actually Hi878, this is going to become an alternative. During the big discussion at WT:WPWPA opinions have been very diverted, so WPWPA regulars have decided that Antonu's versions can stay as alternatives. What we are supposed to do now is discuss how the alternative version should look like. Kayau Voting IS evil 00:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

  Well, dang it. :) I prefer blue, then. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Attention please!!! Here 6 different colors for you to easier to decide. I have uploaded them to free host, and after concensus I will upload one of them to commons. Antonu (talk) 06:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• comment blue is better because 1) it's the same as the pull-quote templates and 2) two of our MOTD templates use blue quotation marks. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Blue I think the blue one looks the best, plus there is what Kayau said. Wouldn't it be possible, though, to have it be two colors? Like the blue and green before? That might look a bit more interesting. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 17:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Are you sure you mean blue and not purple? Antonu (talk) 06:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I think purple is light blue, but then they are both fine, but light blue is the colour of the pull-quotes etc. I prefer purple then. Kayau Voting IS evil 06:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Understood. I have uploaded purple (light blue) version ti commons. I can change the color of the calendar or keep it purple? Antonu (talk) 07:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose!!! Green ("ACE1AF") same as the MOTD navigation template. Also, I prefer the star in the original. It's more clear. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - I prefer the look of the original barnstar. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 09:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I like the look of the green better. I'm sorry, but I'm an original kind of guy. If you want to make any change, I like the idea of centering it, and you should change the quotation marks to green. Belugaboy^{how's my driving?} 22:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

---

 Declined and no consensus on Decision removal. Simply south (talk) 00:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Idea Sixteen

I finally decided that I should bring this up. The whole Nominations page is a big mess; it takes an unbelievably long time to load, and I don't think anyone uses it much. Would it be a good idea to just delete it, but keeping all of the subpages of it (and this page) where they are? Or perhaps, we could just drastically shorten it, keeping only the instructions at the top and archivebox, and have links to the various subpages, or something like that. Anyways, discuss this: Should we eliminate the Nominations page as it is now? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Nope. While rarely used, someone who hasn't been here for a long time can see all the goings-on. Kayau Voting IS evil 01:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - i don't see what's wrong with it. It may not have been edited majorly in a while but as shown here it is still viewed. Difficultly north (SS talk) 20:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per above comments. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep with proviso that Decisions is removed - just link to it at the top of the page. Often the Decisions page gets seriously huge, and what people want to see when they want Nominations is Nominations, not Nominations I Can't Influence The Outcome Of. --Smaug123 (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

  Good idea; I think that would work. I won't object to it. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 19:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - per above. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 14:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

---

 Declined - it has already been added to the portal and there have been lots of discussions with no consensus to move this to the main page. Simply south (talk) 00:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Idea Seventeen

Add a MOTD section to Portal:Community, and ultimately, the Main Page. WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 23:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, good luck with that one. :) The main page bit, I mean. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I would guess so. First, we obviously need to rev up the production of new mottos, create better quality mottos and get more users to create more mottoes. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 22:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support for putting it onto the Community Portal. As the main page - well that's not likely to happen soon! WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 14:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support the addition to the community portal. The Main Page seems very unlikely. ~NerdyScienceDude 02:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What happened?

We obviously aren't done discussing these; I think everyone commented and then forgot about them. We need to discuss these more, so that we can reach a consensus on all of the proposals. Everyone who sees this really should help with discussing the ideas. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 16:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

9/11 motto

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No longer relevant. THENEWMONO™ 19:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

---

→ "EDIANS will REVERT. We're going to come out of this BLOCK than before...The ARTICLE will be made FA."

Motto_of_the_day/September_11,_2010 seems a little inappropriate to me. September 11 was a tragic day, and I think it is tacky to compare that event with reverting vandals and promoting articles. I enjoy the cleverness of MOTD, but I have to say there must be a limit, so I must object to this linking. I'd like to remember 9/11 as a tragedy, not poke fun at it. Would anyone like to reopen the discussion, and look for a more memorial-ish motto? —mono 04:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. You have a point there. I have an idea- but you're going to hate it, Mono, given that you're inclined toward succinctness. It's also highly unorthodox.

When you are caught in the middle of an edit war that was nothing to do with you,

When you have to concede to a consensus you disagree with,

When to your mind Wikipedia has failed and become a place of injustice and pointless bureaucracy,

Remember:

Today innocent passengers perished in a war against terrorism that was nothing to do with them.

Today firefighters conceded their lives to save the lives of the many.

Today a great injustice was committed in the form of hundreds of pointless deaths.

We can all choose to walk away from this.

They did not have that choice.

9/11: In memoriam."

It definitely needs a heck of a lot of tweaking, but you get the general idea. What do you think? sonia^♫♪ 07:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Sonia, I'm afraid I don't like your motto. The spirit of Wikipedia is NPOV, and while within-WP POVs can be tolerated, real-life POVs should be avoided at all costs. 'Today innocent passengers perished in a war against terrorism that was nothing to do with them', is my least favourite among the lines. Kayau Voting IS evil 10:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I really, really, really like that. Unfortunately, I think Kayau has a point. This does seem to fundamentally break NPOV. However, perhaps with some tweaking? Remove/replace innocent, would that work? I was trying to decide if the line "Today a great injustice..." was POV, but I don't think it is. It says that the injustice was the pointless deaths, with which I think most people can agree. Also, does the NPOV policy actually say that MOTD has observe it? PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 12:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Simply removing innocent does not work; calling someone a terrorist is already a pov. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I might point out that 9/11 names them as terrorists... I agree with 'innocent' given that certainly not everyone who died was worthy of blame. How about 'Today hundreds of deaths rocked the stability of the world' or something like that? It doesn't really do it justice - someone improve it please :) - but it is neutral and accurate. --Smaug123 (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Kayau, are you saying they weren't terrorists? Perhaps, fearrorists, then? —mono 23:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I really have to agree with Mono here. They are terrorists. To quote from our article on Terrorism: "violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians)." There was flagrant disregard for civilian lives on 9/11, so I think they can safely be classified as terrorists. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 00:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, to quote from the NPOV policy: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." We are neither an article nor encyclopedic content. Just thought I'd point that out. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 00:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Kayau: Regardless whether they were terrorists or not, it did kick-start the US's war against terrorism in earnest, so it was still part of that war. I did not call them terrorists per se. And seriously, if I had wanted to comment on the incapability of the US government at that time, or on my POV on Islamofascism, it would come across a lot more strongly. When an event like this is commemorated, you cannot expunge all point of view or it becomes, well, not a commemoration. There is no argument that the passengers on the planes were innocent, they were random people like you and me, uninvolved whatsoever. The great injustice line may need tweaking, but I'm sure that children losing their parents who did not do anything wrong is always an injustice regardless how they died. sonia^♫♪ 00:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and: I hate hate hate hate the political rope-walking that ends up with comments like "They flew hundreds of passengers into a building and killed them and many more, sure, but that doesn't mean they are terrorists." Terrorism is, simply, the most neutral word. If you want to call them fear-mongers, that's POV. Call them monsters, that's POV. Call them misguided, that's POV. Call them freedom fighters, that's also POV. Terrorism is endorsed by most dictionaries and many scholastic papers as the most neutral word. sonia^♫♪ 00:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I know I am greatly outnumbered here, but please will MOTD not touch on any politics? Let's put aside the terrorist bit for a while. All the lines you wrote show that you care for those who died in 9/11. Right? Is that a pov? Yes! Because you feel sorry for them! This is the kind of writing your English or Chinese teacher would love to see, but we're trying to build an encyclopaedia here. Any 9/11 motto, IMHO, would be biased towards the Americans. We never know, there could be a 'terrorist' who just happened to stumble across WP and saw the motto. Would he like it? No! One more thing. Who gives a tinkler's cuss if the USA's attacked? It's not like it's anything to do with me, here in Hong Kong. If we have one for America, why can't we have one for the greatest recent disaster of every single country? Kayau Voting IS evil 00:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If you are seriously asking that question, "who cares if the US's attacked?", I might point to international politics in the weeks and years following. 9/11 shook the world. It kick-started wars that are still going on today, that I can name at least two Wikipedians that have fought in (but I won't, because I know they would not appreciate it.). It solidified the US's response to the Middle East at that time, and the way other countries reacted to either party. It made unspoken fears painfully real- that the US was defenseless against this new form of combat. It changed war for good. If you want to commemorate something, sure, but make sure it's something everyone knows about. I would most like a motto for the Sook Ching massacre, but would anyone know what the hell I was talking about? No.

Might I add that all our mottos push a POV. You had that one for Guy Fawkes, which suggests that Larry Sanger is being treated unfairly. I disagree with that, but I supported the motto. Would someone who thinks cheese is evil like our article on it? No. Would a freedom fighter like this motto? No. That's just tough for them. The point of the motto is the parallelism. Why are we arguing over silly little things (per my answer to idea 4 above) when there are real wars being fought? Why are we taking this personally when it could be so much worse? We can all disengage from Wikipedia, walk away, switch off the computer. For them it was life or death. The previous suggested motto took 9/11 and reduced it to fit Wikipedia-scale things. Mono felt that was not right, and he had a point. This one takes the sheer difference as its focus.

If you have a fundamental issue with a 9/11 motto, then perhaps we should abolish specials altogether. After all, April Fool is culture-biased as well, and it's already over for me here in NZ by the time the motto will appear on my page. Christmas may be a time of mourning for somebody who lost someone. There are always going to be people the motto is inappropriate for, but specials are fundamental because they add a layer of meaning to the perfunctory, and because they show that we are not disconnected as a community from the world beyond. Wikipedia is shaped by the world. As a reflection of the community, so should we be. sonia^♫♪ 01:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Before a complete answer, allow me to ask a simple question. The history page shows your time zone's time, right? And so does RC? Right? Then why not CURRENTDAY, CURRENTMONTHNAME and CURRENTYEAR? Kayau Voting IS evil 01:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, Kayau, nothing at all says that MOTD has to be NPOV. See my comments above. We are here to build an encyclopedia, but MOTD doesn't have to. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 01:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

@Kayau's simple question: 1. No, 2. No, 3. No. All show UTC. sonia^♫♪ 01:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Kayau, shut up. Sonia, shut up. Both of you: work out a compromise but stop the lawyering. Princess, thanks for trying here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Before I shut up as Mr Rutherford's requested, may I please be allowed to point out that any real-life POVs in our mottos, IMO, are against WP's spirit. One of the spirits of Wikipedia is NPOV. Mottos are decided through community consensus; mottos should reflect the community or purpose of Wikipedia, according to the text on the top of MOTD/N. If community consensus is pro-American, how can we reflect the NPOV spirit? Sonia, I shall give in here, but every MOTD contributor please consider whether it is appropriate to push real-life POVs before supporting mottos. Kayau Voting IS evil 01:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for being so blunt Kayau but it was getting a bit silly to follow. I didn't mean to discourage you there though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Collaboration with WQ?

See Wikiquote:Wikiquote:Village pump#A question. Kayau Voting IS evil 01:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like an awesome idea! I'm surprised no one's considered that before. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 01:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• A little apprehensive about this... good idea but they might want to take over. And then that discourages users from joining, creating a chain reaction, and so on. On the other hand, it could give MOTD more publicity, which draws new users in. Just a thought.--LAAFan 01:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that this would be necessary; we seem to be doing quite well on our own. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 17:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Ditto with Hi878. Belugaboy^{how's my driving?} 00:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• A barnstar was thrown onto my driveway today (thanks, send some more soon) so I can't exactly support. —mono 01:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • um, how's that related? Kayau Voting IS evil 07:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought I saved my comment here but apparently not. Anyway, I think it would be brilliant-- but only in a casual way, like if there were a holding pen for WQ people to chuck quotes that they thought we might like, then we could move them from there into nominations when we have links for them. Not in a formal structured way. But whilst I'm an interwiki collaboration fan, I think that enwiki should give to the other communities rather than receive. How can we at MOTD help WQ? How about, if we use a quote by Foo, who is famous, we do this:

→ Purple helicopter Roosevelt (more by Foo here)

That would help get WQ's views up, and the kind of people who enjoy MOTD might enjoy reading other quotes by the same person. Thoughts? sonia^♫♪ 07:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a actually quite nice, only it looks like the 'more by Joe Bloggs' part is a bit too long. Not that I can think of a better idea. :) Kayau Voting IS evil 08:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the arrow already links to Foo, we can cut it to just (more by Foo) or even just (more) – but the latter might be misleading. An alternative would be to link the arrow directly to WQ, but I'm not keen on that... sonia^♫♪ 08:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh-huh, I prefer the first too. BTW, we'll have to check whether a quote is on WQ before linking there, or it may confuse some newbies. Kayau Voting IS evil 08:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that might actually be beneficial to WQ as well- "hey, Foo has a Wikiquote page, so we'll add the {{motd-wq|foo}} template. Wait, this quote isn't on that page. Is there a source for it- is it notable? Both? Added." So we end up expanding WQ along the way as well. Not sure how happy they'd be about that, but I think that of all projects MOTD would link brilliantly with WQ and it was a fantastic idea. sonia^♫♪ 09:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)