Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Desk/Archive 2

The following discussion is preserved as an

archive

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

Today's motto...
→ Nihil enim lacrima citius arescit
("Nothing dries sooner than a tear")

Nominate one today!

Archives

"Overseers" Archive Coordinators' Apps Archive Coordinators' Discussions Archive

Another idea...

Sorry for this extra comment, but I've thought about it some more and I think that motd could be improved even more. I've been looking at {{cquote}}, and have come up with this:

A possible problem to this would be if the motto has an author besides Motd (Such is the case for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/December 30, 2006). Since the {{Motd}} template would remain unchanged through the different days, you wouldn't be able to insert another parameter as the template allows (like this):

Instead, you would have to place the original author in the quote itself, which looks a little tacky when you already have "—Motto of the day" placed at the bottom:

Does this idea have any chance, or does it just make things more complicated? --Tewy 03:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem might be if there were breaks in the quote. But this seems to work just fine under the template:

And Portal:Poetry/Quotes archive seems to have it figured out. --Tewy 20:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can even use <big></big> if you want to (but I don't think that's necessary), like so:

--Tewy 22:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I found a problem (oh no!). When you try to use this template with table, such as the case for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 2, 2006, it rejects the substitution and instead displays its next parameter, like so:

The only way I can see around this problem is to change the actual {{Motd}} template for the problem day. Anyway, is this even a good idea, or am I wasting my time finding potential problems? --Tewy 04:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review

Copied from the nominations talk page so that overseers may it Tennis DyNamiTe ^{(sign here)} 23:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC):[reply]

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

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

In review allows for speedy archiving.

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Motto of the day/Rejected

Is there really any point to having a list of this many rejected mottos? I think a few examples on the nominations page will do just fine. --Tewy 22:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, if a candidate isn't promoted, the discussion just goes into the archive, which is what we already do. Keeping a list of rejected mottos as well as the archived discussions seems redundant to me. --Tewy 03:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your right it is redundant, just make sure that old motto's (Pre-Archive) get inserted in the archives.

o. 05:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Do you mean I should find each rejected motto's nomination? I'm not sure if all of those exist. --Tewy 21:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or did you mean to copy the mottos in rejected into a nominations archive, then remove the content in rejected? --Tewy 21:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Tewy 22:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have added a lot of discussions from
  Wikipedia:Motto of the day/New proposals into Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/Archive 1. I think that covers nearly all of the mottos, even if it doesn't include all of their discussions. You can take a look and correct whatever needs fixing. I simply copied the lastest revision of the rejected page into the nominations archive, so I think the rejected page can be removed altogether. --Tewy 03:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Please see [1]. Hierarchies and ranks for non-official Wikipedia projects are bad, and concensus has agreed many times in the past - see

Even making a list of "co-ordinators" is bad. Especially the part about a special veto, or the statement that only they can promote mottos. Everyone can, it's a wiki.

T · C ] 23:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the criticism, Overseer has been changed to Coordinator.

o. 21:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Why are used mottos saved to archives, like Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Approved/Archive 4. All the mottos are used, and if they are used, they are listed on the schedule page. I'm for deleting it all. --TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 23:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a good idea.

o. 01:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I like where this idea is going, but I have a few suggestions on how to implement it. First, there are quite a few old subpages that were used to transclude into {{Motd}} (Wikipedia:Motto of the day/December 31, 2006, etc.). These no longer have any use, and they should be nominated for deletion (Full list). But before that's done, they need to be archived. The schedule page is based off of these subpages, but if they're deleted, they will be red linked on the schedule page and all will be lost. Probably the best way to prevent this is to subst each subpage onto the schedule page, and then delete the subpages. After that's taken care of, you have the issue of this discussion, which is what to do with the archived approved mottos. I agree with the idea, but the biggest potential problem I see in this is missing a few mottos and having them lost accidentally. I speak of any mottos that were approved, but not moved to the schedule page. I'm not sure if these exist, but it would be to a good idea to check, and to keep some sort of a record of them (even if it's just a list).

In summary:

1. Subst the subpages into the schedule page

   Done. --Tewy 22:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Nominate the subpages for deletion

   All the 2006 subpages can be nominated for deletion. --Tewy 22:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Check the
   Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Approved
   archives that you're not missing any mottos

   Done. --Tewy 22:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. Nominate the archives for deletion.

   All the approved archives (1, 2, 3, and 4) can be nominated for deletion. --Tewy 22:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can do #1 and #3 if you'd like them done. --Tewy 04:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My second idea (which I don't especially like): Create a subpage for every day of the year (not all at once! :-) ) with just the month and day listed (Example: "Wikipedia:Motto of the day/July 12"), and annually replace the mottos on each subpage with the new year's motto. Then, keep a single list of all the used mottos. This of course doesn't help the archive problem, but it prevents the creation and deletion of subpages that are day- ,month- , and year-specific. Another drawback is that you would have 366 extra subpages for a simple motto project. I suppose a solution to that would be to have the subpages as simply "Wikipedia:Motto of the day/31", etc., with just the day. Under this system you would have to update monthly.

Thoughts? --Tewy 04:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have started to implement Tewy's first suggestion, if I see approval here, I'll take all the old pages for speedy. --TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 21:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great idea. Please implement the first idea as soon as possible.

o. 05:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I have gone through all the approved archives, checking to see if any were missed. I only found one (

schedule archive. So now the approved archives can be nominated for deletion. --Tewy 22:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• I'll think about the wording for it soon. --Tewy 05:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good for now. This discussion closed. --Tewy 02:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, will there be any tabling for discussion? Tennis DyNamiTe ^{(sign here)} 21:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a possibility, but the problem is that voters don't generally go down to that section. You have to admit, it's much easier to vote on the uppermost nominations than to scroll down to find one you haven't voted on. I observed that discussions moved into the "Tabled for discussion" section were neglected—no comments were added for several weeks—and I was forced to add them to the top of this current nomination page just to get another opinion. That may have been simply because the nomination page at the time was huge, but it still seems unlikely that there will be enough willing voters on even a small page to sway the consensus when the discussion isn't at the top. --Tewy 01:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Page

Why do we have a "Decisions to be acted on" section of the nom page. It lists approved mottos. Shouldn't this section be deleted and moved to the approved page? --TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 02:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it facilitates users who want to close a nomination, because it doesn't force them to add the approved motto to the list at
  Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Approved. But other than that I agree that it's a little pointless. Approving a nomination should be one step made at one time. --Tewy 02:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I though I substed December yesterday? --TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 12:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's currently in two places. I think it's best if all the 2006 mottos are in a single archive, all the 2007 mottos in the single archive, etc. So in effect I just archived December, but didn't remove it from the current Schedule page. --Tewy 21:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, continue with the good work.

o. 00:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The nominations page is getting a little long (100kB). --Tewy 00:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scheduling

I've created the February subpages. --Tewy 00:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple archives

Currently there are three archives for this page, which can be seen in the archive box at the top of this page. The

I think that'd be great. Wodup 05:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

I think originally, the Desk was designed to warn "Overseers" of a problem that "they" needed to fix. But recently, this page has become the center of discussion, and effectively the MOTD talk page, as you stated. I agree that the two pages mimic each other, and that only one discussion page should be used. They should be merged somehow. The biggest problems are the archives and page histories (which I'm currently in the long process of cleaning up). I suppose they could be moved under new titles, but that might complicate references to "the Desk". I'll take a look to see if this can be done easily. Also, a question, do you mean to call Wikipedia talk:Motto of the day "the Desk", and treat it as such, or as just a discussion for the project, eliminating any reference to "the Desk"? That may be the best solution to begin with. --Tewy 05:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't been any discussion on the talk page since it was archived to Wikipedia talk:Motto of the day/Archive 2. That link could be added to the archives box at the top of the discussion page.

I think the talk page does need to be used instead of this page, and, in my opinion, we should call it the talk page, not the Desk. Other wikiprojects use the talk page; they don't have a "Desk". I do know that it might be confusing to users who read about "the Desk" in the archives. I don't know if it would be better to make a note somewhere (maybe on the archive headers) that "the Desk" is/was the talk page for the project, or to just let it go and answer that question if it comes up. Wodup 05:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How I would implement this:

1. Delete
   Coordinators' Discussions Archive (see #Multiple archives
   ).
2. Merge
   Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Desk/"Overseers" Archive
   (I don't see why it needs its own archive).

   Done. --Tewy 00:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Move
   Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Desk/"Overseers" Archive
   to "Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Desk/Archive 1" to standardize a bit, and to distinguish the talk page from the Desk in terms of archives.

   Done. --Tewy 00:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. Leave the current two MOTD talk archives as they are (Wikipedia talk:Motto of the day/Archive 1 and Wikipedia talk:Motto of the day/Archive 2).

   Done, for now ;-). --Tewy 00:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Archive this page as "Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Desk/Archive 2".
6. Fix all the links, redirects, etc., copy current discussions from here into Wikipedia talk:Motto of the day, and delete this page entirely.

After this I agree that the project should eliminate all mentionings of "the Desk", which will only exist in the archives. How's that? --Tewy 06:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about deleting the Wikipedia talk:Motto of the day page and moving this page there to preserve the page history (we have been doing move-type archives, which preserves page history)? Other than that, it sounds great. Thank you for your hard work on this project. You're really making the internet not suck. Wodup 06:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duh. Never mind about that. You're archiving this page. I got it now. Sounds great. Wodup 06:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Codes

• I completely agree; the codes just seem like a reason to be lazy. If a motto is approved because of unanimous consensus, you can just write "consensus" or something. There's no need to write a number that means nothing to the browsing reader. --Tewy 04:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Done. I've removed the links on the nominations page. The subpage can be deleted later. --Tewy 05:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My contributions to this project

Hi all. Before Christmas I was an overseer of this project (it seems in my absence you've removed me from the list, which is fine). I am now on an extended wikibreak, most likely until April, so if anyone asks for me, don't expect me to be around. Sorry.

The Duke of Motto of the day 05:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an

archive

. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.