Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/Archive 32

• Weak Oppose - The links make little sense to me. MMS2013 20:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Makes sense to me. I just saw that movie for the first time a week or two ago; never thought to use that quote, though. It was an amazing movie, I must say. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Hi878. I wonder if anyone saw the joke on the sound of a propellor plane instead of a jet. Simply south (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I'm also surprised this quote hasn't been used yet. Good linking. Simon^KSK 02:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support - as someone who never heard of the movie or the quote, it could be a little confusing...but it is quite catchy, and is well linked.
  talk
  03:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/January 9, 2011 (per consensus; 6 in support and 1 opposed) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

family union elevates

.

• Support - Good message. Nice one. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Love the message here, and the links fit quite well. MMS2013 20:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/January 8, 2011 (per consensus; 4 in support and 0 opposed) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 06:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

knowledge

.

MMS2013 21:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Good message. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 21:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I like the quote and the links, which both ring true. :) Cordially,
  talk
  23:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/December 24, 2010 (per consensus; 4 in support and 0 opposed) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 06:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

airplanes

.

Kind of interesting... --

• Oppose - Fix the first link. It doesn't fit at all. I think it would be fine if you just removed it completely. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I think the first link is fine, and I Support both versions.
  WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook
  10:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

 Reopened (not enough discussion; 1 in support and 1 opposed) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

airplanes

.

Edit 1 - per

• Support - That works; funny message. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 16:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support EDIT 1 –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Approved - Edit 1 for January 6, 2011. Unanimous in favor of Edit 1. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

toe

.

William Shakespeare (1564–1616), Richard III, Act III, Scene I (1623) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - The middle line doesn't connect to itself. In the somewhat not-correct words of Kayau, It seems that the quality of MotD has slipped while I was away. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

  Not correct meaning that I forgot them... ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

 Reopened (not enough discussion; 1 in support and 1 opposed) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

 Declined - No consensus; nothing has changed since it was reopened. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Nemo me impune lacessit

("No one attacks me with impunity")

Latin motto of the Order of the Thistle and of three Scottish regiments of the British Army. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Support - Good message, but I don't quite think that the lniks work. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

 Reopened (not enough discussion; 1.5-2 in support and 0 opposed) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

 Declined - No consensus; nothing has changed since it was reopened. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

d

.

Charles Foster Kane portrayed by Orson Welles in Citizen Kane (1941) directed by Orson Welles; written by Herman J. Mankiewicz, Orson Welles; starring Orson Welles, Joseph Cotten, Dorothy Comingore, Everett Sloane, Ray Collins; music composed by Bernard Herrmann; cinematography by Gregg Toland; editing by Robert Wise. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. It has many links and it's a motto. ~
  U
  ) 14:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm sorry, but what is the point? What is the message? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • There is not a message or it's a random message. The first link/suggestion in the
    Wikipedia namespace for each of the letters forming the word: "ROSEBUD", which is Kane's last word. –pjoef (talk • contribs
    ) 12:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

 Reopened (not enough discussion; 2 in support and 1 opposed) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

 Declined - No consensus; nothing has changed since it was reopened. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I want my life back

.

Possible alt link:

• Weak support. As long as the reader gets the message and the comparison to Hayward (being responsible for disruption and wanting one's "life" back), it's a humorous message. ~
  U
  ) 14:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - It makes it sound like it is a bad thing when we block a vandal. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Weak Support –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

 Reopened (not enough discussion; 2-3 in support and 1 opposed) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

 Declined - No consensus; nothing has changed since it was reopened. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

the air eventually dissipates

.

• Support –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - What? Where the links are put makes no sense at all. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

 Reopened (not enough discussion; 2 in support and 1 opposed) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

 Declined - No consensus; nothing has changed since it was reopened. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

→ More Cowbell!

• Support –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

*I guess - Kinda bland, but it'll do.

• Oppose - Starting now, I'm going to be much harsher on mottos. :) This is far too bland. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

 Reopened (not enough discussion; 2.5-3 in support and 1 opposed) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose.
   ℳono 
  02:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

 Declined - Only comment since being reopened is an oppose, and I would close it as no consensus anyways. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

→ A diamond is forever.

. --monosock 02:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Even though diamonds aren't forever... And you should have used the James Bond film instead! :P ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 05:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - not sure about that last link. The shortcut is what's giving you the meaning, because the page is a soft redirect. That might confuse some people. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 14:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Urm, people might remember those big, ugly banners from last year...  Ⓢock  16:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Big, ugly banners? I was on a Wikibreak then, so I was only using Wikipedia for reference, and I thought the banners looked cool. BTW, have you seen the meta proposal about banners? Kayau Voting IS evil 05:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• I supported that...
   ℳono 
  18:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• oppose I found those banners puerile and annoying, partly because their message– a naïve hope with no substance– was put across in such an aggressive way. This motto is better than that, but I still don't like the fact that the last link is to a reminder of that campaign. sonia♫ 06:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

 Reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 23:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

 Declined - No consensus; nothing has changed since it was reopened. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

→ The measure of a man is what he does with power.

This one might be controversial. sonia♫ 04:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't think it makes sense. One can create articles, lots of high quality ones, without exercing any userrights. Kayau Voting IS evil 06:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Hmm... true. I suppose what I meant was frustration with users who go around collecting rights and not using them. If you request a right, you should have a need. And also, my feelings about adminship come through there- this is what I mean. Perhaps there is a better way to phrase it? sonia♫ 06:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
    • People usually need to demonstrate that they need the tool before they are given the tool. For example, you've got to actually revert some vandalism before you get rollback. You need to actually write articles before getting autopatrolled. You need to actually do maintenance work before you get to be an admin. I haven't seen any case of userright 'collection' (reminds me of King Philip or Henry VIII!) before, though you may have. Kayau Voting IS evil 06:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Oh, I certainly can name some- but I'm not comfortable doing so on-wiki. sonia♫ 06:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Weak Support - Kayau has a point, but I still think it works. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 16:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I see what Kayau is saying, but Sonia's quote is still reasonable. Good people apply those rights well. But it is conceivable that someone could create great articles, become autopatrolled and use that to create some bad articles. That would be a bad measure of them given their response to "power". That even includes the basic right to edit pages. It is a measure of the person whether they improve or vandalise the articles. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 03:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support per above. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - More links needed, see edit 1
   ℳono 
  21:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Why are more links needed? I left it deliberately for its simplicity. In this form it could mean any right from registered user to founder, any level of activity, and I like it that way. Additional links distract. sonia♫ 09:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

man is what he does with power

.

• Oppose - The first link makes no sense whatsoever. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

 1year 

03:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

man is what he does with power

.

Edit 2 –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - The first link makes no sense, and how does having ADMIN and ListGroupRights work? I think maybe PEDIAN and ADMIN might work instead. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 16:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Re: Because there is a long list of rights associated with Administrators. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

 Declined - No consensus on any nomination. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Remember

they will become

.

I thought of this about eleven-thirty at night while I was in bed.

• Support - but there ought to be a better last link for a made-up motto cos, well, it's made-up. :) Is this a consequence of what happened yesterday? Kayau Voting IS evil 11:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

  Reply - I didn't think of it with yesterday in mind, but now I come to look at it, maybe it's got a message in it - Remember

  WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook

  11:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - The last link is a good idea, but it doesn't actually fit right there. The whole second part should be linked to that, not just "they will become", but that obviously wouldn't work. By the way, I would put a period after "Remember people" and have the rest be a separate sentence. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 19:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support. The last link is a bit iffy, but it's a great message. ~
  U
  ) 17:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Suggestion: What about
  WP:SERVICE) for "they will become"? –pjoef (talk • contribs
  ) 08:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit 1 ~ I hope I've addressed the last link, and I've kept AGF in there. --Smaug123 (talk) 08:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Much better. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Approved - Edit 1 for January 7, 2011. Unanimous in favor of Edit 1. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

inspiration

.

~

• Support –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I suppose it works. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

 Reopened (not enough discussion; 3 in support and 0 opposed) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Support - MMS2013 21:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/December 23, 2010 (per consensus; 4 in support and 0 opposed) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

overblown

!

~

• Weak Support - Only because the first two link to articles. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 19:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - I don't really understand this one. Kayau Voting IS evil 06:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's a reference to the
    U
    ) 14:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Hmm, a bit obscure perhaps? Kayau Voting IS evil 07:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - and that's fine, but most people probably won't understand that. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 03:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Question I don't get the chicken link. Please explain.--Forty two^{Thanks for all the fish!} 07:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

 1year 

02:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - I just don't get it, even knowing the derivation :-( --Smaug123 (talk) 07:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

 ℳono 

01:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Nec pluribus impar

("Not unequal to many")

Motto of the "

• Oppose - doesn't make sense to me... and it's a double negative... Kayau Voting IS evil 07:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - It makes perfect sense, and double negatives are fun. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 18:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - of course double negatives are fun! PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 13:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral - Yeah, I don't get it either... Derild4921☼ 14:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment ~ so it's positive ~ lol –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

 Reopened (not enough discussion; 3 in support, 1 neutral, and 1 opposed) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - Wikipedians are equal to many - equal to many what? Is it implying that there are lots of us, or that one Wikipedian equals several normal people? If it's the second I Oppose it because Wikipedians are just normal people, if it's the first then I Weak oppose it because motto's need to be clear for everyone to understand.
  WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook
  10:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The meaning of this motto is obscure. Louis XIV (a.k.a Sun King) said that "[he] known that some obscurity has been found in these words, and [he] has no doubt that the same symbol might have suggested some happier ones." My intention was to say that all Wikipedians are Suns. And, as the Sun gives light to the Earth, Unsigned editors, Newbies, Editors, Experienced editors, Administrators, Clercks, ... Jimbo Wales, all of them, in a way or in another, give light (contribute) to Wikipedia. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

 Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)