Wikipedia:Esperanza/Proposals/Archives/3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposals which are not accepted are stored in the archives. If there is an archived proposal that you feel could be modified to work out better, you are welcome to bring it back.

Reasons for archiving are presented in italics. Just because a proposal was archived does not mean that it is not a great idea! It just means that it probably won't work out for Esperanza at the moment.

Contents

[edit] Kindness campaign/Esperanza

Esperanza and the Kindness campaign already cooperate, as they have similar philosophies, and no specific program is needed.

This is a proposal that would see a merger of sorts between the two groups. I originally proposed this to Titoxd, in an email. He in turn posted it at the English Wikipedia Esperanza Google Groups, message board. I in turn decided it was time to solicit it here after it received a warm support from the user's who responded to it. This would not be a direct merge of the two groups. Just a new charter/branch of the groups to work in cooperation. Part of what this would do is help users who are already used to Wikipedia and understand how to edit and contribute in a positive way. But who don't have much interaction with the community as a whole. I see them as middle users. Ones who do a great job and do not receive their praise and encouragement. This merge of the groups would attempt to seek out and expose these users to the Wikipedia community. First and foremost this is an encyclopedia, but underneath is a community that does need to reach out to more of it's members. Especially ones who contribute in the more obscure ways. Also this would help out by being more efficient where the two groups already overlap in terms of general idea's KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 00:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Birthday: Version 2

The calendar suggestions have been implemented, and the merger with the Birthday Committee was decided not to occur, with both continuing to work together. See Wikipedia talk:Birthday Committee/Merge?.
This proposal actually entails 3 ideas.
Birthday Committee


[edit] Merge with BDC

I think that the Happy Birthday campaign is a great idea, but the Esperanza community could do more for the program. I propose a merge of the Birthday Committee into Esperanza. The program would work better if the two programs were combined. Many of the members of the BDC are also Esperanza members, including the founding member, Steveo2. He is currently on Wikibreak.

We'd certainly have to talk to them about it, but we do seem to collaborate a lot with the methods. -- Natalya 15:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I realize that we would have to talk with them, but I wanted to see if Esperanza was open to the idea before I started talking with the BDC. -- Heaven's Wrath   Talk  02:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I will propose a merger with the BDC after September 10, after Steveo2 returns from Wikibreak. -- Heaven's Wrath   Talk  04:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The proposed merge discussion with the BDC has begun. See Wikipedia talk:Birthday Committee/Merge?. – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  23:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Program sub-page

I put together a program sub-page that I would like to link to off the Program page. I included templates from the BDC, just to give an idea for future expansion of the program. I believe that more people would participate if the program was better outlined.

I finally added the sub-page. See it here. – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  04:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I read through the discussion at the birthday committee; is this reflecting what they wanted? Or is this just to expand the Esperanza birthday wishing? -- Natalya 13:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New calendar format

My third idea would reformat the Esperanza calendars. I think it would be great if we could organize the events in days rather than months. That way, we could easily show whose birthdays' were today, and better seperate the events. Sample below. (I hope it would look better.)

Use Display
Today's Events
{{Esperanza {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}}}
becomes
{{Esperanza December 15}}
Today's Events
Birthday
User, User2, User3
Adminship Day
User, User2, User3
First Edit Day
User, User2, User3

Comments? -- Heaven's Wrath   Talk  01:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I really like these ideas, and they would allow "Todays Events" to appear on WP:ESP still. My only worry is how easy it would be to find the correct day to add yourself in. Is this a problem? Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 10:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
It's a good idea. In response to Celestianpower, maybe we could use the same system as the TFA bar. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 10:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that could work - it'd work just like a series of large Disambig pages... —Celestianpower háblame 10:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
This would be fantastic. As long as we can figure out how to make it work, it will be very nice to have an individual day on the main page. -- Natalya 15:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I made a sample header based off the TFA bar suggested by Shreshth91, see it here. I am thinking that there can be an optional parameter that can include the Today's Events box. Also, here are two possible ways to organize this idea. -- Heaven's Wrath   Talk  03:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Option 1: On the calendar page we could use a variation of the {{JanuaryCalendar}} template for all the months.
  • Option 2: We could keep all the month sub-pages, and then transclude all the days into each month. Of course, each day will include a link to edit the template (much like the months have one at the bottom).

de-indenting I like the first idea better. That way, we can link all the individual days (I assume we will be having separate pages for separate days) on the same page. And it won't take up a lot of space. Just be sure to keep the colour "green" :) --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 04:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I will try to fiddle with the calendar templates today. (I liked the first option too.) -- Heaven's Wrath   Talk  14:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
One more thing, how would everyone like this idea organized. Should the days be Template:Esperanza January 1, or should it just be sub-pages (Wikipedia:Esperanza/Calendar/January/1)? Would either way be preferable? -- Heaven's Wrath ;  Talk  00:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The second option would probably be preferrable. No need to add stuff to the Template namespace when we can just as easily use our own subpages. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 04:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
This would work licely with the proposed design. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 04:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that this is working out. This could be a naieve question, but do we need to worry about having 365/366 separate pages/templates? (if I understand the idea correctly) That is a lot, but as long as no one minds, I'm glad it works. :) -- Natalya 04:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I was a little hesitant because of the many needed sub-pages, but it is the way to fit the ideas. I will begin to set it up now then. -- Heaven's Wrath   Talk  22:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Progress: I finished replacing January. Look at the below links to see what I did. Comments welcome.
-- Heaven's Wrath   Talk  00:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Progress: Finished September. Very tedious work. Planning to include some formatting in the month templates to designate days without any events and ones with holidays. -- Heaven's Wrath   Talk  00:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Can I suggest adding <noinclude>{{month}}</noinclude> to every /month/date page so it makes for easier navigation... DemosDemon 01:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I was planning on adding the month templates I made for this project. I was also going to add an instructions template to each day page. Right now, the individual day pages are very bare. -- Heaven's Wrath   Talk  03:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Program: Why Do People Leave?

The worthy objectives of this proposal are already covered by other Esperanza programs.

As a new member of Esperanza, here is my first contribution, in the form of a proposed program.

One of Esperanza's aims is to help stressed Wikipedians, so that their stress will not lead to thm leaving. Sometimes several encouraging messages will do the trick; sometimes they will leave for good. When an established contributor leaves, Wikipedia is harmed.

Therefore, I suggest we analyze the reasons for established contributors leaving the project. Such an analysis may reveal problems with parts of the project, which we could work on.

Examples:

  • Many established contributors who have left claim that "Vandals and trolls are more valued than legimate contributors". We could investigate what causes them to have such opinions, and how we can make legimate contributors feel more valued, while making vandals and trolls less valued.
  • Many established contributors leave, claiming that administrator abuse is the reason for them leaving. We could look into these allegations of administrator abuse.
  • Many established contributors leave, citing server problems as their reason. We could forward this feedback to the developers and find out what causes the server problems, and find a way to fix it.

In the past, on several occasions, I have considered leaving Wikipedia. The main reason: anonymous vandals.

I would appreciate any feedback on this proposed program.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand and appreciate your intention, but as currently proposed, I strongly disagree with incorporating this as a project. First, "many established users" do not leave. Second, you can post any allegations of administrator abuse at WP:RFC. Keeping that stuff in one central location is best. Third, I've not heard of anyone stop reading or editing because a page takes too long to load. Fourth, the claim that "vandals and trolls are more valued than legitimate contributors" is a bit silly, no? I think that your intentions are great, but this program seems to be missing the mark a bit. Cheers hoopydinkConas tá tú? 08:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way, check out WP:ESP/PROP if you'd like another venue to discuss your proposed program hoopydinkConas tá tú? 08:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I will check out the link. The reasons like "vandals and trolls are more valued than legimate contributors" are just examples (though silly examples, I guess). I hope you will judge my idea on its merits, and not by the silly examples I provided. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Like hoopydink, I understand your intentions, but your proposed project tends to duplicate certain programs that are already in place. In Esperanza, there is a "Stressbusters" (possibly inactive?) initiative which seeks to investigate what causes users to be stressed (and presumably to consider leaving).
Because Wikipedia is so popular, many many people make use of its servers, and at times the servers just can't keep up with the requests. There may also be intentional denial-of-service attacks involved as well.
I believe that a certain number of people get frustrated at real or perceived POV conflicts and leave. Sometimes administrators may be involved. I don't know.
One reason why I decided to never become an administrator was after reading some of the admin-oriented pages like WP:ANI and seeing how admins will conflict over whether blocks or other actions were justified. I have noticed that there are some instances of admins being blocked for abusing their powers, though I don't know if real or perceived abuse of admin powers is a major cause for people to leave Wikipedia.
I don't mean to discourage you personally. You have good intentions. It's just that your proposed program is rather like trying to reinvent the wheel. I hope I haven't hurt your feelings. --Kyoko 14:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand your intentions, but this programme seems to have several aspects in some programmes. I know you have good intentions, and there are tons of inactive projects, you may like to help relief it. I hope I'm not discouraging you or anything. We don't want any conflict, I'm sorry for rejecting this programme, but you can try proposing other programmes and help with current programmes. Don't feel discouraged. --Terence Ong (T | C) 10:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caption Competition

The Caption Competition is great for the Coffee Lounge, but doesn't need a separate program to continue to happen.
Caption this Caption!
Enlarge
Caption this Caption!

Judging and prize giving has just finished at the Esperanza Coffee lounge. I feel the competition was fun and brought the community closer together. I'm sure many others agree (see: here). We are still deciding how often to do it.

Please see the Caption Competition on the coffee lounge for more information. Thanks, --Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . 3 09:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin School

Admin School is a really good program which helps meets the demand that Admin Coaching is unable to fill due to capacity constraints. Unfortunately, it has been nominated for deletion. A major concern among those voting to delete the page is the perception that the page is "owned" by the creator. One of the comments on the deletion page suggested that the program could be merged into Admin Coaching. I would like to propose that we adopt this program as a separate program from Admin Coaching although it would obviously be closely related. One could imagine that Admin School would be open to everyone without a wait although people could "graduate" into Admin Coaching if they felt a need for a more intensive one-on-one coaching. --Richard 05:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"Open to everyone" would make its structure more of a communal query and answer type situation? Ansell 22:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, sort of. I hesitate to answer as this program was not my idea and so it's not my place to give an "authoritative" answer. My view would be to have a place where aspiring admins could ask questions and get answers. You could do that in a number of places now (Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). WP:AN, etc.) However, this could serve as a "one stop shop" for all admin and policy-related questions. The one rule that I think would be useful is that policy debates should be redirected to the Village pump so as not to compete with that forum. --Richard 05:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, would be opposed to this being brought here, or anywhere else. As you can see from my oppose vote on that deletion page, I believe that the problem with "Admin School" is not ownership, but a fundermental lack of understanding about what being an admin is. One must work hard to gain experience and trust to be handed the mop, and I don't believe that the sort of set-up seen in Admin School works in relation to this. Sorry :( Thε Halo Θ 22:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I voted oppose precisely because of this reason. Experience and trust are paramount to becoming an administrator, and the Admin school didn't seem to address those. --Kyoko 23:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
To reiterate, the Wikipedia:Admin school was not my idea. It's not "my baby". Nonetheless, I have been taken aback by the large number of "oppose" votes on the MfD discussion. (there are more opposes than supports) My feeling is that most people are reacting to a perception rather than the reality. The Admin School "curriculum" is really a very good synopsis of the various policies that an admin needs to be familiar with.
Disclaimer: In what follows, I am in no way intending to launch a personal attack on HighwayCello. I have no doubt that he is a fine candidate for adminship and will make a great admin. However, he is the most recent example of that fits my argument so I mention him simply because he is the one that is most prominent in my memory.
It seems that some people would be willing to grant HighwayCello admin privileges "because we know and trust him" even though he has relatively few edits in WP space and thus may have some deficiencies in his understanding of policy. There have been a number of comments on his RFA that basically say "I have no doubt that he (HighwayCello) will come up to speed on policy one he is promoted to adminship."
Contrast this to various comments (on HighwayCello's RFA and those of other applicants) that say "Your lack of edits in WP space suggest a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy".
As far as I can tell, the basic thrust of the Admin school is to provide a "road map" to all the various Wikipedia pages that a prospective admin should read. In addition, there are some useful pages of advice for an aspiring admin.
I agree that you CAN'T teach "trust and experience" but there ARE admin-related things that you CAN teach and I think the Admin school makes a good first attempt to collect those things in one place. I feel such a program could only improve the quality of admin candidates.
Obviously, we would want to make it clear that neither Admin school nor Admin coaching can guarantee that someone will have a successful RFA. However, it should improve one's chances of being granted adminship.
--Richard 06:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if the opposes to Admin School and to this idea have upset you in any way Richard. That certainly wasn't my intention. And, as a side note, I never thought that admin school was "your baby" ;) When opposing this idea, both in the MfD and bringing it to Esperanza, the reason has been that I believe Admin school to be a flawed idea. For me, trust is FAR more important than edit counting, or how many AfD's one has participated in. By the community trusting the editor, it is pretty clear to me that you do know the rules of wikipedia, and you won't abuse the tools, otherwise the community wouldn't trust you in the first place. I suppose that this is really a question of difference of opinion about RfA, and about how something like Admin school fits into that process. For me though, having a place which focuses a user on editing to become an admin, rather on focusing a user on editing to make our encyclopedia better, won't be helpful to the project. Just my thoughts on the matter :) Thε Halo Θ 17:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
From another oppose voter: per The Halo. RFA support is built primarily around trust. Trust is something built up by experience: trust is earned, and therefore cannot be taught by the rather cynical-sounding "Admin School". Moreschi 17:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Massive Page Redesign

We redesigned the Front Page of Esperanza, which turned out really well. Why not do a massive redesign of the Coffee Lounge, Esperanza Talk Page, Current Programs Page, etc.? More people tend to flock towards Esperanza subpages, so why don't we make it more Esperanzian? --Edtalk c E 00:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the entire project could use some sprucing up. I just updated my proposed page for the Happy Birthday program to correspond with the new style. The only thing would be if it was neccessary to make so many sub-pages (1 for each section) for each page. On the Happy Birthday page, removed the edit box (now it is just a standard one) so everything was on one page. – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  01:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Why don't we make a universal Esperanza design template? It will already have all of the formatting needed for each EA subpage. That way, instead of having to put in the format on each and every subpage, we could just have a bot add the template to each of the subpages.--Edtalk c E 02:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I (might) agree (if I came anywhere close to understanding you, although I probably would agree with you if I came to understand what it is I am currently not understanding). Instead of relying on the Portal's syntax, create one for Esperanza (but make the edit box optional). I do not see a reason for using bots though (I might not understand fully), I think that I would be able to reorganize it by myself. It also would allow for projects (such as Appreciation Week to edit all the pages at once during special events. – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  03:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, forget the bots, that's a bad idea. =( What I suggest is that we make a template that carries the general design for ALL ESPERANZA subpages EXCEPT for the Front Page, which has already been designed (Thank you to all who helped with that, by the way). That way, all subpages will have the same color scheme, and all of the pages will look Esperanzian. The template itself will carry the colors needed for the page. And I'm also proposing a page redesign for the current discussion at WT:EA. The reason is this: what are the first two pages visiting Wikipedians look at? The Front Page and Esperanza Talk. (Then the participants list if they want to join, maybe we'll redesign that, too).--Edtalk c E 21:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I could whip something up if you all would like that. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 19:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
That would be great! Being the person who created the EA frong page, you have all of the color codes and templates needed for this!--Edtalk c E 20:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to let everyone know that I have been working a little on this. Currently, I am designing the Programs page. You can see it my progress here. I would like to find a different icon. If any one has any suggestions, please post them. – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  18:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Was the idea to completely revamp the pages, or to have a more subtle design for all of the pages? I don't actually know what the initial intention was, or what everyone wants, I'm just throwing that out there. -- Natalya 20:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

My main intention was to have a universal EA header that would identify all pages as Esperanzian. This header would also incorporate the EA colors into the page.--Ed Trick? or Treat? 23:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: after the overhaul is done, I will finish updating all the pages. – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  08:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Esperanza Collaboration of the Month

Implemented. See WP:EA/COTM.

Per my messages on the main Esperanza talk page, I have two programs to help reform Esperanza. The first is this, which will focus on making Esperanza important to the encyclopedia as a whole. The idea is to get every Esperanzian working together on one article that is in poor shape, and bring it up to (hopefully) at least GA class. Here is my recommended process:

  1. Article is selected by the Esperanzians.
  2. Esperanzians will review the problems and come up with solutions.
  3. We will then begin work on the article for the month, and improve it as much as possible.
  4. As we near completion, we will conduct a peer review.
  5. Depending on the result, we will then nominate for GA class.

As said before, the hope is that this will make Esperanza seem more valuable to the encyclopedia. DoomsDay349 20:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Support without reservations. A fine idea, even if it wasn't precisely what EA needed. Moreschi 20:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, what do you mean, not "precisely" what EA needed? (I can't so tone on the Internet, only inquisitive, not angry).
      • Sorry, what I'm trying to say is that it is precisely what Esperanza needs. Apologies for the confusion. Moreschi 20:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support- Good idea, but I don't think I'll participate.--SUIT42 20:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Respond, that's alright. Even if only something like ten or twenty Esperanzians were working on it we could definetly do it. I'd hate to see this end up like the Article Drive. DoomsDay349 20:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This sounds like it has much more structure than the previous Esperanza Drive Program, so providing it gets enough support (can't imagine it wouldn't!), it could certainly replace that. A coordinator for it would likely be helpful, but that can be worked out when it is implemented. -- Natalya 21:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The only reason this one got shoved to the dust bin was that it didn't have enough support or anyone responsible for it, so if someone decides to take the reins, advertise it, and make it work, it would pass. Titoxd(?!?) 21:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I'd most certainly head it up. Of course, everyone can benefit from some partners...DoomsDay349 21:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Did I detect a look in my direction there? Sure, I'd love to help out with this. Cheers, Moreschi 21:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Count me in! Randfan 21:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
          • It's looking good; can someone fill me in on the policy to get this passed? DoomsDay349 21:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
            • Basically, either wait until the next AC meeting, or bring it up on the main talk page and get 50% +1 of the current AC to approve it, which shouldn't be hard. Titoxd(?!?) 22:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
              • Alright; I think we should get some support here, and wait a few days or whatever until putting this up at the main EA talk page...when is the AC meeting, anyway? If it's not too long, maybe we'll wait. DoomsDay349 22:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
                • There was one recently, IIRC, so it would be better to put it on the talk page. Titoxd(?!?) 22:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

(restart indents)

Ok, so when do you think we should? I don't think we have enough support, but when do you think might be a good time? DoomsDay349 22:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

    • Historically, this program has always had a lot of support, and no opposition, but this page isn't too visible for everyone who is interested on it to see it, sadly. Perhaps you should do it fairly soon, as Natalya (AG) and myself (former AC) have expressed interest and approval of it... ;) Titoxd(?!?) 22:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Hell, I could do it tonight, if you feel it's alright. DoomsDay349 22:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Count me too! bibliomaniac15 Review? 21:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think there should be too much problem, as it seems that everyone is for this, mostly because it's a great idea. It might work well if we created a subpage, to plan out how it would work, and iron out all the details, much like the Appreciation Week has. I'd also kind of like this to be part of a wider degree of co-operation in article editing between Esperanza members. In fact, a page like Wikipedia:Esperanza/Articles might be appropriate to co-ordinate all of our plans for Esperanza to improve article (such as co-operation with WikiProjects), but I'll seek consensus :) Thε Halo Θ 00:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
      • So, clarify; we should first create the subpage and coordinate this, and then propose it, or the other way around? Thanks. DoomsDay349 00:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Hmmmm....I think, go ahead and create the subpage, maybe for now just one for this idea (Wikipedia:Esperanza/Collaboration of the Month, or whatever subpage name you wish), and then bring it up on the talk page to let everyone know that this idea is around, and that we would like everyone to say if they liked it, and if so, say how we can get this up and running. I think that with something like this, we want to start it as soon as possible, so I'm sure no one will mind if we don't wait until the next AC meeting. Thε Halo Θ 00:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Wholehearted support. Great idea, just what we were looking for! --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 04:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This is fantastic. Most esperanzans are like-minded about how to work well together, since we share common views on stress, congeniality, and whatnot. It would be GREAT to get to work with some of you on anything. Please add this to the regular program page. Also, note above, that DoomsDay349 has created the page. Go sign up, and lets get on this... --Jayron32 04:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. As long as it's helping the Wiki, it's great. TeckWizTalkContribs# of Edits 14:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This is great. I'm going to go ahead and replace the old article drive with this, since it's much more up to date. Thanks, everyone (especially DoomsDay) for getting this up and running so fast! (As an aside, normally the list of proposed programs is reviewed at each advisory council meeting (about every month), and based on the discussions that went on on this page, they proposals are either turned into programs, kept for more discussion, or archived. This seems like a prime opportunity to go right ahead with it, though!) -- Natalya 05:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It's been taken care of! Thanks again, everyone. I'll archive this discussion in a bit, since it's pretty much done now that it's a program. -- Natalya 05:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coffee Lounge Patrols

As I have noticed, the coffee lounge tends to attract silliness. While the coffee lounge is not serious, by any means, certain things don't need to be there. I've also noticed that a lot of users spend far too much time in the coffee lounge and not working on the encyclopedia. I understand relieving stress, but sometimes it goes too far. For this reason, the coffee lounge is often the source of resentment of Esperanza by those not involved in our programs. Thus, I propose that a group of Esperanzians, preferably a mix of those who are active in the coffee lounge and those who are not so as to avoid a biased opinion, to monitor the coffee lounge and A) Keep out overly silly comments and posts and B) Give a friendly warning to those who spend too much time in the coffee lounge. This is also part of my attempt to make Esperanza look better in the eyes of our fellows. DoomsDay349 20:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Support - unequivocally. Moreschi 20:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

-Like general idea (though I'll probably'll get a lot of "warnings"). Needs work though. Randfan 21:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Oppose- I like the general idea, but who are we to say, "Hey, you, you ain't editing 'nuff! Get out!" It just doesn't feel right.--SUIT42 20:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Respond- My idea wasn't like that. It would be much more gentle, for instance "Hello! I've noticed you are editing substantially in the coffee lounge and are neglecting other areas of Wikipedia. I wanted to let you know that your contributions may be more valuable spent improving other areas of Wikipedia. We welcome you to continue talking in the coffee lounge, but please try to edit other areas as well. Have a nice day!", followed by a list of proposed programs they might want to do, like AFD or RC patrol. Maybe a smile to boot. DoomsDay349 20:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I still don't dig it, it's their choice to edit in the Coffee Lounge, not ours. But I get the general idea.--SUIT42 20:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Be that as it may, we don't want editors spending all their time in the coffee lounge. No matter whose choice it is. DoomsDay349 20:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I'm always a little unhappy when I hear: "It's unEsperanzian to tell people what to do." There are fallacies here. Does that mean we can't block vandals or trolls? Vote at RFA? Participate at Editor Review? Ban editors from articles they disrupt? If people are obviously not helping the encyclopedia, and are by this harming the organization they belong to (that's Esperanza), then they need to be told so in language that isn't endlessly apologetic. Moreschi 20:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd rather not start a conflict, I'm done.--SUIT42 20:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
There is surely a difference between discussion and conflict. Moreschi 20:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed with Moreschi. As for the "endlessly apologetic" thing, forgive me for my damned silver tongue :). I don't want it too harsh, but perhaps being too nice is not so good. And Suit, he's right; no one's mad or upset here, we appreciate all comments! DoomsDay349 20:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Seconded: the whole point of this page is to thrash out the flaws in the programs that are put forward. Every comment is welcome! Moreschi 20:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
By start a conflict I meant I was about to go on a long rant about communism and how it affects turtles. Glad I didn't write that as it has nothing to do with this. But anyway, let's see how this goes.--SUIT42 20:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

(restart indents) We need some more feedback. Hopefully it will come soon. DoomsDay349 20:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

we'd need a warning template... Randfan 21:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Easily done. But let's figure out whether or not we're going to use this first. DoomsDay349 21:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Even if handled gently, the message we are sending with this proposal is "get out". The question, as it always is, is how much bad are you going to take with the good. The point of Esperanza is to provide a means of stress relief for those involved in editing Wikipedia. Does that mean that some people are going to spend too much time here? Of course... but anything that damages the mission of Esperanza by being LESS inviting, LESS friendly, and LESS welcoming is NOT a solution to this perceived problem. I would venture that the Coffee Lounge is less of a problem than some would make it out. I rarely see more than 2-3 edits an hour or so. If it ever gets to the point that the conversations get so dense as to become hard to follow, or there are so many additions as to lead to major edit conflicts, we may have to revisit this. But there doesn't appear to be a problem now. --Jayron32 22:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree with Jayron, as he worded it better than I would have.--SUIT42 22:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it was a bit too strict as it was. OK, how about we remove the idea of warning people to stay out but curb the amount of silliness inside? I think that was something some people didn't like, if you check the MFD for coffee lounge games. DoomsDay349 22:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like to point out that even if no harm is done to the Encyclopedia, the Coffee Lounge in its present state does little good for the rest of Wikipedia's perception of Esperanza. Best, Moreschi 22:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The Coffee Lounge hasn't gotten as bad as the Reference Desk, but I'd rather see the lounge be self-regulatory (e.g. users removing things that they think are just absurd) than to have an "outside group" go in and whack crap from it, which sadly gives the wrong message. The MFD should give some pointers as to what is unacceptable and what is. Titoxd(?!?) 22:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    • You'll note I proposed a mixed group of those who do and do not frequent the coffee lounge, so as to prevent bias. So, say, an "outsider" removes silliness, but an "insider" might contest it, if they think it's ok. In all honesty, I don't think having the frequenters do it would work, as it would go like "Hey, you removed my stuff! WTF, man!" and people would get mad, and whatnot. So, by having an empowered group do so, there's less questioning and anger. DoomsDay349 22:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't get it, so we need Esperanza Guards? That's off..--SUIT42 22:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Well...not guards, per se, just...monitors. Of course, we'd have to curb corruption, otherwise the whole of the Coffee Lounge could be blanked. Just someone to keep a friendly eye over your shoulder and make sure all is good. DoomsDay349 22:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Like communism! I get it! Yay! Sorry about that, anyway, monitors, huh? Oh, that sucks the fun out of the Coffee Lounge...--SUIT42 22:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
How does it suck the fun out of it? Listen, I'll give you a list right now of what I would take out of the present coffee lounge; 1) Ok, well Dog Barking Noises and 2) Most Random Crap Ever. That's it. You're telling me you couldn't possibly have fun without them? DoomsDay349 22:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Not that, I mean like monitors watching every thing you write? I get that it gets nonsensical, but it's like they have to approve what you just wrote. Well, this is my final comment, I'll check how this goes later.--SUIT42 22:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Aye, good point. How does it look to the rest of the encyclopedia if they walk past and see what appears to be a load of crazy editors literally yapping away at each other? Moreschi 22:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Umm...are you agreeing with Suit or me? A bit confused. DoomsDay349 22:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreeing with you. Sorry, edit conflicts seriously suck. Moreschi 22:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could be a little less drastic than this, and I bet we can do it. What if we start out putting a statement at the top of the Coffee Lounge to the effect of "Do take time and relax here, but please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and contributions to it should be continued even while here". Of course, that's not phrased very well at all, but the idea is to have a disclaimer of sorts on the Coffee Lounge. I don't think anyone disagrees that it could be a little less silly, we just have to tell them to try and keep it that way. -- Natalya 23:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea, Natalya. I'm not sure it'd require a new program though. Here's a thought for the disclaimer. "Hello, and welcome to the Esperanza Coffee Lounge! Feel free to relax and take a break, but do remember to get back to Wikipedia eventually. Our goal is, after all, to produce an encyclopedia. Also remember to curb the amount of silliness here; having fun and being ridiculous are different things." Then follow that with the second and third paragraphs we have there already. DoomsDay349 23:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
(re indent) I think somewhere inbetween the two statement which Natalya and DoomsDay have thought up should work. "Hello, and welcome to the Esperanza Coffee Lounge! Feel free to relax and take a break, but do remember to get back to Wikipedia eventually. Also, please remember to curb the amount of silliness here; Wikipedia is, at it's core, an encyclopedia." As always, feel free to edit the above to hell, or out-right reject it :) I'll also say to other things about the coffee lounge. One: I'm worried that the Coffee lounge and Esperanza are becoming two different things, and Two: I'm also worried that many people now consider Esperanza to be little more than the Coffee Lounge. Maybe these worries are unfounded, but they still play on my mind. Thε Halo Θ 00:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Not at all. You have, in fact, just voiced my opinion exactly. Those are pretty much the reasons I wanted to bring the Coffee Lounge back into line, so that Esperanza might be respected again. DoomsDay349 00:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, so here's an idea; we'll hammer out the new disclaimer, let all the Coffee Lounge know about this, and then put this idea into dormancy for a while. We'll see how the Coffee Lounge works out, and, if it works, we'll leave this alone. If it stays the same or worsens, maybe we should revive this. DoomsDay349 00:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Glad I'm not the only one thinking this ;) And, as per your idea, I think that would be the best course of action to take right now, personally. Night :) Thε Halo Θ 00:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, so which disclaimer do we use? Does someone want to write up a new one? Or shall we go with a previous one? DoomsDay349 01:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


Personally, I like your disclaimer the best DoomsDay. I think it's the perfect wording. However, if anybody else proposes a new disclaimer, I might change my mind.  Shardsofmetal   T   C  04:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, let's post that for now and we'll change it if necessary. DoomsDay349 04:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Esperanza FAQ

Many people who come across Esperanza one way or another have many questions about us, and what we do. I think if we have a collection of the most commonly asked questions about Esperanza, we could help improve people's opinions, ideas and understanding about Esperanza. Some questions could include What does Esperanza do?, How do I join Esperanza? and How does Esperanza help improve the encyclopedia?. Questions could be proposed by any wikipedian, whether they are an Esperanzian or not. Then, Esperanzians could discuss on the project's talk page a possible answer to the individual questions. The page could be called Esperanza FAQ or something similar. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Thanks! Jam01 07:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have elaborated on the idea and created a page draft which can be found here! Thanks, Jam01 09:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
This sounds like a very good idea to me. I think that there is one more very important question that needs to be answered though: Do I have to be a member of Esperanza to participate in Esperanzian programs? This might clear up some things for other Wikipedians.  Shardsofmetal  07:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea, but the main FAQ page will be the list of the questions, and the talk page would be used to propose new questions to answer. – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  08:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. We can just get anyone to propose a new question for us to answer. Jam01 21:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
This is too good of an idea to let it sit here. Let's get some approval by the community and start this up. – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  21:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Please feel free to add to, or fix up the page draft before it goes live. Also, should the page be archived if it becomes too long? Thank you, Jam01 07:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I was unaware of this page while discussing this proposal. Since it has already been created, can we just go ahead with this idea? – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  22:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes, the FAQ! I forgot that we had that, it's very well put together. -- Natalya 04:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Good, then we can incorporate those Q&As into the new page. – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  05:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That sounds pretty good, considering the high quality of the responses on the existing page! Jam01 06:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
It is about time we do something with this project. I haved added the proposed page to WP:EA/FAQ, and a link to it in the link menu. – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  21:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

  • Support Good idea, will help focus project. – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  21:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, although I suspect that many of the answers will be redundant from explanations on other pages. bibliomaniac15 01:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support- Seems cool.--SUIT 06:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/s/p/Wikipedia%7EEsperanza_Proposals_Archives_3_6814.html"