Wikipedia talk:Motto of the day/Nominations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Motto of the Day

Schedule (Upcoming mottos) Discussion Approved
Nominations (New mottos go here) Frequently Used Ideas
  1. 01 Aug 2006 — 19 Dec 2006
  2. 20 Dec 2006 — 31 Dec 2006
  3. 01 Jan 2007 —

Contents

[edit] Suggestion

Why not include something like:

  • If you find a motto, that's been done before, or resembles an already approved/rejected motto, when commenting on it please provide a link to the motto you think it resembles, so others know where to find it and compare. ? --May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 17:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I can't recall any incidents where this was a problem, i.e., where some voters said there was a previous nomination, but never provided a link. But it's probably better to be safe, so here's a modification to your wording: If you find a motto that is the same or similar to a previously nominated motto, please leave a comment on the new nomination that links to the old nomination, so that others will be able to compare the two. --Tewy 18:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
    • That's great! So, when are we putting it up on the page? --May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 19:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I've added it to the nomination procedure. --Tewy 21:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks. --May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 21:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The joke

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

The earlier, the more of a chance we can think of a better joke! --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 11:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The discussion lasts through February 24. That'll give about a month after the end of the discussion to determine consensus and implement the motto. Wodup 03:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, a note was left on my talk page, so I left a note on this project's talk page soon afterward. --Tewy 21:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

Could the nomination page organize edits more efficiently? It's currently very difficult for the nomination closer to find it there is an edit, as it's usually just included in the text of someone's comment. My idea is to include subheadings with the edit as the title. That also would allow the edits to be displayed in the table of contents. Here's how it would look:

[edit] This is a great original motto!

I think this pretty much exemplifies what a great motto is... --Tewy 02:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Edits are all the rage now.

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

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

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

[edit] Why can't this be an edit?

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

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

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

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

Why not just change the first motto accordingly? It seems a lot less trouble to just modify it and when consensus is reached if the motto is approved, the approved version is ready to be copied. --May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 09:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
My experience with that is that once the original nomination is changed, old comments appear to support the new version, which isn't necessarily true. This is especially important when the edit is drastically different from the original. It's probably best to save the original somewhere, even if not in this subheading form. --Tewy 20:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Good point. In that case, I'm all for that. --May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 21:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
What version is best? To simply state: "Edit 1 has replaced 'This is a great original motto' ", or to use the subheadings? --Tewy 23:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I prefer subheadings. Wodup 05:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Me two. --May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 08:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I vote subs too --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 10:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

That's kind of what I was going for with these subheadings; the original nomination remains in its own section, but the edits get their own as well. The subheadings link the similar versions together (because edits often only differ by a few words), and the separate sections allow each version to be closed separately. --Tewy

[edit] Motto nominations

The "Awaiting decision" section is becoming very large. How about to coordinate the whole nominations section, this should be opened only at certain times of the year or put a quota on the number of noms until a later date? Simply south 20:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I probably would have had that cleaned up a while ago, but I can't uncontroversially close nominations I voted on. As for your proposal, coordinating something like that would be difficult. I suppose we could push to keep the size under 100kB or something, but all that's really needed is a willing few Wikipedians to (correctly) close nominations in either big chunks every few months, or as they come every few weeks. --Tewy 23:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Well...i've cleared all of that out already. Do you guys still need the community portal notice? Because from what i can see, you have more than enough mottos to last you through the year. --`/aksha 03:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean? --Tewy 23:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

As Russian reversal mottos have become generally common, that is, at least four different nominations, how about notifying on the page the idea's already been used, so do not repeat it. Or better yet, post a short list of motto ideas, that are the most likely to be duplicated in the future? --May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 23:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Motto of the Day

Schedule (Upcoming mottos) Discussion Approved
Nominations (New mottos go here) Frequently Used Ideas

[edit] Closing

I believe that nominations with no support should be rejected. This includes rejecting mottoes with only weak support, only comments, etc. I think that we have enough mottoes that we can be a little more selective and a little less forgiving with mottoes that don't get actual support before they're closed. Please let me know if I'm crazy for believing this, or if it's something that you think we should do. Wodup 07:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You have just contradicted yourself there. Technically, those with weak support still support. Simply south 11:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I intended support to mean full support where the motto is good enough to be wholly supported by others, not partially or weakly supported. We weakly support something because it's not as good as what we'd give a full support to. Wodup 12:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay. What about those with (hypothetically) 4 votes support and 4 against? Simply south 15:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
No consensus. Wodup 08:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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

It all comes down to consensus. If a motto has received few or no votes, or has an equal number of support and oppose votes, it has not reached consensus and should therefore not be approved. However, I believe that some mottos are simply nominated at the wrong time, and as a result don't gain enough votes. Therefore, mottos with few or no votes that show potential to gain support should be reopened. If they fail to reach consensus after this second trial, they should be rejected. Mottos with equal numbers of opposite votes should be rejected on the first trial, as they have gained enough votes, but have not reached consensus. --Tewy 20:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I support this idea, but if there are only weak supports then I think they should be re-opened. --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 02:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
If we relist a motto that received only weak support on its first trial, and it still received only weak support after its second trial (it's like we're saying we kinda like it), we should reject it. I think that we have enough mottoes that can be a little more selective. Wodup 08:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
How about 1 weak support = rejected, 2 weak supports = re-open? --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 09:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
We can relist all mottoes that receive very few comments or only weak support on their first trials. If after a second trial, however, a motto still only receives weak support, and the comments are not enough to determine that someone really likes the motto, I think it should be rejected. Wodup 09:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to reinforce my original statement by saying that nominations with few or no votes (that also show potential for approval) should be reopened once and only once more. If they have not acquired enough votes or reached a consensus by then, they should be rejected. This means valid nominations with a weak support (or even a weak oppose, it's up to the closer to determine if the nomination has potential for approval), or a few comments may be reopened. --Tewy 00:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Lost in wiki-land

I ran across "message of the day" awhile ago, and I need to find it again. Does anyone know what page it is on? If so, please drop me a note on my talk page. Thank you. The Transhumanist   20:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conditions for approval

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

Technically the procedure doesn't really say much more than to go with consusus. If there was a set number, it would change with the times, as more voters participated. Over at WP:FPC, they generally promote images to featured status by a 2/3 majority (e.g. 10 support and 5 oppose, out of 15 total). But they receive a lot more votes than we do. I was recently involved in some discussion with Cremepuff222 and Steptrip (click to see the discussions), answering your same question, and I ended up with these rules of thumb:
  1. Nominations may only be approved if consensus favors support of the motto.
  2. Nominations may be reopened only once and only if: they have not received enough votes to gain supporting consensus, but promise to if given a second chance.
  3. All other nominations should be rejected, including those that have not reached consensus.
The idea is to keep closings as uncontroversial as possible, so I've also developed a policy of, "If in doubt, reopen." --Tewy 23:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, what if you've voted on a motto, consensus wasn't reached, and the motto was reopened. Can you vote again on said motto? —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 21:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
A nomination is reopened to gain more votes, but doesn't restart the discussion and vote tally. I suppose you should think of reopenings as just deadline extenders. Votes added after a reopening are in addition to the existing comments. Therefore, if you voted again, it would be like voting twice (which of course isn't allowed). However, you can still change your vote, if you wish. --Tewy 02:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Similar mottos

In the unique case of Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations#Houston, we have a problem., a dilema came about. Can a nomination that is similar to a previous nomination be approved if the previous nomination was rejected? In other words, should similar nominations be rejected only if they're similar to approved nominations? --Tewy 22:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm. How about this: if a motto was approved, and a similar motto was suggested, then the new motto would get rejected, but if the first motto got rejected, and consensus decides to approve the new motto, then it would get approved? —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 23:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
That's just about what I'm asking/proposing. Does that sound like a good idea? --Tewy 23:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Reopened nominations location

The proposal (I'm neither for nor against it): to Introduce a new section at the bottom of the In review subpage, where reopened mottos would be moved to (similar to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates#Older nominations requiring additional input from voters). This would only change where reopened mottos are located.

Possible names for the section are: "Nominations required additional input", "Reopened nominations", or just "Reopened".
Reason: The current system takes votes away from newest nominations, because it pushes them to the bottom. The proposal would give these nominations a fair chance. Of course, it would also slow the rate of additional votes for the reopened nominations.
It's all a matter of where you want the votes to go, and when. --Tewy 03:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some changes

Just a heads up, but I've added an example of how to search google to find a similar motto, clarified and reordered the closing procedure, including adding a part on when to approve, reject, or reopen mottos, and moved the closing procedure to the bottom of the list, to avoid cluttering the top with a bunch of information new contributors don't need to read right away (as I explained in the edit summary). --Tewy 23:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/o/t/Wikipedia_talk%7EMotto_of_the_day_Nominations_88c4.html"