Wikipedia talk:Motto of the day/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

---

	Motto of the Day
	Schedule (Upcoming mottos) Discussion Approved Nominations (New mottos go here) Frequently Used Ideas

Today's motto...
If Wikipedia has a lot of errors, so does every book I've read.

Archives

Motto of the Day talk archives 21 Apr 2005 — 05 Sep 2006 19 Aug 2006 — 20 Dec 2006 04 Jan 2007 — Motto of the Day/Desk archives 15 Aug 2006 — 08 January 2007 04 Jan 2007 — 16 Jan 2007

The Motto of the Day (MOTTO) is an old project undergoing a revival initiative. The idea is pretty simple: to have a daily unofficial Wikipedia motto included on various user pages. It is an effort to laugh a bit at ourselves, celebrate our achievements, and foster sense of community. Mottos can be humourous or serious, but must reflect the community or purpose of Wikipedia. Nominate new mottos here.

This page is for discussion of the project itself, not the mottos.

Contents 1 Another idea... 2 Archives of Mottos 3 Nominations page length 4 Talk page 5 Text rendering (again) 6 Unsigned comments 7 Nominations page archive method 8 Defunct subpages 9 April Fools' day

Another idea...

Copied from Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Desk/Archive 1 to continue discussion. --Tewy 00:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
See #Text rendering (again) --Tewy 20:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

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:

“	If Wikipedia has a lot of errors, so does every book I've read.	”
—Motto of the day

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):

“	"The article, Percival; you must... revert it, that it be correct!"	”
—Le Morte Dwiki, Motto of the day

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:

“	Wikipedia:Motto of the day/December 30, 2006	”
—Motto of the day

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

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

“	These lines are broken. -Author	”
—Motto of the day

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

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

“	If Wikipedia has a lot of errors, so does every book I've read.	”
—Motto of the day

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

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:

“	Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 2, 2006	”
—Motto of the day

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)

Archives of Mottos

Copied from Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Desk/Archive 1 to continue discussion. --Tewy 00:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

This may be a good idea. Geo. 01:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

2. Nominate the subpages for deletion

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

This is a great idea. Please implement the first idea as soon as possible. Geo. 05:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I have gone through all the approved archives, checking to see if any were missed. I only found one (\|/3 eakspay eei'ou weeerd languages doubleplusgoodwise.), but added it to the current approved page, along with the two reserves I found. But other than that, all the mottos are in the schedule archive. So now the approved archives can be nominated for deletion. --Tewy 22:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Nominations page length

Copied from Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Desk/Archive 1 to continue discussion. --Tewy 00:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Talk page

Copied from Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Desk/Archive 1 to continue discussion. --Tewy 00:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Please also note: This discussion was previously located at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Desk, so references to "this page" refer to Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Desk. --Tewy 00:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Motto of the day (the Discussion link at the top) says that that talk page is for discussion for the project itself. Isn't that why we have this page? I think we should delete that talk page, move this page there, and fix the links. Then this coordination desk (which serves the purpose of a talk page will be a talk page. Wodup 04:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

How I would implement this:

1. Delete Coordinators' Discussions Archive (see #Multiple archives).

   Changed to redirect. --Tewy 06:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Merge Wikipedia:Motto of the day/OS Apps Archive into 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)

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)

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)

5. Archive this page as "Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Desk/Archive 2".

   Done. --Tewy 00:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

6. Fix all the links, redirects, etc., copy current discussions from here into Wikipedia talk:Motto of the day, and delete this page entirely.

   Done, changed to redirects. --Tewy 06:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

Text rendering (again)

What's the best way to display the Motto of the day? There's been some debate (see this and this) on how to format {{Motd}}, and I'd like to see the debate finished. Currently, the proposed ideas are:

1.
Today's motto...

2.
Today's motto...

3.
Today's motto...

4.
Today's motto...

and

5.

“	"Your motto here; bold text, italic text, or both...text!" - John Smith	”
—Motto of the day

As you can see, the biggest issues are mottos that require bold or italic font to be effective. Looking through the schedule page, I see several mottos that are italicized, and a few that are bold. For this reason, I prefer #3 and #5, as they stand out the most without being italicized. #5 is the most forgiving (while still standing out), but it isn't compatable with template mottos, and the number of mottos that require bold font is small, which is #3's only problem. I am against #4, as it works for neither bold nor italic text. --Tewy 02:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's use {{cquote}} inside each day's motto page. For example, the content of the page Wikipedia:Motto of the day/January 10, 2007 would be:

“	Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia best served verified.	”
—Wikipedia: Motto of the day

For quotes that need to be attributed to someone else (like John Smith), let's attribute it to that name, but still point the link to WP:MOTTO, like this:

“	Your motto here; bold text, italic text, or both...text!	”
—John Smith

Using the cquote template inside the daily page will allow us to not use the cquote template on any day with a template motto. Wodup 05:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• So your idea is to alter the actual {{Motd}} template on the exception days? That could be tough to time just right... --Tewy 05:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• • No. Each day's motto page would contain all of the information needed to properly display the motto. When we create Wikipedia:Motto of the day/December 10, 2007, for example, {{cquote}} or the code for the fake template will be the content of that page. {{motd}}, which curently includes the formatting for the motto, would only include {{Wikipedia:Motto of the day/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}. When transcluded, it would transclude the motto from the current month, day, and year. Wodup 06:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, ok, that's better than changing the template. The more self-supporting, the better. This method is good because it wouldn't have problems with rendering. But it isn't good because it would be difficult to create and modify each subpage to different styles (bold, cquote, or plain), and because there would be no isolated, unformatted record of the motto (no bold, cquote, or plain). Without unformatted subpages, it would be impossible to transclude the mottos into the schedule page concisely. Also, some users transclude the subpage directly into their user page (with no formatting, or formatting of their own). It would be impossible for them to transclude the Motto of the day into their subpage as unformatted text if this method was used. --Tewy 21:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry about my confused edit before. I didn't want to do what I wanted the first edit, but had to leave before I could make a second, and I hadn't seen the discussion. I'll go with WODUP's idea and put the coding on each day's page. However, to stand out I believe it would look best big, bold, and italicized every day, so the coding goes on motd. I do not think cquote should be used because for some pages would not be good with them and would somewhat interfere with "today's motto." As another thing, that would be incorrect usage of the quotation mark. Reywas92^Talk_Sigs 21:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not have different motd templates or customizable motd templates to display the motto differently, like they do at WP:POTD? Wodup 03:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with Picture of the day. Could you explain what they do with the templates that you're referring to? Do you mean to have multiple templates; one using {{cquote}}, another using bold text, etc., and the users can choose which they like, instead of being limited to {{Motd}}? --Tewy 04:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. They've got {{Pic of the day}} and {{POTD}} which display the picture differently. We could have templates which display our mottoes differently. Wodup 05:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea. The options could be bold, bold italics, or cquote, and the user chooses at his or her own risk (though there would be an explanation provided of each's pros and cons). --Tewy 21:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, how would this look, under the Wikipedia:Motto of the day#The templates?

To get the Motto of the Day, just place one of the following templates anywhere you like on your user or user talk page.

Template	What you see	Pros	Cons
{{Motd}}	Today's motto... If Wikipedia has a lot of errors, so does every book I've read.	Stands out	Cannot handle bold or italic text
{{Motd plain}}	Today's motto... If Wikipedia has a lot of errors, so does every book I've read.	Can handle all styles of text	None
{{Motd big}}	Today's motto... If Wikipedia has a lot of errors, so does every book I've read.	Can handle all styles of text	Makes intentionally small text normal
{{Motd bold}}	Today's motto... If Wikipedia has a lot of errors, so does every book I've read.	Can handle italic text	Cannot handle bold text
{{Motd cquote}}	“ If Wikipedia has a lot of errors, so does every book I've read. ” —Motto of the day	Can handle all styles of text	Has trouble handling tables

You may also add the unformatted motto of the day by using {{Wikipedia:Motto of the day/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}. This also allows you to create your own formatting.

--Tewy 19:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If {{Motd}} is kept bold italic, then there's no need for {{Motd bold italic}}. I just listed it on the table for consistancy. --Tewy 05:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Using the <big> tags doesn't make <small> text big, just normal sized, which is still relatively small.

I think I've clarified it enough now. --Tewy 20:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've altered the cquote template to better display tabled mottos. It's not perfect, but it doesn't just say "20px". The template-style motto for April 20, 2007 would appear as:

“	Wikipedia:Motto of the day/April 20, 2007	”
—Motto of the Day

Lastly, I've added a {{Motd plain}} to the table. Wodup 06:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Should {{Motd bold italic}} be used at all, if {{Motd}} is the same thing? Or is there a good chance that {{Motd}} will change from bold italic in the future? --Tewy 20:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we'll need a {{Motd bold italic}}. There's no real reason for {{motd}} to change; just about any other way to display the motto is being covered by another template, or by the plain text {{Wikipedia:Motto of the day/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}. Wodup 03:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Unsigned comments

I've seen many comments and especially nominations that are unsigned by the nominee/user. So, I've added a cat. that will allow Hagermanbot to work its magic on the In Review page. It will place the {{unsigned}} template on comments/nominations that are unsigned. Hopefully this will help. Just letting everyone know. Tennis DyNamiTe ^{(sign here)} 00:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• *Assuming it works ;-)*, this should be a big help. --Tewy 04:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Nominations page archive method

How should the nominations page be archived? There's the move procedure, which includes a page history, but requires that all the mottos are closed at once; and there's the cut and paste procedure, which doesn't include a page history, but allows mottos to be archived as they come. Personally I prefer the cut and paste procedure, so that anyone can archive a discussion. --Tewy 21:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'd prefer mottos archived one by one or a couple at a time. I don't think every motto should be close at the same time, because that would mean some mottos being rejected or approved early before much discussion could take place. Tennis DyNamiTe ^{(sign here)} 22:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll modify the procedure to include that. --Tewy 23:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Tewy 06:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Defunct subpages

Several pages were brought up in discussion, with the intent to have them deleted (Poorly named archives, /Rejected, /Desk, etc.). I skimmed through the deletion policy page and didn't see anything that would allow for a speedy deletion of those pages, so I instead made them redirects. (If someone is more familiar with the deletion policy, then by all means, nominate them for deletion!) And as far as I can tell, all of those pages are now redirects (seen in italics on Special:Allpages). Is this an okay compromise if they can't be deleted? --Tewy 01:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Because these pages can't be speedied or PRODed, they all need a full MfD discussion if they are to be deleted. Wodup 04:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh I saw that! I just didn't know if it was the right place for all these minor subpages. I'll look into that unless someone more familiar with MfD can do it instead. I have the text of each page that needs deleted (organized and with links), if anyone needs it. --Tewy 05:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've listed Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Rejected at WP:MfD. I think the pages that were able to redirected may be able to stay since redirects are cheap. Wodup 07:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. So now all that are left are the daily subpages. --Tewy 20:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the approved archives could be deleted as well, per Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Desk/Archive 2#Archives of Mottos. --Tewy 06:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The approved page and the approved archives are listed on MfD now. Should we archive Wikipedia talk:Motto of the day/Approved? Wodup 08:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I mistakenly listed the approved page, itself. The archives were speedily deleted. Unless we're ignoring all rules, I would be interested in which WP:CSD criterion they were deleted under. Please forgive me if it should be obvious, but please do let me know. Wodup 18:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know. When I looked through the deletion policy, I couldn't find one that obviously fit our purposes. The best leads pointed to MfD. --Tewy 18:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You might check the deletion logs (1, 2, 3, and 4). They mention obsolete subpages and MfD. --Tewy 21:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If you haven't already seen this, it's the explanation you're looking for. --Tewy 20:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I asked the deleting administrator, Robdurbar, and got this reply. So, now we know. Wodup 01:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

April Fools' day

April 1, as you probably all know, is a bit crazy on Wikipedia. Therefore I have intentionally left the subpage for April 1, 2007 blank. Maybe here we can discuss the best motto for that day (if any!). --Tewy 00:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That's okay with me, but if that is what we decide to do, we should leave a note on the nominations page referring people to this page for the nominations and discussions. I'm not going to do that at the moment; I'd like to get other opinions on how we'll handle this unique day. Also, it's funny that you should say if any!, because I'm nominating Wikipedia:Motto of the day/April 1, 2007 as that day's motto. Wodup 02:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I like that; please do nominate it. It really doesn't matter where the discussion takes place, as either way users will be directed to where they need to be. --Tewy 06:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The more I think about it, I don't want to have the nominations on this page. The instructions for this page even say that. I think I would like to have a heading on the nominations page titled "April Fools' Day, 2007" followed by:

The motto for April 1 will be chosen from the mottoes nominated in this section. Please do not move these mottoes to the "Awaiting decision" section. Mottoes with few support votes can be archived as soon as it's apparent that consensus favors other mottoes.

Just clarifying... The motto for April 1, 2007 will be chosen from the mottos nominated in this section. Please do not move these nominations to the "Awaiting decision" section. Instead, reject and archive mottos with few support votes when it is apparent that consensus favors other mottos. At the end of 30 days, one motto will be chosen from consensus. Therefore, it is in your interest to express which motto you think is the best, to ease the closer's job. --Tewy 18:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that we should have this section for longer than the 14 days, but I'm not exactly sure when we should name the approved motto. I didn't want to do this without getting anyone else's opinion, so let me know. Wodup 08:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I would give it the equivelent of running it through twice. That's about a month. --Tewy 18:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was intentionally left blank as a joke. --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 00:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be pretty funny. And to any user how would want to put one there we could leave a comment ( <!-- Please do not put anything here --> ). Cheers! S.D. ¿п? § 01:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added the section to the nominations page and specified an end date of February 24. That'll give us plenty of time to implement whichever motto consensus favors. Wodup 04:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)