Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review: Difference between revisions

 Reopened all four versions (no consensus) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--The Σ ^talk_contribs 05:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I have a better idea. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 21:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Blocking is a technical function that prevents a user account or IP address from editing, often only temporarily. It isn't quite strong enough for "destroy" in my mind but I think that, on the whole, the quote works. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Seems a bit scary for a motto. I prefer the light-hearted version. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - A different version was used on February 20, 2007. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 20:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something-or-Other 1 - ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 21:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - A different version was used on February 20, 2007. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 20:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - "Please be a giant dick so we can block you" connects to "Don't make me destroy you" how? The former invites a vandal to wreak havoc and destruction, whereas the latter is a stern warning. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 05:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you think that the title might be sarcastic? :) Obviously, we aren't seriously telling people to do that, dearest sir. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 05:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support, 2nd preference - It's funny, but the link-to-motto connection is less clear than in the original motto. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Funny = Good. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - A different version was used on February 20, 2007. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 20:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Re: 2007 is a long time ago. What's the problem? –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact that it was used before. Are you really going to ask me that? You know I always oppose when they have been used before. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Reopened (no consensus; 3 in support and 1 opposed Edit 1) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Latin motto –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - The five pillars as God? I know they're important, but we might be offending some people here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was uncertain about this nom.... sorry! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I am inclined to agree. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 21:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal 1 - Or will people not get this one? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 21:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this to do with Hermes Conrad? Simply south...... improving for 5 years So much for ER 16:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Is what? The link, or my replacement for the word "Edit"? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 18:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Reopened both versions (no consensus AND not enough discussion) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plato (424/423 BC – 348/347 BC) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I thought that the end of edit warring was when you found consensus... I'm sure there are some links we can use for this, but I can't think of any right now. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Seems rather pessimistic, doesn't it? Does this mean that to solve the problem of edit warring, we should all just leave? Great message, my dear sir. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 21:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about using Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars (shortcut: WP:LAME) for the last link? –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, I'm not really liking that. That just seems like we're disparaging people who have left the project. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 1 --The Σ ^talk_contribs 01:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Same as for the original. By the way, my dear sir: NEW EDITS GO IN A SUBHEADING. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 21:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - As per Hi. The more I think about this one, the harder I think it will be to find links that work. But if someone can think of something clever, I'm all ears. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Reopened both versions (no consensus AND not enough discussion) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

R.I.P.. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 13:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Looks perfect to me. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 18:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Vladimirovich Mayakovsky (19 July 1893, Baghdati, Russian Empire – 14 April 1930, Moscow, USSR). "Letter from Paris to Comrade Kostorov on the Nature of Love" (1928).
I'm not sure about the third and last links I used. The third, Wikipedia:1984, is a comparison of Nineteen Eighty-Four and Wikipedia (in the sense of an unattainable perfect society = paradise of arbors). There are two pages, Wikipedia:Songs about Wikipedia/Wiki Paradise and Wikipedia:Songs about Wikipedia/Users Paradise, referencing to Weird Al" Yankovic's "Amish Paradise", which is a parody of the "Gangsta's Paradise" by Coolio (which itself is a reworking of the Stevie Wonder song "Pastime Paradise" featured on his 1976 album: Songs in the Key of Life (a re-re-reworking or a copy of a copy of a copy ~ lol). Anyway, I was unable to use them. Imho, the last link fits perfectly, but there is a problem. That article is on blog.wikimedia.org website and actually there is not an Interiki link for it, so I had to use <span class="plainlinks">[external_link ...]</span> for not showing the right arrow at the end of the link. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I'm not sure... It all seems somewhat akward, to me. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 18:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• External link = bad. --Σ ^talk_contribs 22:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Yes, it's an external link, but that website (http://blog.wikimedia.org/) is part of the Wikimedia Foundation. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simply south...... digging mountains for 5 years 12:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - The quote seems a bit too extreme for the link. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I agree with Hi878. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:FUN instead? Simply south...... digging mountains for 5 years 12:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:BS maybe? --The Σ ^talk_contribs 20:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Squigglywiggly 1 per me. Simply south...... digging mountains for 5 years 08:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Doesn't match the extreme-ness of the quote, in my opinion. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Squigglywiggly 2 per Sigma. Simply south...... digging mountains for 5 years 08:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Doesn't match the extreme-ness of the quote, in my opinion. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per me. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 06:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sqigglywiggly 3 per another link, alhough it might be as overkill as 1 Simply south...... digging mountains for 5 years 08:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - The page title is good, but not the actual content... :) Maybe we should give up on this quote; I don't see how we could find a link that actually works and fits how extreme the quote is. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sqigglywiggly 4 ~ this is my attempt. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support although I am wondering about the final link. Simply south...... digging mountains for 5 years 19:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - All of it is perfect, except for the last link. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know that I do not like to explain my entries because no one can explain their meaning to readers. Anyway, here is an article that became part of both FA and Core articles. Surely there must be something better. Any suggestions? –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was more not liking the location of the link, not the link itself. Putting it on "is having the best day of my life" seems strange, to me. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Reopened - no consensus. Simply south...... digging mountains for 5 years 21:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sqigglywiggly 5 per Hi878. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Perfect! ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 18:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

squigglywiggly the sixth - The problem is that right after you say this you have to die if you want to produce the intended effect. --Σ ^talk_contribs 07:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I prefer the fifth one. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verification. A lyric from the album Small Change (IIRC) by Tom Waits. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - What? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. What connects the links? Either I'm a total idiot (quite possible) or it's too obscure a link choice... That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 17:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I meant that policies and guidelines such as WP:BOLD and WP:IAR, which "give" editors expanded license, tend to be the "large print" on Wikipedia (what we advertise, e.g. Wikipedia:Introduction#How you can contribute), whereas the "small print" (the more specific guidelines and policies) tend to restrict what editors can do (in part by proscribing certain behavior, and in part by indicating what editors should do). However, you seem to be correct that the connection is too obscure and/or convoluted. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, this is rude to the gnomes. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 19:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't mean that editors who work on the "small print" take away from the encyclopedia; however, I can see now how it may be read in that way. Per above, the connection seems to be just too obscure. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Per Σ. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why edit 1? How about squigglywiggly 1? Simply south...... digging mountains for 5 years 12:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Wouldn't it be the other way around? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not sure how relevant biting newbies is here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

squigglywiggly 2 --The Σ ^talk_contribs 00:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support That's a good squigglywiggly. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 01:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - WP:GLOSSARY is full of the acronyms. I have an idea. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 19:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Confusing, maybe, but "taking away"? I'm not sure this quite fits. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Squigglywiggly 3 - I think something simpler, like this, would be better. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 19:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Reopened - No consensus yet reached. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. As per Edit 2. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I was thinking something along the lines of using full page names in discussions is good (gives understanding?), and using all of the acronyms is bad (they taketh away understanding?). ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 18:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 4. An alternative perspective based on IAR. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (edit 4) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Can you explain how those links connect to their pages? I get the idea, but how does "large print" link to IAR? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 18:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]