User:Qae/MOTD

Responses
Q1: Who is still here, actively contributing with new mottoes, closing old ones and approving/denying/reopening as per consensus, scheduling, etc?
 * A1: Users Chamal N, Nutiketaiel, La Pianista, Julian Colton, and iMatthew are some of the most active MOTD contributors. User:Simply south normally closes the discussions, but if further help is needed, I (La Pianista) am willing to help out.

Q2: About how many new mottoes are submitted daily?
 * A2: Mottoes aren't generally submitted daily (that would be impractical, especially since you believe the project is already "messy"), but instead on a weekly basis. By my estimations, approximately two mottos are submitted per week.

Q3: Who is for reworking the nomination process?
 * A3: I'll need that question to be clarified, please.

Q4: Who is for restarting the whole project?
 * A4: Does the project need restarting? It's already working full force, with perhaps more attention than it has ever gotten recently.

Q5: ''What"needs" to be kept? Can old archives be deleted if this is restarted?''
 * A5: Archives could be deleted, but I personally am strongly against this. Archives are a source for us to find FUIs, or frequently used ideas, that we can avoid in the future. This keeps new mottoes fresh and interesting.

&mdash; La Pianista  (T•C•S) 17:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Q1 = me
 * Q2 = On some days multiple, on other days about 2
 * Q3+Q4 = What is wrong with the current process? It is undergoing slow change. I am about to implement something on reopening and minimum votes in the next week
 * Q5 = Old archives need to be kept to see what has been done before so we don't cover them again, at least not cover them for a while anyway

I hope this answers your qs. Who were you btw? Simply south (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, what exactly is wrong with the project as it stands now? It seems to be wotking just fine.  Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have taken the liberty of copying the above two responses (below La Pianista's) from the talk page of this page, to keep everything in one place. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for responses, maybe getting more. I wasn't implying that I was for restarting the project, I was just wondering. I do, however, believe that the main issue is how nominated mottoes that are approved or denied aren't moved off of the nomination page in a timely manner. Once a motto is no longer "in review" and is now ready for scheduling and/or archiving, it should be. The only thing I think should remain on the page are mottoes awaiting consensus. On that point, maybe also have the 14-day rule enforced. I also do regret asking about deleting the archives. I realized that that wouldn't be a good idea right after I posted. :-P


 * I used to be Chrishy man.  Q A  E  20:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks.


 * Seeing as we are here, i would like to propose an idea or two. The changes i was going to implement were:


 * 1) an alternative reopening template that could be used, similar to declined, approved and thrown out so i created reopened. This is an alternative to relist.
 * 2) make a reference that in a consensus, there should be a minimum of three votes although each may be weighed and this could be slightly subjective.


 * Another idea i was thinking about was, maybe similar to WikiProjects there should be a participants section or page, so that if people wanted to contact people on mottos or the project generally, they could go here. Simply south (talk) 20:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I like reopened much more. A change I might like to add, is to #2. Maybe make votes weighted?
 * Strong Support = 3
 * Support = 2
 * Weak Support = 1
 * Neutral = 0
 * Weak Oppose = -1
 * Oppose = -2
 * Strong Oppose = -3
 * Then require a certain numerical value to be approved. This could get rid of subjectivity (and the annoying Extremely Tiny Amount of Support votes). Also, the participant page would be a good idea. Possibly an area for general voters, then a list of users that close nominations and archive them accordingly?


 * Another question: Why are some old mottoes "broken" (i.e. deleted from the scheduling archives)?  Q A  E  21:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Chamal_N's responses
 * A1: AstroHurricane001 & UberScienceNerd are also frequent contributors, apart from the ones listed above.
 * A3: If the changes will improve the project, I'm all for it. I see the 'reopened' template is already in use.
 * I think the rest of the questions have already been satisfactorily answered. I don't like the voting system though. What happened to consensus? This will make it a poll. Anyway, I'll check the discussion later and make any additional comments if necessary. Got to go now :) C h a m a l  talk 00:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It would go against consensus, huh? That is true. Never mind my point idea then.  Q A  E  01:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The section i would change if this goes ahead would be MOTD/N. Simply south (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

So here is what I've gathered...
 * reopened is preferred over relist
 * declined is preferred over thrown out
 * Nominations are closed with the following format:
 * Three or more votes are needed for consensus.
 * Discussion is ended after 14 days, or shorter if the outcome is obvious.
 * There is a "Participants" subpage.
 * Discussion is ended after 14 days, or shorter if the outcome is obvious.
 * There is a "Participants" subpage.

Here are some further suggestions... Maybe more, I'm tired.  Q A  E  02:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Special Nominations section still needs to have the 14-day rule applied. I see nominations from '07.
 * Create the scheduling page for 2009. It's quickly approaching, and some special nominations have been approved for '09.
 * A more detailed closing procedure (same basic thing, but with time constraints so nominations don't stay on the page for too long.)
 * After 14 days, the discussion is moved to the Decisions section with decision (approved or declined).
 * If Reopened, movie it to the top of the In Review section.
 * If an Edit is reopened, close other Edits, and the original with declined
 * After two days of being in the Decisions section, archive it and (if approved) schedule it.
 * Do away with Approved page. This seems redundant with the usage of the Decision section and the Schedule (since that's where it will end up).


 * My Humble Opinions:
 * reopened is not descriptive enough; we should stick with relist
 * I could care less about declined or thrown out, though I don't see anything wrong with the current one.
 * Where is "3 or more votes" coming from? Have we suddenly become a Democracy?
 * Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Motto of the day allready exists; why do we need a participants subpage?
 * The Special Nominations section should not have the 14-day rule applied. They are suggestions for a specific day that could be far in the future.  They should stay up as long as they need to, since consensus can change.
 * I don't think we need a more detailed closing procedure, and I'm not that hot on the 14-day rule either. A motto should stay up as long as it needs to to
 * Generate a consensus for it
 * Generate a consensus against it
 * Make it clear that a consensus is impossible
 * Additionally, I don't think we should close multiple edits if one is re-listed. I think its valueable to show the evolution of the motto from its initial form when people are considering it.  I know that I reference prior versions of the motto when I consider a new edit.
 * The rest of the listed suggestions I either have no problem with or don't care about one way or the other. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And I see you guys decided not to wait for a consensus and went ahead and changed some things anyway. How bold of you.  Perhaps, since we are actively seized of the matter, it would have been better to wait until we had all reached a conclusion together before implementing?  Just a thought.  Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think reopened is self-explanatory. On MOTD, if a motto nomination is reopened, it is obviously because consensus wasn't reached.
 * declined seems to be used more often on most other Wikipedia projects, and has been used on MOTD before. Selecting one over the other would provide some uniformity in procedure.
 * Actually saying "3 or more votes" probably isn't needed. And "votes" is a poor word choice. There probably wouldn't be consensus with less than three people stating their opinion.
 * Ah! I didn't know we had a category. (I should've figured.) Well, in that case, I'd oppose a subpage.
 * I do believe that Special Nominations should have the 14-day rule applied. 14 days (or at most, 21) is enough time to gather a general consensus. If the consensus does change, it could be challenged. I know I browse the schedule from time to time.
 * Maybe not detailed, but the 14-day rule should stay (it was already on the page, just not really implemented). The rule is that after 14 days, it's decision time: Accept, Decline, or Reopen, only closed early if outcome is obvious.
 * That's a fair argument against closing multiple edits. I guess that wasn't a great suggestion. So let me ask this: should the entire discussion (from original through last edit) be moved to the top of the In Review section? And what about the following situation: The original motto has many opposes and is declined by consensus in favor of Edit One or Edit Two, but there is no consensus between them. Is the original brought to the top with the Edits, even with the "Declined" message amended?
 * There are a few more of my mixed up thoughts.
 * Edit: Yes, let's wait until all discussion is said and done with before taking action. I'm thinking about getting a final consensus on the actual talk page after this.  Q A  E  21:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as reopened goes, I'm fine with the new graphic thingy, but I still think it needs more info there, especially for new users or one-time contributors. We can probably dispense with the "to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached," but I think we still need the "Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~" portion.
 * As I said, I have no real problem with declined.
 * I guess I'm, OK with the 14 day rule for normal mottos, but I am still completely opposed to enforcing it for Special Nominations. After all, we just got finished approving a motto for Halloween, 2009.  I really think they should stay up however long they need to.
 * I do think that the "entire discussion (from original through last edit)" should be moved up if one of the edits need to be relisted. It is helpful to see the entire evolving discussion.  It may not look pretty, but the full information is important.
 * Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. So we could use that style if we add that last bit? That's simple enough. I just haven't ever been hip on using horizontal lines.
 * Good.
 * Okay. I guess I'm okay with a longer period before closing Special Noms. But what about the obviously supported mottoes? Are they still left in that section after being approved? Or just don't approve them until closer to the usage time?
 * Good. Leaves things like that very organized.
 * So we're maybe going to make some small changes, if approved by consensus. I suspect this will go on the Talk page in a bit.  Q A  E  23:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Re the participants page. It is actually useful as it may be good to show, as an alternative to the category, people who contribute. It could also be used to add people to the category through the userbox. Not everyone is going to know about the category. The page just needs to be tweaked a bit. Simply south (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)