This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Motto of the day. 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.
Could you explain exactly what is wrong with it? Which days are not working? Is it both parts of the template, or just one of them? I have seen nothing wrong with it, so I do not know what to do to fix it. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)01:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Would anyone be able to help me out with making one of those templates shown on the main page of this project. I was hoping to use one that allows you to pick a specific date, rather than either just today's or a random one. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks!--Yaksar(let's chat)05:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry Yaksar but I did not see your message before. Did you ask at Motto Shop for this? I think they could help you. If they can not, just drop a message on my talk page and I will see what I can do. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 18:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Roll Call Proposal
I think that it is time to make a roll call to revive the project. A template is below.
Update: There is currently a roll call going on at the project's talk page. If you are actively participating in the project please add your signature to the list. If you do not, you will be listed as inactive. Your name will be moved to the Retired/Blocked members section and/or the userbox will be removed from your user page.
After this, we can also invite active editors, who have placed one of the MOTD templates on their userpages, to join the project. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 18:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Finding keeping AfC sane more than enough for me to handle at the moment, but I will keep an eye out for things to use as mottos if I can. Very very sporadically active, whatever that means for a roll call. sonia♫01:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Some clarifications (yesterday, I was really busy and perhaps I have not been very exhaustive with this):
The template above would be sent to the list of participants in our project (it is explained in the template itself). Obviously, I do not think it is necessary to send it to those who have already replied here (or, probably, it is unnecessary at all);
when I refer to the "active editors" in the sentence immediately after the template, I do not mean the members of our project, but all those editors who are active contributors to Wikipedia and have one of MOTD's templates on their userpages. This would be the next step and hope it will help recruiting new members;
in my humble opinion, those who are supporting the project, but have little time at their disposal, can still be considered active (supporter of the project).
A happy note: It was a long time (since February 2011 or so) that we didn't approve a motto with more than two positive comments (sometimes only one). Well, I've just approved three mottos with 4 in support, and we are okay until the 5th of May. There is still a lot to do, but if each of us can spend about 10 minutes a week, then things will turn out for the best. Thank You!!! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
About the MotD Project
Hello, I realize that in around April time the Motto of the Day project fell short for a while and as I understand it the board went without a motto for around a week. I think I've come up with an improvement. Even though at the moment the project seems quite stable, it could always return to the April scenario, so I was thinking that we could give out a little notice on the nominator's talk page (like with the DYK project), using Template:tmbox, to the motto of the day's nominator if their quote gets shown. For one, it would provide a few more links to the project so that people who see them go to the project page and secondly it would also make external viewers feel like it is a more rewarding process and will be more encouraged to provide a quote. Okay, thanks. That Ole Cheesy Dude(Talk to the hand!)14:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Several things. First of all, if someone proposes an idea, and then somebody else proposes a different version of said motto, which passes, who would get the credit? The original nominator, who came up with the quote, or the nominator of the passed version, who came up with the links? Second, there is a small number of people that regularly comes up with proposals, and frequently do in large batches, or propose edits for mottos that end up passing; these people would end up having an insane number of these templates, and whichever page contains these would quickly become too big. Even if that wasn't a problem, handing out award-ish things every day for this project seems to be rather idiotic; we really aren't all that important. MotD awards shouldn't be dominating one's award page; it lessens the meaning of them. For instance, look at my awards page. It looks rather idiotic, no? It would be far, far worse if we started handing these out. I do not think that we should do this. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)16:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
It's one notification per day, DYK give out around 20 per day, I don't think we need to worry about clogging up talk pages, that and the users can always move them to a separate page or delete them or do what they will of them. I don't see that as a problem at all really. And as to your first, I would think that the original person who proposed the idea should get the note, like what happens with DYKs really, people who've only edited the DYK don't get notified, but the original proposer does. And it doesn't matter whether the program is "important" or not, it's more about trying to convince others that there is a reason to contributing here.
As to your awards page, why not create something on a different subclass page, like say Blofeld does with his DYKs: User:Dr. Blofeld/DYK, do you think that looks stupid? and I agree about the discussion page comment, we probably shouldn't be doing this here (This comment was written before the move). That Ole Cheesy Dude(Talk to the hand!)17:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I want to share two ideas while I'm thinking about the proposal. First, if I'm not mistaken, DYK actually does credit both the writer of the article and of the DYK hook that is selected, if they are not the same person – see {{UpdatedDYK}} and {{UpdatedDYKNom}}. We may not want to follow DYK's model if this proposal is implemented but DYK seems to do this in order to incentivize improvement of hooks. Second, if the notifications are handled by a bot, there should be an opt-out list for editors who do not want to receive the notices. -- Black Falcon(talk)20:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
We should definitely credit the original submitter, as that will provide the most incentive to contribute. As for crediting the nominator, well, why not? :) The bot with blacklist idea has my support - seems a more elegant solution than AWB or doing it manually. Depends if we can find someone to program/run it, of course. — Mr. Stradivarius♫10:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I also agree that this is a good idea. Whoever closes the motto I'm afraid will get no recognition. Should I inform WT:DYK to come here to have a look, if anything is agreed? Simply south......digging mountains for 5 years15:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I still oppose the whole idea of this; MotD is not that important, and if we are now going to be handing out templates not only for the original nominator, but whoever nominated the final edit, there really will be far too many of these things being handed out. It will make them meaningless, in my opinion. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)22:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Proposal 2
What about writing a line like this one:
:<small>Nominated by [[User:Thecheesykid|That Ole Cheesy Dude]]</small>
That's nice, but that just gains the nominator some recognition and doesn't really spread the project around more... but I do think that's pretty good. Let's see what the others think... That Ole Cheesy Dude(Talk to the hand!)17:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea - if it is optional. By optional, I mean on the template end of things. Making it compulsory will take up extra space in the small templates, and that might annoy people who are jealously guard their userpage space. I do always like to see my name in lights though. ;) — Mr. Stradivarius♫10:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Shall we make the DYK people start putting a line like that under each hook as well? Nobody will care who nominated the motto, and even if they did, we would need to have two lines, so that the original nominator and the nominator of the final version get credit. In addition, is anyone volunteering let everyone using a MotD template know that this feature is optional, and that they can turn it off if they don't like it? ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)22:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
What about creating a table like the Leaderboard here at WP:Wikify with not a leaderboard but a simple table where we can update our numbers of nominations (updated by the nominator himself or herself) and approved mottos (updated by a decision maker) and then give them some {{MOTD Barnstar}}s based on time (e.g. quarterly=three months) AND/OR presence in the table and/or number of nominations (e.g. every 500 or 250)/approved mottos (e.g. every 100 or 50)? –pjoef (talk • contribs) 17:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, that is not my intention, but the example I have shown you above is. I think it should be more like a table that contains statistics and that, at some point, give awards to our contributors. One way to involve our participants and make them feel more aware and proud of their efforts. A sort of reward for effort and loyalty. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 18:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
This looks like a good idea to me too. I don't think we will develop any hopeless MOTD addicts just with a leaderboard, and anything to motivate more users to contribute will help. — Mr. Stradivarius♫07:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
WE GIVE OUT TOO MANY BARNSTARS. This would only add to that problem. Look at my awards page! These things will become (and really, they have, to some extent) meaningless! Barnstars shouldn't be handed out like candy; there should be meaning behind them. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)22:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
A tracking table, by itself, seems fairly harmless as long as we do not make it overly difficult to maintain. It may or may not be effective in attracting new participants or encouraging regular ones, but it could be worth a try. The decision to award barnstars or not based on numbers in the table can, in my opinion, be considered separately. -- Black Falcon(talk)06:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I think making them revolve around MOTD is a good idea - it's the reason I started contributing to this project in the first place. — Mr. Stradivarius♫07:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
We shouldn't be getting them out of the archives; we should use ones that have failed before, but were close to making it. In addition, I think that we should still propose the mottos, and make sure everyone is okay with them, before we put them on the list to be used. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)22:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, the biggest problem here at MOTD is that a few contributors take the time to review the nominations. So it was in April. There were enough nominations, but a few revisions. So, I think it is the case to think of something for that too. In other words, in some way we must think of a way to reward our contributors' effort to review the nominations. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
In my experience, that is not the case. For example: 5 of our contributors are participating in this discussion, so we may expect that there are at least 4 opinions for each of the nominations in the "In Review" section right now (excluding the nominator, of course), while there are at most 2 opinions for each nomination. Some (new but also old) contributors come out with a nomination, and either remain disappointed when Hi878 opposes to it [because he does not understand it (joking ~ lol) (^____^)], or, seeing it approved, they feel satisfied. I think that a few of us realize the real value (for our project) of assessing and helping to improve the nominations made by others. So it would be necessary (in my humble opinion and in some way) to reward those who do this very important work of reviewing. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
It seems reasonable to me that if we attract more nominations then a few will stick around to !vote on other mottos, though they will probably only be a small fraction of the total. We must also consider that if we make reviewing compulsory (like at WP:DYK) then we might make the barrier to making new nominations too high. How about working reviews into the leaderboard idea above? — Mr. Stradivarius♫10:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Yep! Here is a sample of the table (I don't like to call it leaderboard because I don't see it as a competition):
Q4 2011 Contributions to MoTD
Contributors
# of Nominations (updated by nominator)
# of Approved mottos (updated by decision makers)
# of Reviews (updated by nominator)
User 1
5
1
25
User 2
1
0
5
User 3
15
3
75
User 4
50
10
250
Totals
71
14
355
...and so on. The table should be unlimited (or limited to all contributors/contributions) (and eventually we can add new columns) and in this way, we can also take into account all the contributions to our project in a period of time (quarterly?). –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
In a quarter of the year = 3 months ≈ 12 weeks ≈ 90 days we need at least 100 approved mottos. If the number of contributors is equal to 5, then each editor must have 20 nominations approved (or 25 noms/4 contributors). To put those numbers into hawards/barnastars the result is something like this:
I don't like handing out barnstars like this, as I have said elsewhere. First of all, if this whole table idea goes through, but it ends up being ineffective, the few of us that are regulars will just be handing ourselves meaningless barnstars. Doesn't that seem rather idiotic? Especially when we gice out awards that supposedly mean quite a lot, such as the last few. In addition, I really don't think that this will help to attract contributors; we might get a couple more, but they'll probably not stick around long. Sorry to be pessimistic. :) Anyhoo, I don't think that we should give out awards that supposedly mean a lot (the last few, as I said) for a project that is as unimportant as MotD. I think it just lessens the value of them. Anyways, I think that my views are pretty darn obvious to all of you now; I don't think I really need to keep babbling. By the way, I support original versions of mottos... Occasionally... Maybe... I remember one, I think... ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)22:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
What a waste of barnstars. I still think inviting everyone who transcludes {{MOTD}} would work. If they want mottos daily, they should help. --The Σtalkcontribs05:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree that we don't want to be too trigger-happy with the barnstars. However, I think it's a matter of degree rather than one of principle - we can still use the leaderboard idea without flooding everyone with wikilove. — Mr. Stradivarius♫07:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
About the "meaningless" barnstars: Every effort that somehow occupies your time, and, at the same time, help Wikipedia and its community, is certainly not meaningless. Also, I can assure you that the vast majority of WikiProjects are, to say the least and excluding drives period, "less active", and I am part of many of them (Albums, Biography, Discographies, Films, Music, Songs, Wikify just to say a few).
I personally will not collect nor accept any awards for reviewing, nominating and etcetera. My totals (as well as those of all other contributors) will be included there to keep track of our progress.
Hi878, if I remember correctly, I found out all your (4?) secret pages (plus one on the German Wikipedia ... but I do not remember well) ... and I'm still waiting for those awards! ... joking (^_____^)
About the invitations: The Σ, I did this task for at least three times. The first time I sent many invitations and the result was a glass half full (or, if you prefer, half empty). From the second time on, the number of messages sent has become smaller because many users had already been contacted before (without result). Now, when there are problems, I check out who is actively contributing to MoTD and ask for their help. This works much better, but it is likely to bore people.
I think that we really need something able to attract and loyalize new users, and any initiative in this direction would be more than welcome.
My dear sir, I did not call what we do meaningless. I said that handing out tons of barnstars for this project makes the barnstars meaningless. If you can get the {{Superior}} award just for tweaking a link in a motto a few times, what is it really worth? By the way, I didn't have a secret page on the German Wikipedia (although I think that I know who you are thinking of), but I got rid of the barnstar (along with the rest of that stuff) because my thinking changed to exactly what I have said above. :) If you all really are determined to have this table/leaderboard/WHATEVER thing, I think that you should give users an option to have a placeholder replace their name, like on this page. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)19:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
That table is just an example, there are three different methods (one for each column), and we can change both numbers and awards. I do not think that 100+ approved mottos is "a link in a motto a few times" (>=101 approved mottos during a period of 3 months is more than the necessary count of mottos needed [c.a. 90 in 3 months]), but as I wrote before it is just an example. I understand that you do not like the whole idea. I'm just trying to find a way to "retain" our old and new contributors. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
This just encourages people to rush through nominations so that they can get them chalked up to their name. We want useful participation, leaderboards should only be used in a competitive environment - MOTD is not that environment. —James(Talk • Contribs) • 6:25pm •08:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this is something I've always wanted to change/revamp. My original idea was to group the special nominations by month, introducing 12 second-level subheadings (one for each month, of course), but this would result in a change of the level of the headings of the nominations, which in turn, would lead to some difficulties in the approval and archiving tasks. For these reasons, I have not proposed this change before. I think that grouping nominations by month may help nominators to place their special nominations in the right place, and reviewers to do their job better. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 13:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
If it was done that way, it would be a bit harder to tell when a new one has been proposed; if it stayed how it is, but people actually payed attention, I think it would be fine. :) ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)22:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
On Hi878
I never knew how little the project would accomplish if it weren't for Hi878... until now. The answer is very little. --Σtalkcontribs07:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I actually think MOTD is more of a vote than a !vote... if you like the nomination, you can't really explain why. --Σtalkcontribs20:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
What makes you say that, my dear sir? I was only gone for a few days... Am I really that important? It seems to be that way with the WP:TCG project too... I suppose it's a good thing, if I have places that need me. :) ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)18:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Done!!! (moved discussion from User talk:Pjoef to the proper space.) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 16:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
--The Σ talkcontribs 06:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC) 
