Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/Archive 21

< Wikipedia:Motto of the day‎ | Nominations
Archive 15 ← Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 → Archive 25


→ Fortune favours the brave.

Alternatively, fortune could link to WP:FA, but I know that there have been a lot of FA-based mottos. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 08:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Weakest support. Excellent Latin proverb, but it has been used recently in Archive 12 ~ Fortune favours the brave. Also, I prefer the original version audentes fortuna iuvat from Virgil's Aeneid X, p. 284, and with the English translation in reduced font size and in a newline. Code:
    ===[[Fortune favours the bold|→]] [[WP:BB|audentes]] [[WP:BARN|fortuna]] iuvat.<br /><small>("Fortune favours the brave")</small>===

    –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong Oppose - While I do generally prefer using the english translation of a saying if it is more prevalant than the Latin, I do not think we should be reusing mottos. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment - Sorry! I forgot to check the archives, so I didn't realise it had been used. I'll leave it up for review, since the links are different, but I do see now that this was used less than a year ago. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 16:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  Reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

→ Around the mighty master came
The marvels which his pencil wrought,
Those miracles of power whose fame
Is wide as human thought.

John Greenleaf Whittier (1807–1892), Raphael. The United States Democratic Review, vol. 11, issue 54, pp. 578–579–580 (December 1842). –pjoef (talk • contribs) 06:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  Reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  Declined in favour of edit1. Simply south (talk)

→ Around the mighty master came
The marvels which his pencil wrought,
Those miracles of power whose fame
Is wide as human thought.

Edit 1 per UberScienceNerd.

  • Support - This is definitely a marked improvement over the last version. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

  Reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  • It has a nice flow to it without it being too cluttered, and the links are perfect, so...Support!  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 20:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

  Approved edit 1 per weak consensus. Simply south (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

→Oh no, it's the heat!

Something I came up with, regarding blocking. What do you think? —Coastergeekperson04's talk@May/29/09 03:27

  • Oppose - Sorry, but eh? –Juliancolton | Talk 05:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm not really sure what you're going for here. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Is this like a catchphrase from a movie or something? If so, I suggest that you arrow-link it.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 21:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Author's note It is as if there were a vandal getting caught and blocked, analogous to a real-life vandal getting arrested. "Oh no, it's the heat!" is a phrase used by 3J from an episode of Family Matters. —Coastergeekperson04's talk@Jun/02/09 00:52
      • Sorry, but in that case my oppose stands due to the obscurity of this phrase. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Question - What does blocking users from editing have to with 'Oh no, it's the heat!'? Noneofyour (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

  Reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Be the change you wish to see in the world.

This is my first time doing this so I'm unsure as to whether we can use quotes by others; this is a favorite of mine by Gandhi. It's supposed to convey that you must be bold to build Wikipedia. –blurpeace (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment Just a small note, you should probably use → at the start and the world should or usually links to the encyclopaedia itself. Otherwise Support. Simply south (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It's perfectly okay to use quotes from other people, as long as you relate it to Wikipedia (commonly by linking, as you did here). If your second link is changed to simply Wikipedia, you have my support. If you choose to do this, you should create an "edit 1" for this motto. Read about how to do so here.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 20:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

  Declined (in favour of edit 1) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

→ You must be the change you wish to see in the world.

Edit 1. Per Artichoke-Boy and Simply south, changing, "the world" link to Wikipedia. Making a few more edits, and correcting the quote. Tell me what you think. –blurpeace (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Support both versions. Good to see someone new here BTW, we are a little low on manpower :) Chamal talk 02:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per me  :)  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 18:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Excellent linking, and I'm amazed this quote hasn't already been used. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - per nutik Noneofyour (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: And I second Chamal's comment; good to see someone new, :) SpitfireTally-ho! 17:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support ~ Great words of peACE and good links! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/July 11, 2009 (per WP:SNOW) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The absence of a yes rarely equals the presence of a no.

I came up with this saying a while ago, and applied it to WP:DRNC, which I find to be an important Wiki-topic. I don’t think the motto is too difficult to understand. But to avoid any confusion, it simply means that just because there is no YES, does not mean that it's a NO, and you shouldn’t jump to conclusions (e.g. reverting based on no consensus).  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 01:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - Excellent message. Chamal talk 02:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - This is a message that many wikipedians need drilled into their brains. Maybe with lasers. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Sure, great message, no confusion. Icy // ♫ 02:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support!!! ~ Message and link are excellent. Very well done!!! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/July 10, 2009 (per WP:SNOW) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

→ Lamp oil, rope, bombs? You want it? It's yours, my friend, as long as you have enough rupees.

Another CD-i reference, this quote is spoken by the shopkeeper in Link: The Faces of Evil. Some of my links could use improvement if you have better ideas. UberScienceNerd Talk Contributions 19:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Support. Funny...good links.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 20:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not too fond of this one. Primarily because linking WP:RCA to rupees (the form of money in the Zelda games) seems to be implying corruption to me. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: I like it. Cureden 17:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

  Reopened - no complete consensus. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Support - On further consideration, the corruption angle is a very extreme interpretation, and the initial tool links are funny. I withdraw my opposition. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support: per above. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/July 9, 2009 (per consensus) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

→ Every bond you break,
Every step you take,
I’ll be watching you.

These are some lines from "Every Breath You Take," a great song by Sting.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 21:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose: Vandalism is a bond and CUV is breaking those bonds? I don't like that interpretation at all. And the other part sounds too much like stalking to me, since it says that we will be watching the the development of articles. Chamal talk 03:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I didn't mean for this motto to sound so negative, as you explained it to be. As for the whole "vandalism, bond" issue, I simply meant to say that vandalism is a harmful bond between an article and a user, but it can be broken by methods of WP: CUV (cleaning up vandalism). Also, what's so bad about keeping up with ("watching") the development of articles? I don't expect you to change your vote, I'm just trying to clarify the message that I was trying to convey with this motto. Feel free to make some suggestions (links, wording) that could make the motto better as well.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 15:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I didn't mean you wanted it to mean that way. But it could be interpreted that way, couldn't it? That's what I was worried about. Chamal talk 05:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, maybe you're right. How about we let some more votes come in before we jump to any conclusions.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 13:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Sure. This is my opinion, and if anyone can convince me to the contrary, I am willing to change it of course. Chamal talk 13:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

  Declined (no consensus) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

→ Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

A famous quote from Martin Luther King Jr. Hopefully the links are okay.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 20:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - The quote is, of course, great. The links aren't bad; though WP:NOT isn't exactly my idea of injustice, I can't think of a better link off-hand, so it's cool. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: I'm not exactly in love with the justice link, but I can't think of anything better either. It's good enough anyway. Chamal talk 11:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

  Declined (in favour of edit 1) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

→ Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

Edit 1. I'm getting some negative feedback on the WP: NOT link. I've changed it here to WP: VAND, which was actually by first link idea. I made it WP: NOT, though, because I thought the vandalism link was much too overused.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 20:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong Support - I think this linking is an improvement over the original WP:NOT link. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks good. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support ~ good 1 & better ver. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

  Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/July 8, 2009 (per consensus) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

When two elephants fight, the grass gets hurt.

This is about edit wars. Noneofyour (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Support - I would argue that the wikipedians involved are also hurt, but the quote is good and the links do generally fit, so I'm OK with it. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support per Nutiketaiel. Although I do like the last link a lot (take that for alliteration!).  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 19:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Edit wars != vandalism, usually. I'd offer my full support if the last link is changed to WP:CONTENT or such. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

  Declined (in favour of edit 1) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

When two elephants fight, the grass gets hurt.

Edit 1: per Juliancolton (last link changed to WP:CONTENT). –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Support ~ I am not totally into it, but I prefer this version. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - This really isn't very different from the first version. I support them both equally, and for the same reasons I note above. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

  Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/July 7, 2009 (per consensus) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

→ A professional in a money suit is still a professional.

This is a not-so-well-known quote from "Bart the Fink," an episode of The Simpsons. I knew I could apply the saying to Wikipedia some how...and I ended up with this.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 20:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per FUI This is getting very repetitive now. See Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/Archive 16#Even if you dress a monkey in silk, it is still a monkey and Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/Archive 20#→A pig painted gold is still a pig Simply south (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose - Yeah, I think we need to lay off calling the admins monkeys for a while. Let's think of something new to call them. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  Declined (no consensus) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever!

Followed by probably a not-so-good one. Simply south (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

  Declined (no consensus) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There are more than two sides to every story

Simply south (talk) 09:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - A good saying that highlights an important process for disputing editors to take advantage of. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - It's one of the motto's I would like to see on motto of the day. Noneofyour (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. A great spin on a common saying. I've never heard of WP: 3o until now as well.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 20:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support ~ not a bad one but not a very good one either. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

  Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/July 6, 2009 (per consensus) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Charity isn't the only thing that can help those in need, you can too.

Noneofyour (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment: It's us (editors) that make up the Wikiprojects too, so whether you contribute to the development through a collaboration in a Wikiproject or you do it alone, it's pretty much the same thing. I thought it makes Wikiprojects look like something else, something we are not associattd with. Chamal talk 01:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I agree with Chamal's statement above. I also feel that we should not be referring to working with the wikiprojects as "charity." It makes the wikiprojects, vital and important parts of the Wikipedia process comprised of alot of dedicated people, sound like pan-handlers, standing on a streetcorner asking people is they have any spare edits. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

  Declined (no consensus) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

→ Oh, we got it easy,
We oughta take it easy.

Jackson Browne and Glenn Frey, "Take It Easy", first single by the Eagles (May 1, 1972), opening track on the band's debut album, Eagles, and it is one of The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's 500 Songs that Shaped Rock and Roll. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 06:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose - I'm not sure how making featured articles and writing better articles can be described as taking it easy... Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - How is this related to the saying? Noneofyour (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The links are kind of contradictory... same thoughts as Nutiketaiel. Chamal talk 14:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I know that achieving the FA status is a "hard job" but I used those links just for this reason. So, take it easy and keep it simple! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

  Declined (no consensus) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes you can't win a war without help.

It took some time to find links but once I found them I felt stupid for not thinking of them. Noneofyour (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

  Declined per WP:SNOW. Simply south (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Influenced by many; Defined by none.

I believe I heard this catchy little slogan in a car ad. Hopefully it suffices as an MOTD.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 19:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Support - Not bad, though I would argue that we are also defined by the many, though I suppose the difference is semantic. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support ~ per NutiK. Toyota Venza - Define Yourself - "You Have Been Influenced by Many But Defined by None." –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  Reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Neutral - I can agree with NutiK, many people argue if wikipedia is a reliable source. However I do like the links for 'influenced by many'. Noneofyour (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Irate Reply - I didn't say anything about whether or not we are a reliable source, and I'd thank you not to put words in my mouth. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment - I'm sorry, I thought that was what you meant. Noneofyour (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Reply - No, that's not what I was going for at all. Indeed, I consider Wikipedia to be as reliable as any print encyclopedia, if not more so (though you're obviously right that people argue about it). The point that I was trying to make was that, in being influenced by the "many," we are also defined by the many; indeed, in large part we are defined by the fact that we ARE influenced by the many. As I said in my original comment, the difference is largely semantic, since I think what the motto is trying to say is that because we are influenced by many, no single person or group can define us, which is an equally valid sentiment (and which is why I offered the motto my weak support instead of opposing it). Sorry if I snapped at you. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

  Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree

This is a pretty well-known saying.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 20:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Support - I see what you're going for, but this quote can lend itself to either a positive or negative interpretation, so why not go positive? How about "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree." instead? That version is much more positive, and highlights a useful and important Wikipedia program. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - Sorry, just seems a bit... off. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

  Declined in favour of edit 1. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Edit 1 per Nutiketaiel's suggestion.

  • Support, per my above. Oh, and whoever put this here really needs to sign it. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I like it. Noneofyour (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support ~ better version. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

  Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/July 3, 2009 (per consensus) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

→ I am not now in fortune's power;
He that is down can fall no lower.

Samuel Butler (1612–1680), Hudibras, Part I, Canto III (1663) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 06:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose - I do not really get why "I am not now in fortune's power" is linked to a page about sock puppet investigations. I'm also not that clear on why the last two links are paired- obviously "he" (the long term abuser) can fall lower- by being banned, as you suggest with the second link. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: the wikipedian who created the sock puppet is saying that he is not in fortune's power. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Reply - He's not? Why not? Wait, who's fortune in this metaphor? Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Re-Reply: He has been unmasked and his accounts have been suspended (^___^). –pjoef (talk • contribs) 15:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Reply - Wouldn't that mean that he is in fortune's power, since he no longer has the power to control his own accounts? Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
It may be, but there is a good chance that it might not be, and vice versa. It depends on the perspective from which it is interpreted. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 17:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per Nutik, I too do not understand the links. Perhaps they could be tweaked. Wikiert T S C 13:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

  Reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

  Declined - no consensus. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

'Nothing is true, Everything is permitted'. It does not tell us to be free. It tells us to be wise.

This is a line from Altaïr, a character in the game Assassin's Creed. I thought after looking at it that may do well as a motto for a day, so i suggested it. Feel free to butcher it or remove if needed. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  Reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

  Declined in favour of edit 1. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Everything is permitted. It does not tell us to be free. It tells us to be wise.

Edit 1- Per my suggestions above. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - I like it. The links and the saying fits together like a puzzle. Noneofyour (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per Nutik. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. Perfect message!  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 20:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

  Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/July 2, 2009 (per consensus) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

→ There's something strange about that "SOP" sign.

I don't know if things have changed around here, but this is the kind of thing that would have been classified as "bland" a month ago :P Anyway, this is the best I can come up with... my brain's rusty. Chamal talk 13:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Support - You're right it is kind of bland. But I like how it says to find a reliable source by using evidence. Noneofyour (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Welcome back, Chamal. It's not that bland; I think it's kind of funny, and WP:DUCK doesn't get enough attention, in my opinion.  :-) Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support –Juliancolton | Talk 16:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support ~ Per Julian :). –pjoef (talk • contribs) 06:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

  Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/July 1, 2009. Enough additional votes have been added to form a consensus. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Awards aren't very important, but once you get it you realize that you aren't proud that you got it, you are proud of what you did to get it.

Noneofyour (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

  Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/June 30, 2009. Enough additional votes have been added to form a consensus. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't accomplish very much in life if you don't believe you can

I just made this up one day. Noneofyour (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - It is a good saying, but the MotD Guidelines call on us to use mottos that have a clear link to Wikipedia, which we usually establish through the links to various policy and essay pages. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Possible Alternative Linking: Maybe linking the whole quote to WP: BOLD would suffice? Just a suggestion.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 21:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Sure im not good with the links. There Noneofyour (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks OK now. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Encourages editors to be bold. ~AH1(TCU) 21:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support ~ nice one. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 06:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support. This is okay, but i find it too similar to this one. Simply south (talk) 09:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

  Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/June 29, 2009. Enough additional votes have been added to form a consensus. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

→ There’s a time and place for everything

What more can I say? Artichoke-Boy (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Support ~ This is a version of there is a time for everything. Some sources:

    &#147;Remember: → there is tyme and place for euery thynge.&#148; ~ Alexander Barclay (1476–1552)/Sebastian Brant (1457–1521), The Ship of Fools (1494)

    &#147;But → there is a time and place for everything, and sometimes the warmest admirer of ale would prefer the lymph of the hill-side fountain to the choicest ale that ever foamed in tankard from the cellars of Holkham. Here are the lines most faithfully rendered&#148; ~ George Borrow (1803–1881), Wild Wales, Chapter IVII, "The Fairies’ Well", (1862).

    It's a good one. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - The WP:NOW link, while amusing, doesn't seem to add much to the quote. Still, there's nothing wrong with it and it does seem to work as written, so I'm OK with it. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

  Reopened - not enough discussion. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Umm, I think we can vote again, but I'm not sure about this. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 06:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Reply - Nobody "votes," as Wikipedia is not a democracy. You express your opinion in an effort to work towards a consensus. As you have already expressed your opinion, doing so again is generally redundant unless you have something new to add to the conversation. And shame on both of you for using the dreaded v-word.  :-P Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - I can agree with everything except the time. In real life there is not really a time to do something everywhere. Noneofyour (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

  Approved per weak consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

→ I felt that as long as we were being honest,
and that we didn't bend the truth to accomplish another goal...
we'd be able to tell the story the way it happened.

Hopefully the links aren't too confusing on this one.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 18:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Support: Good one, the quote is the kind that I shudder to try and think up links for, you've done a great job SpitfireTally-ho! 19:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support ~ Good quote and good links. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Excellent links with a strong message. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

→ Every great mistake has a halfway moment, a split second when it can be recalled and perhaps remedied.

As you may have guessed, I'm looking at quotes on mistakes SpitfireTally-ho! 18:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

  • If "halfway moment" is linked to WP: T2T, my vote would be support on this one.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 19:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support for the current version; it makes an excellent point. I am not opposed to Artichoke-Boy's suggested revision, but I do not think it is really necessary, and I am a little concerned about cluttering the quote with links. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Yep, looks good. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support ~ Great quote and good links. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - The links fit with the saying and it is easy to understand. Noneofyour (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

  Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

→ From the sublime to the ridiculous is but a step.

I'm pretty confident about this one. IMO it accurately stresses the fact that a single edit can essentially render an article useless. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

  • We certainly don't consider ourselves "reliable".   Regardless, you have a point, so  Yfixed. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I consider Wikipedia reliable... Anyway, per my above, I change my position to Support. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

→ No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted.

Links could be better, as ever SpitfireTally-ho! 18:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment: Yeah, I really think the links should be changed around. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think welcoming new users is considered "small" acts of kindness. Linking "how small" to something different will be an improvement. I'll make a suggestion when I think of it.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 19:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I like the sentiment, and I don't have a problem linking the WC to "how small." For one thing, it's just a little poetic license (like when we exagerate something in other quotes) and, for another, welcoming new users is usually just a matter of posting a template on their talk page. It really is a small thing, but it is a nice thing that is good to do, and that is the point of the quote. I think it should stay the way it is. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Note, this has been done before. See Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/Archive 3#No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted. Simply south (talk) 11:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose – It has been done before. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 17:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - We're not yet at the point where we need to reuse mottos. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: Didn't relise it had been used already, my mistake, can someone who knows how remove this to the archive or whatever it is that one does to close these? Thanks SpitfireTally-ho! 18:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Reply: We don't need to be in a rush and you don't need to apologize. Don't worry, you have not made a mistake (^___^)! It is not a mandatory requirement to close a motto that has been used before and any discussion on this page that is more than two weeks old may be closed (approved, rejected, or reopened). Our beloved archivist, Simply south, will be unable to edit for the next week. (see: Decisions→Archival, Closing procedure and Scheduling procedure.) And, if you have any problems, leave me a message and I'll try my best to help you and our project. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

  Declined - withdrawn per FUI. Simply south (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Anger makes you smaller, while forgiveness forces you to grow beyond what you were.

I quite like this one, hope people don't mind the first link? If you do just say so, also, can anyone think of a link for "grow beyond what you were"? Maybe better to leave it unlinked? SpitfireTally-ho! 18:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment: Maybe linking "what you were" to WP:DISRUPT would be better.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 19:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I think it is fine the way it is and that the last section doesn't need to be linked. If you guys insist on linking it, though, I think we should try to find a page on reformed vandals to link the entire "grow beyond what you were" statement to. Does anybody know any pages like that? Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support – I quite like this one too. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 17:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

  Approved per weak consensus. Simply south (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a world full of strong opinions,
you just have to know where to find them.

I wanted to have a motto centering around Wikipedia essays...an important aspect of Wikipedia that's pretty much left out at MOTD.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 18:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Support ~ Good one. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Excellent linking, and a good reminder to people that there is a time and place for POV. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Yes! ~AH1(TCU) 21:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Great links. Noneofyour (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

  Approved per WP:SNOW. Simply south (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a world full of strong opinions,
you just have to know where to find them.

Edit 1. Alternate linking.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 23:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  Declined in favour of original. Simply south (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Know thy enemy, know thy friend

Does this work? Simply south (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Hmmm... I don't think the link works. "Know thy enemy" implies, to me, a prejudgement which assuming good faith would normally preclude. Still, I could be wrong, and I'm interested in hearing other interpretations. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose in its current form, support suggested links: "Know thy enemy, know thy friend." –Juliancolton | Talk 14:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment - Hmmmm... yes, I would support those suggested links. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
      • New Comment - On further study and consideration, I would actually have to oppose those links. They seem to imply that we should only assume good faith only with our friends, which is not the way WP:AGF should work at all. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support (with Juliancolton set of links.) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

  Reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

  Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The onus is on us.

~AH1(TCU) 21:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - I like this one. It reminds everyone that it is our responsibility to combat vandalism, and that it is not something we should ignore and leave to others. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, yep. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Nice job. Noneofyour (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support ~ Good one! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 06:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

  Approved per WP:SNOW for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/June 23, 2009. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

→ The art of knowing is knowing what to ignore.

This is a saying, said by Rumi, that I've always found to be interesting. Naturally, it was only a matter of time before I turned it into an MOTD a possible MOTD.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 21:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - Sure, I like it. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks good to me. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Helps to prevent lame edit wars. ~AH1(TCU) 21:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support ~ Well done! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 06:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

  Approved per WP:SNOW for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/June 22, 2009. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The only thing more rewarding then helping someone.
Is helping someone in need.

This one's about the backlog...something I was just introduced to yesterday.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 19:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Support When I saw it I thought that it was going to be about helping newcomers, however, this is pretty smartly done, plus I'm pretty peeved at the backlog forming at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion at the moment :) SpitfireTally-ho! 19:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: I took the liberty of adding a full stop SpitfireTally-ho! 19:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - The backlog is definitely something that needs a little attention drawn to it. Well done. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Good idea. ~AH1(TCU) 21:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - One of the best ones I've seen. Noneofyour (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

  Approved per WP:SNOW. Simply south (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

→ His pencil was striking, resistless, and grand;
His manners were gentle, complying, and bland;
Still born to improve us in every part,
His pencil our faces, his manners our heart.

Oliver Goldsmith (1728-1774), Retaliation (Sir Joshua Reynolds) (1774) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Support. Interesting quote. Few suggestions though: 1) maybe linking "His" to "WP: editor" or "WP: USER" would be better, and 2) maybe it's just me, but the last two links seem kind of confusing. Maybe you should change them if other users say you should too. My vote's still support though. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Given that I'm joking and that I never vote for my proposed mottos... do you really thing that WP:Editor or WP:USER are better than BETTER (^________^)??? I'm kidding (^__^), it makes sense and [probably] both links are better than "better" (^__^). About the last two links: well, in the last line, "his pencil" is linked to Special:Contributions and it is related to wikipedians/contributors/editors [obv.], so I thought to use WP:AWARDS for his manners (again related to editors) and WP:FPORT as the result of our efforts. If we link the first occurrence of his pencil to another "thingy" (^__^) (a.k.a. WP:Editor or WP:USER...) then we could change WP:AWARDS with WP:BETTER. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - It's not that bad, I guess, though the quote is a little rambling. I don't like linking to WP:GEP- linking to a historical page is OK sometimes, but this one is a page that hasn't been used in almost three years and who's function has been replaced by other pages, like the tea page. Additionally, I don't like including the word "bland" in the link to the manual of style. It's not there to make the pages bland, it's there to help raise and maintain the overall quality of the prose of the encyclopedia. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - I can see the point you're making, but it's a bit confusing and rambling. Also, I agree with Nutiketaiel about the WP:GEP link. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 14:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

  Reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

  Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

→ Livery: Like a liver

Does this work? Simply south (talk) 09:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Support - I find it funny, and there's nothing wrong with an occasional simple and light-hearted motto. My only concern is that many readers might not know what livery is, as the word is not commonly used these days, and may therefore miss the joke. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm sure everyone knows what it is. SpitfireTally-ho! 16:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Reply - I'm sure everyone here at MotD knows what it is. I'm not sure the average Wikipedia user will. As a non-scientific experiment, yesterday after I saw this motto I asked 15 people that I work with if they knew what the word livery meant. Four did, two thought they did, but were wrong (though one of them thought it was another word for "stable," which I guess is kind of close), and nine had no idea. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. (of new suggestions) Have we had a dictionary definition before? These new suggestions for improvement are okay as well. Sockiert (comments here please) (Contribs) 11:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. It's kinda strange, and I agree with Nutiketaiel with his point that some users might not get the joke. But it is funny, and different. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

  Declined in favour of edit 1. Simply south (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

→ Livery: Like a liver

Fix up. edit 1. Simply south (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Support. Per my sock and others. But why is it quoted as I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue? Wikiert T S C 14:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    • They originally came up with the Uxbridge English Dictionary, a book full of daft definitions and play on words, the title it self a play on Oxford English Dictionary. But i am changing it back, this did come from the book (the uxbridge one, not oxford) rather than the radio series. Simply south (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support – We may also change the link for "Livery" with WP:HERALD. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per my above comments. The reason the link for livery is this way is because of concerns that some wikipedians might not know what "livery" means otherwise. See above discussion. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

  Approved edit 1 per consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

→ Maybe on a slow news day

Everyone will probably hate me for this. (Please correct the link if i have the user who first said it wrong) Simply south (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak support - Eh, I don't see why not. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Well... I'm certainly flattered by the reference, but I'm not certain we should be referencing ourselves in the mottos. As I am biased, however, I defer to the decisions of the rest of the team (though, or course, I reserve the right of my Imperial Veto  ;-) ). Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Well, its funny to us lot, however, if we think about the kind of a user who has a MOTD template on their page, but has never actually visited the project, it wouldn't make sense to them, sorry SpitfireTally-ho! 08:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support + Note: He (or His Majesty) continues to be a great source ["of entertainment" (^___^)] to me. I'm joking, of course... well, half-joking (^___^)! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

  Reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak support. It is okay, I think it may work. Wikiert T S C 13:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support – per above. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 17:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Spitfire; most people reading the motto would probably not understand the inside joke. --UberScienceNerd Talk Contributions 18:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

  Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

→ If fighting in a salt-marsh, you should have water and grass near you, and get your back to a clump of trees.

The idea is, you have reliable sources to assist you in the editing of the article, and you have to establish notability to kind of secure a place for the article. Chamal talk 15:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose - I think the quote can work, I just don't think it's wise to link "fighting" to WP:Article development. I can't think of a better set of links offhand, though... Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • IDK: How about grouping fighting in a salt-marsh and using one of the following shortcuts?
    1. Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than a year - WP:AR1
    2. Wikipedia:Most wanted articles - WP:MWA
    3. Wikipedia:Most wanted stubs - WP:MWS
    4. Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles - WP:MEA
    5. Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Hot - WP:HOT
    6. Wikipedia:Guide to improving articles - WP:IA
    7. Wikipedia:Articles for creation - WP:AFC
    8. Wikipedia:Requested articles - WP:RA
    9. Wikipedia:Stub - WP:STUB
    10. Category:Stubs - WP:STUBS
    11. Wikipedia:Article creation - WP:ACR
    My favourite is the last one. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply to Pjoef - Again, I'm really not that keen on linking "fighting" to anything regarding article building. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

  Reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

  Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

→ Everybody likes a kidder, but nobody lends him money

Edit... 3 I think we're up to now?- I thought this link might help salvage the quote. Everybody likes the occasional prank or joke on April Fool's Day, but we're not about to reward somebody for it, especially when so many get out of hand (and so many editors have sticks up their butts about the whole thing). In any case, it's better than saying we like vandals. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

  Reopened - not enough discussion. Simply south (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - This should really be used on April fools itself. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 18:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply. Maybe. I don't know really, perhaps it would be more suitable for one of the days after, when all the day's pranks are being catalogued. Wikiert T S C 13:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I thing the first link should be to WP:VAN. —Coastergeekperson04's talk@May/27/09 01:11
    • Reply - This is really why we need to keep entire conversations together when these things are relisted. Some of the original suggestions included that, but were widely rejected because they implied that everybody likes vandals, which is absolutely not the case. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Do not link "kidder" to WP: VANDAL!  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 21:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

→ Did I do that?

I'm not sure about the external link, but this is the catchphrase of clumsy Steve Urkel. Any 80's and 90's sitcom fan would understand. —Coastergeekperson04's talk@Jun/02/09 00:57

  • Strong oppose - Not a motto... –Juliancolton | Talk 01:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry, but it just doesn't work SpitfireTally-ho! 07:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - It's pretty non-sensical, and why would you link to a vandalism diff? Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  Declined (per WP:SNOW) Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

→ Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.

Written by strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 10:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong Support - I love it; the link to WP:BEANS is priceless. By the way, I've taken the liberty of removing the second "the" from the last link, which I assume was a typo. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Funny and catchy!  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 18:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support ~ per Nutik-Boy. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Humourous and creative. ~AH1(TCU) 21:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/June 17, 2009 (per consensus) Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

→ No man chooses evil because it is evil; he only mistakes it for happiness, the good he seeks.

As always, I'm doubtful, but it's worth a shot. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong Support!!! – It's quite perfect. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 15:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I like this one, an excellent reminder about faith assumptions. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per Nutiketaiel.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 19:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Wonderful. ~AH1(TCU) 21:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/June 16, 2009 (per consensus) Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

→ Change happens by listening and then starting a dialogue with the people who are doing something you don't believe is right.

Underlines some ways to deal with edit wars, I think :). Not sure about the second link, feel free to oppose, all comments are appreciated SpitfireTally-ho! 18:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - All three links look good to me. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support - Eh, it's not very exciting. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 17:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. The links are fine. But the saying just isn't very stimulating.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 19:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Encourages resolution of problems. ~AH1(TCU) 21:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/June 15, 2009 (per consensus) Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

→ And so I penn’d
It down, until it came at last to be
For length and breadth the bigness which you see.

John Bunyan (1628–1688), The Pilgrim's Progress from This World to That Which Is to Come, Part 1, The Author’s Apology for His Book (1678). –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Support. The links perfectly compliments the quote. Nice one!  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 11:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Indeed, nice job with the links. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Good idea, but the second-last link doesn't seem to be linking to anything different than WP:FA. ~AH1(TCU) 21:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/June 14, 2009 (per WP:SNOW) Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The cogs that keep the wheel turning

Not sure where i heard this or i have made it up. I'm not sure. Simply south (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Support. Interesting.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 19:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - I guess it's good to remind people that they can (and probably should) donate to the foundation, but the motto itself is a little meh. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 17:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per Pjoef.   –Juliancolton | Talk 17:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I was concise, clear and to the point (^____^). –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/June 13, 2009 (per consensus) Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to do it...why not do it in style?

A little saying I made up, or got from somewhere else. I forget which one. Either way, here it is.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 22:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - I like that, it's clever, and we don't end up linking to the WP:MOS very often. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 17:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support — Jake Wartenberg 01:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Good idea and links, especially the last one. ~AH1(TCU) 21:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/June 12, 2009 (per WP:SNOW) Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

A diamond in the rough

Simply south (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Conditional Weak Support - There's nothing wrong with it, just a little meh. My support is conditional because I can't imagine that we haven't used this motto before; if we have used it before, change to strong oppose per my infinite monkey policy. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Before suggesting this, i did look in the archives and it has not been done before. Simply south (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
      • OK, it has my weak support then. Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support - This works, but I think we've all grown a bit tired of the "Stub → FA" mottoes. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support: How about changing the first link to this Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 21, 2024? Or, changing the phrase to "→ Like a diamond in the sky!"? –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: The saying is great, but your message here (the links) has been DONE TO DEATH. Try changing the links to something a little more original. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  Declined (In favor of Edit 1, below) Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

A diamond in the rough

An alternative. Simply south (talk) 11:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Support. This one's WAY better than your previous one. I like the links. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - I never really had a problem with the links, I just find the saying a little bland. I have no real preference between this version and the other version, so both get my weak support. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  Reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 09:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

  Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/June 11, 2009 (per consensus) Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Three strikes and you're out!

I'm pretty sure this saying hasn't been used already as an MOTD. Also, I'm fully aware that there are exceptions to the 3RR-block...but I hope you think of it as "in general."  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 18:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  Declined - withdrawn\Frequently used idea. Simply south (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

→ The greatest mistake you can make in life is to be continually fearing you will make one.

Maybe its a little ugly linking the whole thing? But I can't think of where to put the link if not everywhere, any ideas? SpitfireTally-ho! 18:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Linking Alternative: How about "→ The greatest mistake you can make in life is to be continually fearing you will make one"?  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 19:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support for the original text. Weak Support for Artichoke-Boy's suggested links. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I thing this is a pretty good motto Noneofyour (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support the original. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support for the original version. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  Approved per WP:SNOW for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/June 10, 2009. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Focusing too hard on the needle will prevent you from seeing the haystack.

My take on the famous "needle and haystack" saying.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 19:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong Support - I like it; this one is actually very clever. It emphasizes the relative rarity of vandals in Wikipedia when compared to reliable contributors. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per above. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support – It's OK! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 15:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Nice job! Noneofyour (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  Approved per WP:SNOW for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/June 9, 2009. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Every dog deserves two bites

I got this one from 4 star General Nimitz in a World War 2 book. Noneofyour (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose: Mottos should relate to wikipedia, can you think of a way to link it to make in about editing wikipedia? SpitfireTally-ho! 17:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Many people vandalism in their history on Wikipedia, however, that doesn't mean they can't be trusted and can get another as users don't get blocked from editing if they do vandalism once. Noneofyour (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

  Declined in favour of edit 1. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Every dog deserves two bites

Edit 1, per comment above SpitfireTally-ho! 18:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - Good re-working of the motto to fit it within the bounds of Wikipedia. Nice work, both of you. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Nice job indeed. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per above.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 18:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support ~ I prefer this version. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  Approved per WP:SNOW for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/June 8, 2009. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It's okay to bend the rules, but you should never break them.

It might not be original, but I came up with it myself. —Coastergeekperson04's talk@May/26/09 03:52

  • Support I like it!  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 19:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - It's not bad, but we may get some angry letters from fanatical WP:IAR supporters who'll claim we're mis-interpreting it. Aww, shucks, who am I kidding, we never get angry letters. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Normally I'd oppose due to the misinterpretation of IAR, but the link to WP:VAND makes it work. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Clarification Request - Does that count as an angry letter? Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per above. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  Approved per WP:SNOW for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/June 7, 2009. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no time like the present.

Fairly obvious, but I don't think anyone's done it yet. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 14:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

  • You're right nobody has, and its the right message and straight to the point. Support. Simply south (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Obvious- and original! Wikiert T S C 14:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support per above.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 19:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I can't believe nobody's done this one yet. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 17:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

  Approved per WP:SNOW for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/June 6, 2009. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

→ Ours is not to question why,
Ours is just to do or die.

Written by strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 10:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose: A good quote, for sure, one of my favourite poems, but I dislike the linking, "question why" is linked to edit warring, which makes 0% sense to me, care to shed some light? But the link I disagree with the most is the link to WP:Block, basically its saying anyone who does not edit constructivly should be blocked, but that is not in keeping with WP:AGF, and further more, if some one takes a wiki-break or what-not, well surely we should not block them? SpitfireTally-ho! 11:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Note: original text is "Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but to do and die" SpitfireTally-ho! 11:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It scares me a little, you know, 'Improve or Get Blocked!' Maybe the text could also be changed to its original format, per Spitfire. Wikiert T S C 14:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Coming back to this, I'm not sure I chose the best links, although it is one of my favourite quotes (and I've always heard it as 'ours' not 'theirs', sorry I got it wrong). I'll try to find a different set of links to go with it - any suggestions? strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 16:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment: hehe, no problem, its a tricky one for which to think of links for, so congratulations to you for trying, I'll try and throw a few ideas around in my head, but as I said, its tricky so I can't promise I'll come up with anything (no reason some one else, or yourself, shouldn't, though), all the best SpitfireTally-ho! 16:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

  Declined in favour of edit 2. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit 1: → Theirs is not to question why,
Theirs is just to do or die.

With corrected quote and new links. Is this better? strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 10:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Very Weak Support - Well, this is certainly an improvement over the original version. I like the first three links, but I'm not fond of the implied threat at the end. Perhaps if we linked WP:IMPROVE to the entire phrase "to do or die." How does that sound? Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

  Declined in favour of edit 2. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit 2: → Theirs is not to question why,
Theirs is just to do or die.

Edit 2, as per Nutiketaiel's suggestion above. I realise nearly no-one's commented on Edit 1 yet, but this just makes it simple to refer to the two clearly. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 19:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

  Approved per WP:SNOW for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/June 5, 2009. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

→ The right word may be effective, but no word was ever as effective as a rightly timed pause.

Maybe, maybe not, (desperately trying to think of what to put in these summaries) SpitfireTally-ho! 18:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Support. I like it! WP: T2T is a good theme to bring attention to...and the saying is good as well.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 19:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Nice one. A very effective point posed in an eloquent manner. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support –Juliancolton | Talk 13:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support – Good one. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 15:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

  Approved per WP:SNOW. Simply south (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

→ Love is all you need

Too bland? Too much beatles? Too soon? Simply south (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - It's not bland, it's straightforward. Nothing wrong with that. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, but maybe we should change it to "All you need is love", as more people know the song by its title than know the lyrical content. Dendodge T\C 19:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply - Makes no difference to me; either version would have my support, and I have no preference for either. I see no compelling need to change them, though. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
      • No compelling need, no, but it would maybe reach one or two more users better. Dendodge T\C 19:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support with comment.Maybe you should change the linking to something like "→ Love is all you need" to convey a greater result of wikilove. Either way, though, I think it's fine and deserves to make it through. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I like this one! Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 18:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. The whole thing is okay, yes. Wikiert T S C 13:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I like it too. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 14:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

  Approved per WP:SNOW. Simply south (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

→ He's too big to go in there. What shall I do?

Bigger isn't always better! Artichoke-Boy (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - This one looks fine. It's funny, at least, and sends a good reminder. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Good links and funny. :) Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 18:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Funny? Good? Yes! Wikiert T S C 13:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support – nice one. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

  Approved per WP:SNOW. Simply south (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

→ Teachers open the door, but you must enter by yourself.

This is a Chinese proverb (hence the arrow link). If anyone has any proposal for a link to "yourself," feel free to speak up. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Support ~ It's another good one. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support True. Simply south (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - It's well written and well linked, and it's good to draw attention to the adoption program. I don't think that "yourself" needs to be linked- I think the motto is fine as it stands right now. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - However why the link to WP:POL? Withoout it it would be perfect! Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 18:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Response to Gaia Octavia Agrippa: I linked "open the door" to WP: POL to convey the message that adopters aid in opening up Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to new users, the most essential things to be familiar with in order to contribute to Wikipedia to the fullest extent. I'm going to leave the motto as is...I think that removing the link would take a lot away from the motto. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  Approved per WP:SNOW. Simply south (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The steeper the mountain, the harder the climb, the better the view from the finishing line.

This is an anonymous quote that I read recently. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

  Declined in favour of edit 1. Simply south (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The steeper the mountain, the harder the climb, the better the view from the finishing line

To take it more literally, this seemed possibly close as another alternative. Simply south (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply: Thanks for the alternative. I like the Featured Picture theme (I assume we don't get much of those as a MOTD). Artichoke-Boy (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Support. Good motto. And... Where is everyone? This is the first edit to this page in about three days, people. Okay, so I know we are all busy with something or other. It's not like we are all bots. Anyway, just thought I'd set the ball rolling for this motto. Wikiert T S C 14:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support ~ better version. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Yes, I prefer this version to the other. It is nice to link to featured pictures, which doesn't come up much here. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I like the quote but what about using articles: The steeper the mountain, the harder the climb, the better the view from the finishing line. Dunno what you guys think of that? Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 19:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply - There's nothing wrong with it, but many of the reviewers here at MotD (not including myself) seem to think that mottos with the Stub to Featured Article theme (or, for that matter, the anti-vandalism theme) are over-used. As I said, I do not agree with this opinion, but there it is. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply to Gaia Octavia Agrippa: Honestly, I think I'm going to leave the motto as is. No offense, but I just like the links better. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  Approved edit 1 per consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

→ And, in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.

I can understand if this doesn't make it that maybe the theme is too overused, but I think it's worth a shot. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - Hmm, seems fine. Though my mind went to something else when I read the making love bit... –Juliancolton | Talk 20:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support: W00t! Go Beatles! Dendodge T\C 20:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - The them is overused, but boy, I'm a sucka for the Beatles. SimonKSK 18:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: I don't like the first link so much. You don't need to leave Wikipedia to "balance the books". Anyway, I was a hugeeee fan of those four guys from Liverpool when I was around 7–8 (a.k.a. early 1970s) /o\ ... So, it get my support in any case (^___^).
    + Suggestions:
    1. remove the first link
    2. remove And, in the end
    3. change the first link with WP:CEATC, WP:EW,...
    4. leave it as it is.

    –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose - I like the last part of the quote alot, but "in the end" kind of ruins it for me. I don't like emphasizing the right to vanish- it's like we're encouraging people to leave, or saying that eventually everybody will leave (the first we should not be doing, the second is not true in my opinion). However, if we remove "And, in the end, " the quote would have my Strong Support. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

  Approved original per greater consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

→ In the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.

Edit 1 per Nutiketaiel's and Pjoef's comments.

  Declined in favour of original

→ I don't what he's after, but it's not peace.

I have returned!! for a little while... SimonKSK 15:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - I like that one, but the "→" link should be more specific. Is it from a particuliar episode or movie, or character? I'm not familiar with the quote, personally. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - good one. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per Nut. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support with minor comment. The subject is good on this one. Just one suggestion: maybe you shouldn't link the comma in "I don't what he's after," for layout purposes. The request is so minor that it probably won't make any difference if you choose not to do so, though. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 14:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

  Approved per WP:SNOW. Simply south (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

→ But words are things, and a small drop of ink,
Falling, like dew, upon a thought, produces
That which makes thousands, perhaps millions, think.

Lord George Gordon Noel Byron (1788–1824), Don Juan, Canto III (1819–1824) Hmm... I'm not sure about this one! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - I like this one. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Excellent quote, and the last link was an inspired choice. Well done. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support A great motto, as well as being inspired in itself, its also quite inspiring, SpitfireTally-ho! 08:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

  Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Motto_of_the_day/Nominations/Archive_21&oldid=1190130539"