Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Special noms

→ Oh Dreidel, Dreidel, Dreidel,
I made it out of clay,
and when it's dry and ready,
Oh Dreidel I shall play!

For Hanukkah, this year. iMatthew 17:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• I've not heard this before but this does strike me as being good. You have my support. Simply south (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
• You have my Support on this one, but I do advise you to change the second link to something like WP: CREATE for clarity reasons. Other than that, I think it's really good and funny. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. iMatthew 22:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support - The links are excellent. They go perfectly with the phrasing. Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Clarification Request - Is this one intended for Dec. 22, the first day of Chanukah this year? Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Correct. iMatthew 20:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Please note that already there is → You don't really want to stay, no
        But you don't really want to go, oh. but this was not a special nom. Simply south (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Funny that I nominated that one too. (As the nominator, I wouldn't mind that one being moved down). iMatthew 21:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this enough consensus yet? ayematthew ✡ 20:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support: Perfect links. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 02:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support. Love it. TopGearFreak 15:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Approved per consensus for 22nd December, 2008. Simply south not SS, sorry 20:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

→ To infinity and beyond!

It sounds like something that has been done before, but a quick search of the Motto of the Day archives yields nothing. --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 15:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: How about changing the link to m:The future of Wikipedia? —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 17:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with La Pianista. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Rejected per edit 1 Matty4123 (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

→ To infinity and beyond!

Per La Pianista --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 23:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Assuming it truly hasn't been done before. I like the link. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support: The link is definitely better than the other version. Chamal ^talk _work 00:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Nice one! Artichoke-Boy (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I created; ergo, I support. :) —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 19:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. As long as it hasn't been done before. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Matty4123 (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Suggestion Approved this but thought that this might be a good MOTD for January 15, 2009 (Wikipedia's 8th Birthday). Haven't heard any other plans for this day and this shows people where wikipedia is heading. Thoughts? Matty4123 (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• I like it :D mathwhiz29 03:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support of that suggestion. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Opinion I have an even better idea, how about →To infinty and beyond!
  Ipatrol (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Approved - getting few comments so i'm gonna go ahead and put it in before its too late - Matty4123 ^(T•C•A)

Wikipedia, where the information is as abundant as the digits in pi.

For pi day, March 14th. Since pi has an infinite number of digits, the amount of information on wikipedia is infinite? (I know this may have been done, but was it done on pi day? And the only exception to this not being universal that I can think of is in places where the date is not written month/day/year, so I'm not that sure on this one) Redian (Talk) 22:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support. This sounds good to me. Maybe include a few more links, but it's fine as-is. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 14:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Less links are better. --Tewy 01:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support Very nice. ♠TomasBat 20:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Mottos of the day are suppost to be neutral, but this one advertises wikipedia rather than support it, thats my opinion at least. Sunny910910 02:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral leaning to oppose Changed my mind, but I still think it sounds link advertisment.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 16:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I feel that's unfair. Today's motto, for example, compares the invention of Wikipedia to that of fire, which is hardly "neutral". --Islomaniac 973 14:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with Islomaniac. A lot of our mottos could be said to "advertise" Wikipedia - That's almost the purpose of a motto. In doing so, you are supporting the project. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 17:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Good one!--Vaishu2 03:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support I laughed out loud at that one, and just had to comment! Nice one! Neranei (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, because unfortunately, WP:CSD limits us to factual topics, which are far fewer than the digits of pi... · AndonicO ^Talk 01:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Nice idea, and although not true in reality, it fits in well. Phgao 02:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support, technically, it can be. Just one of the pros of an online 'pedia. :) —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 17:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Wow. Who came up with this one. No offense (actually, it's hard to say that), but that sounds like something you would hear a completely uncreative n[][]b say. It's like hearing, while playing runescape, The amount of fun to be had on RuneScape is equal to the amount of gold acquirable on RuneScape, which is infinite. It just sounds like... like... like a slogan out of a book of slogans that hasn't been updated yet, so the book of slogans still reflects the now-outdated fact that books of slogans have been disparaged by the general public. It's just so... so... Nevermind. Just let my voice be heard as a no. flaminglawyer^c 04:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support I agree this is a nice idea and I think it sounds good also. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 22:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support, I think that this would work well on Pi day. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 20:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support per Tholly.--§ Lights talk 18:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Looks fine to me. Enigma ^message 04:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/March 14, 2009 Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You're not gonna believe this!

Next April Fool's Day, why not have a real motto to match the real (but unbelievable) Main Page? Confusing Manifestation 22:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Hey, not a bad idea… --Tewy 01:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support, pretty good. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 10:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support Great idea. I love it! --Jimbo Herndan 23:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support, since I the April Fool's page is without a doubt the best "Main Page" of the year. :) · AndonicO ^Talk 01:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Yeah Nice idea! Will be funny. Phgao 02:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support.--Takyomi 20:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Shweet. Dfrg_msc 06:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support -[[Ryan]] ^{(me) (talk)} 13:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Good one. Joelster (talk) 07:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• support nice. flaminglawyer^c 04:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Nice and simple, I like it. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 22:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support, nice idea. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 16:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Sounds good. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 20:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support --§ Lights talk 18:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support No problems here. Enigma ^message 04:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/April 1, 2009 by unanimous support. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Be of good cheer, for the Edit is always here.

It seemed like an all-year Christmasy-type motto, with elements of funnyness and seriousness. I don't quite know if it is as good as I think it is, though. Laleena 00:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support and maybe put this up under special nominations for X-mas - the one we've got right now isn't very holiday-spirited. unsigned comment by Hersfold ^(t/a/c) left on Sept. 1, 2007
  • Sounds like a good idea. Could you do that? Laleena 13:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Yep, copy-pasted up there. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support Just add some internal links. Phgao 02:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support I 100% agree with Phgao ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 22:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support --§ Lights talk 18:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support per WP:WTHN Enigma ^message 04:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Good! Artichoke-Boy (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support Seems Ok Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 01:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support It looks OK, I guess, but it seems a little weak for a special Christmas motto. Still, I know I can't think of anything better, so... Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support same as above —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leujohn (talk • contribs) 12:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Approved for December 25th, 2008. Simply south (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

More information than delivered in a speech or found on the Galapagos.

February 12, the birthday of Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin. I'm not sure if the part about the speech is exactly universal though. (I figure if I just keep trying I'll roll out a good one eventually.) Redian (Talk) 22:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support. It's nice, and I didn't know that both Lincoln and Darwin were born on February 12. Chrishyman 03:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I believe a request for arbitration was filed about the inclusion about that piece of trivia some time ago. bibliomaniac15 Two years of trouble and general madness 22:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Um, perhaps this is just me, but I don't think this is suitable as Wikipedia is accessed by a lot of people who would have no idea what the Gettysburg Address was. Phgao 02:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Opposeper Phgao. And I don't really get it. RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 19:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, a bit too obscure. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 17:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't really get what this one is trying to say. In my opinion this is kind of confusing. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 22:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Confusing.--§ Lights talk 18:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Too obscure. Enigma ^message 04:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Declined by consensus. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Normal noms

Fly high, but don’t forget to let someone under your wing.

I came up with this saying last night, and I’m not one to brag, but I think it’s pretty good! Also, if any of you can find a better link for "Fly high", tell me. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support - It's OK. The links are good, but the saying doesn't really pop out at me. Nothing wrong with it, though. Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support pending the change of the first link to WP:RFAS. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 20:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Fly high, but don’t forget to let someone under your wing.

Edit 1. Per La Pianista. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support with the new links. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Good idea. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support: both Wikipedia shortcuts for "Fly high" are good, but I like the first one a little better. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Approved Simply south not SS, sorry 20:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

→ True ease in writing comes from art, not chance,
As those move easiest who have learned to dance.

Alexander Pope (1688–1744), An Essay on Criticism, Part II (1711) ~ Wikipedians are made and not born :). –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Nice. But, it's still missing a link for "chance," imho. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 20:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support, although I agree that a link for "chance" would be nice. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I, too, think it would be nice to have a link for "chance," but I can;t think of one. Otherwise, this motto is pretty good. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matty4123 ^(T•C•A) 19:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Approved Simply south not SS, sorry 20:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

→ Naught venture, naught have.

Thomas Tusser (1524–1580), Five Hundred Points of Good Husbandry, "October's Abstract" (1557) ~ I'm sorry but I "saw" it on a book and not on Facebook :). –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: The links seem to be confusing to me. Are we calling abuse as a venture? Or are we calling abuse reporting as a venture or not a venture? Something that's displayed on a lot of pages should be clearer. Chamal ^talk 12:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: O(o)P(s)POSE!!! ~ LOL ~ Well, I agree with you, Chamal. The sense of the Tusser's line is: "zero adventure, zero have" but I tried to interpret the first naught as wicked, bad, evil, incompetent, immoral, unethical, fallacious.... (I know that it is not correct and unclear.) So (IMHO) we have three chances:
   1.  to change the links to make them point to the most appropriate one (e.g.: WP:BB→WP:FA);
   2.  to change the line to: bad adventure, nothing [to] have;
   3.  to NOT approve this motto.
Any suggestions are appreciated because this is a short and strong line, and I really like it. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Weak oppose: I almost get it. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 20:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Lacks clarity. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matty4123 ^(T•C•A) 19:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

 Declined - no consensus. Simply south not SS, sorry 20:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Communicate, Collaborate, Cooperate, Amalgamate.

An attempt at a motto that's precise and true to Wikipedia's core principles. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support Excellent linkage. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 20:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I agree, the links are quite well done. Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
• Imperative Support! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Creative and direct in advancing Wikipedia's principles. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Approved Simply south not SS, sorry 20:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

→Veni, Vidi, vixi.

A parody of "veni, vidi, vici", which is a FUI, but this is different. ~AH1^(TCU) 02:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral It doesn't really say anything new. We all know that if you vandalise, you get blocked. Sorry. TopGearFreak ^Talk 13:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Well, I don't know enough Latin to know what "vixi" means, but either way it is an unoriginal motto expressing an unoriginal sentiment in an unfathomable manner. Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • What it translates to is "I came, I saw, I lived". So are you saying that vandals come to wikipedia to be blocked? Simply south (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose •xytram•tkcsgy 14:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

 Declined per consensus. Simply south not SS, sorry 20:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Genius is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration.

~AH1^(TCU) 02:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support. It's alright, I suppose... TopGearFreak ^Talk 13:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support — It's not bad, but the links don't make sense. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support. The links actually do make sense somewhat, but the point is lost in the their ambiguity. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 02:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. How about trying different links to make the message a bit clearer...like Genius is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration? Artichoke-Boy (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

 Declined in favour of edit 1. Simply south not SS, sorry 20:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Genius is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration

Edit 1 per Artichoke-Boy. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 00:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support: It focuses on just the right aspects, and pulls it all together with the perfect links. Great work! —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 00:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support per above :) Artichoke-Boy (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Artichoke-boy's new links make the idea alot clearer and send an excellent message. Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral: This is a quote by Thomas Edison. Anyway, I think that genii are 99 percent creativity and one percent in a deserved state of sleep. (Patents) thieves are 99 percent perspiration and one percent inspiration (on how to steal patents and inventions). I don't like the quote (and Edison too), but I'm neutral. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Great edit. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south not SS, sorry

Let's agree to respect each other's views, no matter how wrong yours may be.

From here. ~AH1^(TCU) 02:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support. You have just captured what WP:NPOV is trying to say. TopGearFreak ^Talk 13:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - No opinion is "wrong", and to say so would be a POV in itself. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Julian makes a valid point there. Chamal ^talk 01:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Julian - quote contradicts itself, "respecting" others' viewpoints while calling them wrong simultaneously. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 20:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support - It's clever wordplay, and I think the link to NPOV makes the point appropriately. I like this one. Perhaps, to make it clearer, add "→" to the beginning? Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support As per Nutiketaiel's link. Plus I like sarcasm xD •xytram•tkcsgy 14:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Per the two above me. And because Sarcasm is really helpful. ;-) Killiondude (talk) 08:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

 Declined - no consensus. Simply south not SS, sorry 20:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Batman Begins It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me

A great quote from Batman Begins, perhaps you've heard it? Artichoke-Boy (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support: Only recommendation is for the second link to be extended to include "what" (creating "what I do") —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 22:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

→ It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me.

Edit 1. Per La Pianista's comment. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Good idea. ~AH1^(TCU) 02:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support. The last link is a bit dodgy...Not sure what to put in instead, though... TopGearFreak ^Talk 14:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support - this may be slanted towards WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but something about it just seems odd. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support - The links are good, and it is a pretty good quote, too. Just slap some punctuation at the end, before my grammar gland explodes!! Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south not SS, sorry 20:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

→ Hopefully, generations after us will continue to protect, preserve, and look after this wonderful land.

Issues that we must bring about in Wikipedia. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Wonderful idea! Some suggestions, though. How about: "Hopefully, generations after us will continue to protect, preserve, and look after this wonderful land." —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 04:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

→ Hopefully, generations after us will continue to protect, preserve, and look after this wonderful land.

Edit 1. Per La Pianista's comments. I was actually going to add the "generations after us" link myself, but La Pianista beat me to it! Artichoke-Boy (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support per me. :) —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 01:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Excellent links. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Encouraging. ~AH1^(TCU) 02:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support. The first 'protect' (the one that led to WP:protect) was better, but the other links are better in the second one. TopGearFreak ^Talk 14:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support per AstroHurricane001. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support per above. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support •xytram•tkcsgy 14:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south not SS, sorry 20:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

At the end of the game, the pawn and the king go into the same box together

ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 21:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support - excellent metaphor, possibly better with links, e.g. pawn and king. --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 03:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support with UberScienceNerd's links. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That's actually what I had, the links just didn't show up for my three. ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 14:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support with UberScienceNerd's links. It's easy for people to forget that sentiment, sometimes. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support. Really good. TopGearFreak ^Talk 14:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose pending the addition of links. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • See below. RockManQ ^(talk) 20:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

 Declined in favour of edit 1. Simply south not SS, sorry 20:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

At the end of the game, the pawn and the king go into the same box together

What about this? (from RMV's above) RockManQ ^(talk) 03:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Love it - excellent link choices. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 04:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Nice saying! Artichoke-Boy (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support per my above. Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support. It's an Italian proverb. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support •xytram•tkcsgy 14:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south not SS, sorry 20:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's Roll

ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 21:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: Unclear ties to Wikipedia, and slightly bland. --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 03:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose — Sorry, but it's not relevant to Wikipedia. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. How about keeping the phrase, but linking it as Let's Roll or Let's Roll, so it's more relevant to Wikipedia? Artichoke-Boy (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Artichoke's first link. I really like the link. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 00:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support if Artichoke's first link is added. Chamal ^talk 11:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That's actually what I had, the links just didn't show up for my three. ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 14:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Support with Artichoke's first link- I didn't even know that that page existed. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

 Declined in favour of edit 1. Simply south not SS, sorry 20:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's Roll

Edit 1 per Artichoke-Boy. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 23:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Let's roll! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support •xytram•tkcsgy 14:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Approved per consensus here and above. Simply south not SS, sorry 20:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

→Old soldiers never die...
They just fade away.

Hopefully not an FUI. Any better link ideas are appreciated. :) —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 20:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support That's a nice one. Chamal ^talk 12:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support per above. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - It's kind of depressing... and besides, the editors on that list HAVE died... Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yes, I know what Pianista's saying, and the links are perfect, but it is very depressing. TopGearFreak ^Talk 14:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose •xytram•tkcsgy 14:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

 Declined - no consensus. Simply south not SS, sorry 20:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not the knowledge that makes Wikipedia special, it's the community spirit.

Not sure of the links, if anyone can think of anything better I'm all ears. And I'm not sure if it has been used before. TopGearFreak ^Talk 18:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: Even with better links, it's kinda corny. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 20:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose — I agree that it's slightly dull and corny. Also, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so the knowledge is what makes it special. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone}
• Strong Oppose - Soul crushingly boring, and it IS Wikipedia's knowledge that is special, not the community; after all, Wikipedia is not a social site. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

 Declined per consensus. Simply south not SS, sorry 20:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

→ Not by strength, but by guile

Former motto of the Special Boat Service Chamal ^talk 12:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Ooh, nice. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 05:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support — Good enough for me. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - I don't like refering to a consensus as "guile." It has the wrong connotation; it implies to me that the consensus was reached through trickery or other underhanded means, rather than a free and open exchange of ideas. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support! ~ Nice one! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support •xytram•tkcsgy 14:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south not SS, sorry 20:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm.

--LAAFan^sign _review 02:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Seems good. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional Support - I like it, but the WP:FA link should only be attached to the word "great," not the word "nothing," IMHO. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support: Well, it's true. Chamal ^Talk ± 14:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

To be reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks.

• Conditional Support as per Nutiketaiel. --88wolfmaster (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

 Declined in favour of edit 1. Simply south (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm.

Edit 1. Per Nutiketaiel and 88wolfmaster. QAE 23:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - good links. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 04:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support as above. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support. The message is good, but widely overused in MOTDs. Still, I like the links, so you have my weak support. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support! It's good enough for me. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

 Reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Good enough for me. Chamal ^talk 14:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support, but I personally think that a link to CONSENSUS or something of the sort for enthusiasm would be better than to EDIT. ~AH1^(TCU) 02:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Float like a butterfly,
Sting like a bee

I hope this works. Simply south (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Jealous Support.It does work, and I really like the links and the message as to what you can do to be graceful and powerful in Wikipedia. I had an idea to do a MODT with this exact quote, though! Darn. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Wait a minute...this quote in incorrect. The one by Muhammad Ali goes like this: "float like a butterfly, sting like a bee." Artichoke-Boy (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've checked on a search on google and the other one came up as a song by someone called Bigbang, and also seems to be quoted as either by the boxer. So should i change it? Simply south (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Changed. Simply south (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support assuming that it hasn't been used before. The links are just OK. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • It probably worked better with the misquote\song title. (Fly like a butterfly, sting like a bee) Simply south (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support The links fall into the category of "meh". Maybe "bee" can pipe to WP:HG? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

 Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Fly like a butterfly,
Sting like a bee

Not quite the same as the Mohammad Ali as this one is a misquote and a song title by a band called Bigbang. I think the links work with Fly, better than float. It is also not quite the same as this. Simply south (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

 Reopened - not enough discussion. Simply south (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - The original version wasn't that great, but it was OK. This one is worse. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ~ Worse than the original! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

 Declined per consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

→ I am not a crook!

A motto about citing sources when editing or creating an article. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - nothing wrong with it, and then, nothing really special about it, either. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 22:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose — Sorry, but I don't really get it. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support - It's hillarious! Very appropriate to Wikipedia, the link is perfect, and the link from the → explains the reference adequately for anyone who doesn't recognize it, though I can't imagine how you wouldn't. You may want to reconsider linking it thusly, though- →. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The link doesn't seem to go with the motto. Any other suggestions? Chamal ^talk 14:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - The link goes perfectly with the motto. By citing your sources, you are crediting the source material for the information instead of trying to claim it for yourself- essentially, that you are not a crook. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Response to Chamal's comment: I actually made this link to specifically go with this saying, so I really can't think of another. Even if you don't like it the way it is, I don't think I can change it...sorry. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

 Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

→ Stop, in the Name of Love!

...WikiHate vs. WikiLove. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support - It's okay. But I was really hoping for some mottos that focused on topics beside vandalism, WikiLove, consensus, featured articles - some real spark of originality. Otherwise, not too bad. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 22:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support per above. The first link could probably be improved, as well. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support - It's a little trite, but there's nothing really wrong with it if we haven't used it before. Maybe on a slow news day. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support!!! ~ This motto is supreme! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

 Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hate the game, not the player.

I saw this on a T-shirt somewhere. --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 19:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. So...wait, are we supposed to hate fighting vandalism? —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 22:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose — Sorry, but I'm going to have to agree with La Pianista. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• I completely overlooked the possibility of confusion. Better linking: Hate the game, not the player. --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 22:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

 Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hate the game, not the player.

Moving intended version here. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 05:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Changing to oppose on second thought, per Chamal. —La Pianista]] ^(T•C•S) 06:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support It works fine, but there're too many "I don't like vandalism" mottos. Chamal ^talk 06:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Seems like we're supporting Wikihate. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Just a lame saying. Something a douche would say to his girlfriend as he dumps her or is in the process of explaining why it shouldn't be his fault that he was just caught cheating. Ventric (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

 Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

WTF DTM? (What the fuck does that mean?)

Hope this works out well... -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 10:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Matty4123 ^(T•C•A) 14:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose iMatthew 19:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose WP:NOTCENSORED, but still... —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 20:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Any ways I can make a point here with a good motto? Any suggestions guys? -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 21:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose — Let's try to avoid using "fuck", please. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is not censored. Like I said above, Any ways I can make a point here with a good motto? Any suggestions? -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 22:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Not really. Even profanity aside, it still doesn't sound like a real motto. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 20:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - I'm absolutely fine with profanity, but the motto is non-sensical. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

 Declined per consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Pokémon test.

Why not? -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 10:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Matty4123 ^(T•C•A) 14:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose iMatthew 19:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support Okay, but really dull. It just reiterates what's already in policy, without "hitting it home." —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 20:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose due to blandness --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 23:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

 Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a wiki encyclopedia, not a Pokémon test.

How about this? -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 21:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose — Sorry, but this is rather dull, and doesn't seem like much of a motto. WP:Pokémon test is pretty obscure, as well. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Dull, and I get the feeling that the casual reader will not get the idea of the motto. Chamal ^talk 06:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose due to its incredible soul-crushing blandness. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

 Declined per consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Some users don't give a fuck.

It's true. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 10:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Matty4123 ^(T•C•A) 14:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose iMatthew 19:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Again, WP:NOTCENSORED, but it's still too racy to put on people's userpages. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 20:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Again, I don't mind the profanity; the motto just doesn't say anything. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

 Declined per consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Everyone is contributing, even if they don't give a damn.

Hope that this motto can work... -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 21:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose — WP:CENSOR, fine, but let's have some common sense. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Then why did you support the motto, "Rules are made to be broken"? I'm sure I know what common sense means. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 21:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

IAR states that one may ignore a rule if it prevents them from from improving Wikipedia. I'm not sure how WP:IAR applies to a motto on a userpage. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Some MOTD users will not appreciate having profanity transcluded onto their page. --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 23:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Changed the word to damn. Hope that helps. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 23:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Why must we include profanity in the mottoes? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Why? —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 20:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose: Per Julian and UberScienceNerd. Only thing I have to say about forcing people to display profanity on their userpages is why? Chamal ^talk 06:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Once again, the profanity is fine for me, but the motto is just worthless. It says nothing worthwile about Wikipedia. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

 Declined per consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a Facebook.

It's true. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 10:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support - Not really much of a motto. Matty4123 ^(T•C•A) 14:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose iMatthew 19:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not much of a motto, doesn't reflect the crux of Wikipedia's philosophy - plus, though it is true, I don't like the fact that we're associating Wikipedia with a social networking site in a motto. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 20:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

 Declined per consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Facebook, but has a Facebook.

Don't really think this is gonna work, but... -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 21:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose — Sorry, this doesn't even seem like a motto to me. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Yep. Try focusing on the crux of Wikipedia's philosophy, rather than a few misused details, no? —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 20:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: I think the mottos should be something useful, you know? Something informative, that helps you to learn something about Wikiepdia? Chamal ^talk 06:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - That's not a motto; it doesn't even have any profanity!!  :-) Seriously, it's not a motto. I don't know what it is, but it has a distinct lack of motto-ness. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Are you forgetting WP:NOTMYSPACE? TopGearFreak ^Talk 21:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

 Declined per consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

→ One, two, three, four, tell us what you're looking for.

Hope this works... -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 10:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support - Matty4123 ^(T•C•A) 14:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose iMatthew 19:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support: It's okay, but would need some more "out-of-the-norm" to get my full support. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 20:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose — It's not terrible, but then again, it's not very good. The link doesn't really make sense. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you think of a better link, since this can actually make it with new links. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 21:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Suggestion - → One, two, three, four, tell us what you're looking for. Matty4123 ^(T•C•A) 23:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support - The motto is a little bland, but I like the link. It is good to remind people that there are requested articles, so maybe they'll get to work on them. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

→ One, two, three, four, tell us what you're looking for.

Edit 1 - Forgot to tell eveyrone that the lyric was modified. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 23:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support Matty's suggestion, per my above reason. Doesn't really change much. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 20:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support: It works, but doesn't really jump out at me. Chamal ^talk 06:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
• Very Weak Support - The first link was better. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

→ One, two, three, four, tell us what you're looking for.

Edit 2 - Tried to do something different with this by showing different stages that would help when your wanting to become an admin. Doesn't look as good as I hoped it would. Matty4123 ^(T•C•A) 12:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose - This one just seems cluttered with links, and not very good ones at that. Other versions were better. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

 Declined all - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

MASSACRE, CALL 911!

I really don't know how these go in my brain... -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 10:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose - Matty4123 ^(T•C•A) 14:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose iMatthew 19:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose — Sorry, but it's rather dull. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - More soul-crushing blandness. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

 Declined per consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Rules are made to be broken

IAR - (ironically the first rule to be initiated on Nupedia ) Flewis^(talk) 05:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Very similar to mine. :) —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 05:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support — Seems to be good enough. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support iMatthew 19:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support: it sounds like a good motto. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Quick question - is it "Rules were made to be broken" or "Rules are made to be broken"? —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 23:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I've never actually seen it written out, but when spoken, it's normally slurred together, as in "Rules're made to be broken." Regardless, support. Trvsdrlng (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support - It's OK, but La Pianista's was a hell of alot better. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

→ Only shop because you have to, not because you want to

-My 2 cents at comparing the economic crisis with Afd . . . --Flewis^(talk) 13:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - meh. I don't really get it. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - would be better with different links. A little too obscure as it stands. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 00:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Suggestions - See suggestion 1 and 2 - Matty4123 ^(T•C•A) 18:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

 Declined in favour of suggestion 1. Simply south (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

→ Only shop because you have to, not because you want to

Suggestion 1 - Matty4123 ^(T•C•A) 18:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support Matty's first suggestion. iMatthew 19:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Boo-yah support: Great motto! —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 21:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support. The better link choice. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support - It's OK. A little blah. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support: Nice idea, nice links. Chamal ^talk 14:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

→ Only shop because you have to, not because you want to

Suggestion 2 - Matty4123 ^(T•C•A) 18:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: Suggestion 1 is better. BTW, what's with the question mark —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 21:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Oops, i had just made my suggestions in a comment but changed them to two edits. Must have left the ? in. Matty4123 ^(T•C•A) 23:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

 Declined in favour of suggestion 1. Simply south (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Just Wiki it

• Weak support - Erm, who submitted this? —La Pianista]] ^(T•C•S) 05:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support - Not very good... Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral — I'm not even sure of what it's trying to say. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - who says that? iMatthew 19:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Meh. BTW, this was submitted by an IP address, and i'm guessing its supposed to be a take on the Nike slogan, Just Do It Matty4123 ^(T•C•A) 22:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Doesn't really make much sense to me Chamal ^talk 14:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

 Declined per consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

→ To do a common thing uncommonly well brings success

NOTICE: This motto and the one below it are two link choices to the same saying (I cannot figure out which one to do!). I guess you can pick the one to use per consensus. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 12:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Don't like the linking. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 19:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

 Declined in favour of Choice 2. Simply south (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

→ To do a common thing uncommonly well brings success

Choice 2. (See Above) Artichoke-Boy (talk) 12:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support: I prefer this one. It's more original. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 19:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support - The links in the second one are much better, and I think it is quite clever. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support Much better. Very nice. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 19:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support iMatthew 19:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support: it's good enough. Comment. How about: “To do a common thing/common thing uncommonly well/uncommonly well brings success/success”? –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose pjoef's links. I like this motto mainly because it talks about Wikipedia itself. Mottos centered on the road to WP:FA have gotten way too trite around here. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 21:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose pjoef's links. Artichoke Boy's were much more original. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Good idea. ~AH1^(TCU) 18:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not the singer, it's the song.

I was trying to find a somewhat more PG version of "It's not the size of the boat, it's the motion of the ocean," and found this phrase. [ roux ] [x] 23:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: How about "It's not the singer, it's the song."? I'm not sure about this, either...any ideas? —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 23:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm.. that could work. Mostly I wanted to draw some attention to the ideas behind PERFECT. [ roux ] [x] 23:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• In case anyone is thinking this, I believe that maintaining the last link and changing the first to "WP:EDIANS" is a bad idea - it could be seen as a slant on Wikipedians ourselves. Just my two cents. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 23:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - upon thinking further, I think it really needs to link to PERFECT; the song (article) is what the singer (editor) produces. [ roux ] [x] 06:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support for "It's not the singer, it's the song.", per La Pianista. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose that; it doesn't fit the meaning of the phrase. [ roux ] [x] 19:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support the second version. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 19:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Okay, I guess I'm not being clear. "It's not the singer, it's the song" means "It's not about the individual person, it's about the final product." CONS is a means to an end, not the final product. [ roux ] [x] 20:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Response to comment: So...if a motto needs clarification, do you think it's fit? —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 00:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I didn't think it needed clarification? The meaning of the quote is pretty clear. [ roux ] [x] 01:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Hm. Upon further thinking, I suppose you're right. But my vote is Weak support as it stands - I would still prefer the WP:CONS version. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 04:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support iMatthew 19:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose the original version- I only support the WP:CONS version. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Approved La Plastina's version. Simply south (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

→ I will not let the sky be the limit when there are footprints on the moon.

Saw it on Facebook and immediately thought of a Wikipedia motto. I'm not too happy with the links, though; anybody have better ones? Trvsdrlng (talk) 05:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• What's wrong with them? I'd leave and support as is (I'm not sure about if "sky be the limit" linked to special:Contributions instead) Simply south (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Simply South's link. We need something more specific. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 01:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - It seems like a good motto, but La Pianista's right, we need more specific links... I just can't think of any... brain turned to mush from election coverage overload... Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
• How about "I will not let the sky be the limit when there are footprints on the moon"? iMatthew 19:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• @ iMatthew: But see, if someone has enough time to think it over, that could be seen as a slant on some of our GA's. Motivational nonetheless, though. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 22:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support of iMatthew's links. I don't think it can be construed as a slight to refer to GAs as the "sky." Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

 Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether it be tight or loose, we all hold on to something!

I'm not sure if there's a better alternative for the 4th link, but if you can come up with one, tell me. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support per WP:WTHN. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support as is, but if you want a new link for "hold on," try linking to the Wikipedia Inclusionism page on Metawiki which my poor, mush addled brain can't remember how to find right now. Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Well, won't those danged deletionists have a problem with that? Otherwise, excellent suggestion. The link, for reference, is m:inclusionism. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 00:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply - I say :-P to deletionists. Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support Whoah! Great motto. I like. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 19:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

One thing we all adore, something worth fighting for
Nothing but pain, stuck in this game
Searching for fortune and fame

Another from Tupac. This one's from one of his song.Matty4123 ^(T•C) 20:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support It's a nice motto, but I wouldn't say editors are "stuck" here. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Julian. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 05:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - It's a little meandering. Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - too long & per Julian. [ roux ] [x] 06:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - what about: One thing we all adore, something worth fighting for ? [ roux ] [x] 06:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support for Roux's suggestion. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support for Roux's suggestion. Meh. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 04:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

 Declined in favour of choice 1. Simply south (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

→Wars come and go, but my soldiers stay eternal.

Choice 1 - Matty4123 ^(T•C) 20:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support: It's always good to draw attention to the CVU. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 01:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Always good to remember the thin blue line from time to time. Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support Catchy, nice way of emphasizing CVU. IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 00:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support [ roux ] [x] 06:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support. We get a lot of mottos about vandalism here, but somehow the links seem really original! Artichoke-Boy (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support — looks good. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

→Wars come and go, but my soldiers stay eternal.

Choice 2 - Two different versions. Not really sure about the links though. Matty4123 ^(T•C) 20:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - The other links are better. Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - ditto. TopGearFreak ^Talk 21:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

 Declined per consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Template motto trial

Seeing as this may be placed on a Wikipedian's userpage, i thought i might try it. It is a variation on {{proposal}}. Simply south (talk) 11:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't get it. How are we supposed to use it? Is it a template motto or something else? Chamal ^talk 12:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes it is a template motto. I altered the wording. Simply south (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I don't think the line Thus references or links to this page should not describe it as "policy" is appropriate here. It's used in {{proposal}} since it's a template used on proposed policy pages. But putting that on a user page might look weird. Chamal ^talk 12:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, i just deleted it now. How does it look? I've also clarified the title. Simply south (talk) 12:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - I don't like the template motto idea. They look rediculous. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per above. Sorry, but we're looking for mottoes, not templates. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: Templates can be a very refreshing way to convey a motto, but this one in particular is a bit too "in-your-face," for lack of a better word. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 05:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

 Declined - per consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Actions speak louder than words.

How's this? ~AH1^(TCU) 23:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose - The links don't feel right. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

 Reopened - not enough discussion. Simply south (talk) 11:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support — Not my favorite, but it'll do. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

 Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

→ Imagine all the people.

—Ceranthor^(Sing) 02:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support: John Lennon reference. Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 11:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: How about we extend it, to be "Imagine all the people (<br>) living in harmony" or Imagine all the people (<br>) living in harmony"? —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 17:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support It's good enough, I suppose. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support of La Pianista's first recomendation. Looks better with the extension. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional Support. Good motto, but both the extended versions by La Pianista are better. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

 Declined in favour of edit 1. Simply south (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Imagine all the people
living in harmony

Edit 1 per Nutiketaiel, Pjoef, and I. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 00:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

 Reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support: The FA link doesn't seem too good to me, in this context. Otherwise fine. Chamal ^talk 12:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support per my above. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support — much better. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support - excellent. [ roux ] [x] 06:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support ~ A very good motto. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

We all have a choice between doing what is easy and do what is right

Vandalism is easy, but contributing positively to Wikipedia is more rewarding. Also, I think I heard this line from the upcomming Harry Potter movie trailer. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Weak Support: I think we have heard about the 'choosing' far too often. But it's OK I guess, as long something very similar hasn't been used before. Chamal ^talk _work 11:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support assuming it hasn't been used allready. Nothing wrong with it, i suppose; just a little boring. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Vandalism-fighting is just as important to Wikipedia as writing articles. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Response: Wait, you've got it all wrong! What I meant for this motto to say is that it's easy to vandalize Wikipedia, but in order to do the right thing, you should contribute positively. I never said that vandalism-fighting is bad (and it isn't!). Artichoke-Boy (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

 Reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

 Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is impossible. Some things are just less likely than others.

Matty4123 (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support - I like the quote, but it needs links to tie it to Wikipedia. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support - Yes, please add links! —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 18:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional support - Good motto, irrelevant link; I will support if the linking is improved. --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 19:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose The link doesn't make much sense. Nice motto otherwise. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - link supposed to show people that nothing is impossible in wikipedia. suggestions for links? - Matty4123 (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: Nothing is impossible. Some things are just less likely than others. --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 20:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional Support: If UberScienceNerd's suggestion is used. Chamal ^talk _work 12:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional Support with UberScienceNerd's link suggestion. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

 Declined in favour of edit 1. Simply south (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is impossible. Some things are just less likely than others.

Edit 1. Changed links to those suggested Matty4123 (talk) 13:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support with these links. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support - First link is great, but the second one doesn't click with me. Call me weird. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 19:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

 Reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Per my comment above. Chamal ^talk 12:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Approved per weak consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Mind what you have learned. Save you it can.

OK, did I do a good link this time? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Irrelevant to Wikipedia. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Assuming that this one has not been done before, I would be OK with it if it had wikipedia related links. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if "Mind what you have learned" was linked to WP:ADOPT and "Save you it can" to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship? Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional Support: If links suggested by Nutiketaiel are used. Please try to use links related to Wikipedia in your mottos. That is, usually something in WP:Wikipedia namespace. No more star wars links!!! :) Chamal ^talk _work 15:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

→Mind what you have learned. Save you it can.

Edit 1. Changed the links to be Wikipedia related instead of Star Wars related. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional Support - That's right, I only support my own edit if this quote hasn't been used previously, per my Infinite Monkey Policy. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Ya know, I was going use the exact same links. :D But add a little → at the beginning to maintain the reference, however trite. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 19:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Good idea. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Added little arrow thingy per La Pianista. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

 Reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Approved per weak consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This is who we are. This is what we're made of. This is what we do.

This is a motto that will relate directly to the Wikipedians. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support + cmt: Really great morale-boost. But I would like the first link to change to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 18:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support: The motto is excellent. I think it'd be best to link "This is what we're made of" to WP: PILLARS if La Pianista's suggestion is implemented. Chamal ^talk 14:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support - I like the original text, but I would not have a problem with the suggestions of La Pianista or Chamal. Personally, though, i think it's fine the way it is. The pillars define the basic purpose and policy of Wikipedia- who we are. The userpage is indicitive of the individual Wikipedian- what we're made up of. The contributions are, of course, what we do. I'm perfectly fine with it as written. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support as written. Trvsdrlng (talk) 05:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support Like it, but also strongly recommend Chamal's suggestion. IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 20:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional Support/comment/suggestion: If this motto is related to Wikipedians the first link should be: Wikipedia:Wikipedians (Wikipedia:Wikipedians → Special:MyPage → Special:MyContributions). If it is related to Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia → WP:PILLARS or Special:Statistics → Wikipedia:Featured articles. –pjoef (talk • contribs)
• Support - I like this one better, but La Pianista's link suggestions will work as well. RockManQ ^(talk) 20:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Approved original per consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Only dead fish go with the flow

>>Flewis^(talk) 11:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Isn't it "Only dead fish follow the stream"? —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 16:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support: Not the most 'striking' motto, but I like it. Chamal ^talk 14:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support w/ Comment. It's not bad, it's just that the whole concept of Wikipedia Bold-ness (in my opinion) is way overused in MOTDs. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - I don't have a problem with frequently referring to Boldness in mottos, since it is so important to what we do here. I'm just not that keen about comparing Wikipedians who maybe aren't so bold with dead fish... Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

 Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

→ I took the survey, and I liked it.

~AH1^(TCU) 22:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Motto_of_the_day/Schedule#September. This mottos has already been used last month (with one word changed). Simply south (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per above reason. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 03:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose iMatthew (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: No need to do something very similar, even if the links are different. Chamal ^talk 14:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - We should not be reusing mottos, per the MOTD Infinite Monkey Policy. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

 Declined - Frequently used idea. Simply south (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

→ One world, one dream.

Has this been used before, or is it too late for that (should have been a special nomination etc)? ~AH1^(TCU) 22:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Now's a great time to change the first link to WP:SISTER. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 02:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
• Eh — I'm not sure I have an opinion either way. Leaning towards oppose, as it just doesn't seem very interesting. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support: It's OK I guess. A bit boring though. Are you sure this hasn't been used before BTW? Chamal ^talk 14:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional Weak Support of La Pianista's suggested links, assuming that the motto hasn't been used before. It's boring, but it is nice to remind people about the sister projects. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support 2008 Olympic motto! “Citius, Altius, Fortius” ("Swifter, Higher, Stronger") (^_^)! I like the links as they are. An alternative for the second link is: meta:Three-year_plan. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

 Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

→ When one door closes, another door opens

This is a great quote from Alexander Graham Bell (hence the arrow-link). The original quote was actually "When one door closes, another opens", not "When one door closes, another door opens", but I hope that's not a problem. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose — First of all, I'm not sure why we have to alter the motto from its original quote. That aside, when an article is deleted via AfD, it shouldn't be opened/re-created. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Julian. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 03:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per Julian. It's a good motto, can't we change the links somehow and use it? Chamal ^talk 12:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per Julian. I would only support changing the links and recycling the proposal if the quote is restored to the original form; what was the purpose of changing it in the first place? Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

 Declined per consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)