Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Esperanza

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.131.63.39 (talk) at 01:58, 21 November 2006 (→Constitutional Convention). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 18 years ago by 24.131.63.39 in topic Constitutional Convention
Learn more about this page
Discussion


Shortcut

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/sandbox Welcome to the discussion page for Esperanza! General dicussions and introductions take place on this page. Feel free to add any questions or comments about the project below.

If you would like to...

...suggest a new project, see the Proposals page.
...discuss or comment on the governance of Esperanza, see the Governance talk page.
This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 5 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Archive Aug 2025. Sections without timestamps are not archived.


Deletion?

Latest comment: 18 years ago18 comments10 people in discussion

Stop the press. Esperanza is up for deletion! Get over to its Deletion Page and pledge your support!

Cheers

User:Anthony cfc/signature

Pledge our support??? Is such unthinking blind unquestioning thinking really the way forward for Esperanza and Wikipedia? The comments - deletes - made are constructive criticism by fine editors and should be respected as such, not regarded as the ravings of maniacs. Moreschi 19:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Absolutely no vote mindless stacking, please. There are other solutions possible. I encourage everyone to discuss them on the deletion's talk page. --Misza13 19:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. Just because one is in Esperanza does not mean that one most vote For Esperanza. One must vote for Wikipedia's best interests. Thε Halo Θ 19:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
May I pile on my agreement? I don't think that mindless anything is healthy, especially voting when a process isn't a vote. Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 19:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
What's the point of trying to stack votes that aren't votes? Besides, if you try to create a stampede of Esperanza editors to flood the MfD it would only serve to make the project look like what the opposition claims we do. --RoninBKETC 20:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi everyone. :) I know this feels like a pretty stressful time, and everyone should certainly express his or her own opinion on the MfD page, but please remember that when you are discussing things there, you are representing Esperanza. Yes, it is a heated issue, and yes, many of us vehemently do not want Esperanza to be deleted, but remember, the most important thing is to be respectful to everyone, even if they completely disagree with you. And try to be confident; even if Esperanza goes through some changes, we all support it, and there's nothing more important. Thanks, -- Natalya 23:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

  • If the discussion turns up as keep or no consensus, I would like to motion for a discussion among all members of Esperanza. This discussion will put all subpages of Esperanza under a heavy examination, and the EA members will discuss the merits and the faults of each subpage we have. The massive deletion on Esperanza is definitely an issue here, and it must be discussed. We also need to have another look at the Charter and our statment on the Front Page.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 01:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I support Ed's idea. Maybe even ask the nominater of the MFD to give us 2 weeks to completly overhaul Ezperanza, and then decide if it's still worth deleting..
In that case, I'll get the discussion pages ready. Would someone like to volunteer to affix {{Wikipedia:Esperanza/Header}} on everything that links here?. That would be greatly appreciated.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 02:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I said this at the Coffee Lounge, and better say it here too: The most important thing we can do right now is to remain united, do what's in the best interest of Esperanza and Esperanzians (and, of course, Wikipedia), and place all suggestions on the overhaul page.  Shardsofmetal  04:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you really think Esperanza exists to be a "united" voting block, you will get the pages deleted sooner or later. Do you realize how much you look like a secret club rather than an organization taking steps to improve Wikipedia? -- SCZenz 18:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
To clarify, what I just said does not apply to every comment above. Rather, it is my response to users who make comments like Shardsofmetal just did; you are making Esperanza look like a bad group, and undermining the members who are trying to make the case that Esperanza is good in terms of Wikipedia's goals. -- SCZenz 18:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Please point out the quote where I said anything about voting. Seriously. I said to remain united, and do what's in the best interest for Esperanza and Wikipedia. If you feel it's best to vote delete, then go ahead and do so, but do not put words in my mouth.  Shardsofmetal  20:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Esperanza "remain[ing] united" is the problem. Whether you are manipulating Wikipedia's "votes" or consensus decision-making, the fact that some Esperanza members seem to think that Esperanza as a whole should have an opinion that everyone brings to the table together is unacceptable; it undermines community decisionmaking. Now maybe that's not exactly what you believe, but you didn't say "Esperanza and Wikipedia" either—you put Eperanza and Esperanzians first, with Wikipedia as an afterthought. -- SCZenz 20:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Because I thought that doing what's best for Wikipedia went without saying. Also, I meant nothing about "votes", "consensus", or anything like that. What I meant was really that we have to remain strong, take into consideration all the opinions on the MfD page, and most importantly remain civil and be kind to others who may have a different opinion that you. It appears that there was no consensus to delete, but it is very important that we as a community formulate a plan to make Esperanza much more useful to the community, and more encouraging to write the encyclopedia.  Shardsofmetal  21:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
OK, I apologise for misinterpreting what you said. However, you might want to think about the fact that some Esperanza users do seem to misunderstand Esperanza in the manner I described above. You might want to think about whether imprecise language used by wiser Esperanza members is contributing to that, and what might be done about it. -- SCZenz 22:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
That's OK, nobody's perfect. And you're right, I can see how that could have been misinterpreted, and I am sorry. Also, I apologize for the bitter attitude I had earlier. The important thing is that we use the MfD to our advantage and make good use of it's suggestions. I hope for the best.  Shardsofmetal  02:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Ok, no problem. I've been trying to make constructive comments on these issues, but I wasn't at my best in this case. I guessed you held a viewpoint that concerned me and challenged you, when I should have been discussing the viewpoint in general terms instead. -- SCZenz 02:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
It's now reached no consensus. Do we take down all the MfD templates or leave them up? Jam01 21:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Question

Latest comment: 18 years ago10 comments10 people in discussion

If Esperanza is deleted, how many people would leave Wikipedia? Also asking if Esperanza is moved to another Wikia, how many of you would leave Esperanza? Respond as follows;

1. I would not.

2. I would.

And those are my votes, actually. DoomsDay349 01:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I would not leave Wikipedia, but I'd be so bored that I'd pretty much go crazy. If Esperanza was moved to another Wikia, though, I'd definately follow and hopefully many other members would as well. // Sasuke-kun27 02:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Without Esperanza, the stress would overwhelm me, and I'd leave Wikipedia. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'd stay in Wikipedia, but not Esperanza. I don't have time to switch wikis over and over... But maybe I'll stay with Esperanza... We'll see.--SUITWhat? 42 02:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I hope that regardless of what happens, all of you will stay here and edit - all of your contributions are appreciated, and you should know that. -- Natalya 03:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I would stay here. Esperanza is important, but I would probably forget my password on another wiki (eh heh heh...). I agree with Natalya, too. Kyo cat(T)•(C) 03:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sad to say that I'm finding less and less time for Wikipedia nowadays, I love the place (less and less though, things, and I don't mean this afd in particular, are getting more and more poisonous of late), but I'm only staying until my AC term expires. If Esperanza gets deleted, well then that'll be accelerated of course. :P -- Banes 08:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

No, I wouldn't leave. I would likely create an organization with some of the features of Esperanza, but far more encyclopedia based. Probably. I think that there is still loads to do here with or without Esperanza (articles to get featured, vandals to fight etc), so I wouldn't leave, no. Thε Halo Θ 12:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I would leave even if the Coffee Lounge was deleted.. Wikipedia used to be such a boring place until I discovered the CL.. And I am actually thinking about leaving just because the games were deleted.. When will people realize that everyone doesn't find editing encyclopedias such a interesting thing..Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs 02:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Do you realise that it is comments like that which are exactly the reason why many people wish for Esperanza to be deleted? If you don't find editing an encyclopedia to be interesting, then go and find yourself a forum somewhere where you can chat with your buddies and play games. The Crying Orc 13:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Tossing it out there: The Coffee Lounge

Latest comment: 18 years ago23 comments15 people in discussion

It's the white elephant in the middle of the room that no one is talking about (well, actually, everyone is talking about it, so perhaps that's a bad analogy). But regardless, it's evident that something needs to be done about the Coffee Lounge. Delete it? Perhaps. In light of the recent discussions, what do you think? (Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul was created for related discussion, but this is a big issue so it seems it should be on the main talk page) -- Natalya 03:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hmm..I think it should be deleted, I, personally, don't see anything great about the coffee lounge. Yes, you can talk about whatever you want there, but, we have lots of talk pages already. The Coffee Lounge is just one big talk page with a fancy name, and well...you get my point (right?). Kyo cat(T)•(C) 03:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I have to say give it an overhaul. Right now, it's kind of a forum. Instead of saying "What's your favorite..." We could talk about Wikipedia issues, not like the Reach Out page but kind of different. Without the coffee lounge, I don't know what I'd do...--SUITWhat? 42 03:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
If you do delete it, redirect it into someone's userspace and have it there
†he Bread 03:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
My comments and some responses a response at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza#Proposal for Coffee Lounge — Editor at Large(speak) 03:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I agree the Coffee Lounge needs to be fixed. So, I think it should be restricted to: Current Events (not just Wikipedia stuff, I see no reason not to have a good old discussion about politics) and Stress Alerts. Like "Hey, I'm stressed" would be cool, and then talk about it. DoomsDay349 03:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Good idea, Dooms. Very Esperanza-oriented... what Esperanza was created to do. More constructive than randomness :-) — Editor at Large(speak) 04:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Could we include current events (Movies? etc...) as well? Politics? I don't know...--SUITWhat? 42 03:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
How about creating the rule of discussing topics which have an article on Wikipedia.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 04:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I think it should be deleted. Maybe one of the reasons that people want it gone is because (and this is just speculations) they might not be able to edit it because they might not be members of Esperanza. If they were members, they might not want it gone. But since they are not members and therefore cannot edit it, they might not be in a mood to wait to become members, or might not ever want to.--Chili14 04:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
In the meantime, before we delete it, can we delete any sillyness on sit, immediately? Its damaging to our reputation. Jam01 09:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
The Coffee Lounge has got to go. Esperanza will survive, but when that MFD closes I intend to immediately put the Coffee Lounge up at MFD. It's a flagrant violation of WP:NOT a place for social networking, and distracts from helping Wikipedia, so you can forget about throwing IAR in my face. Best to all, Moreschi 09:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I guess the thing that baffles me about this discussion is why people are so STRONGLY opposed to the Coffee Lounge. Don't get me wrong, I agree that the games and such are out of Wikipedia's focus, and I support their removal. Heck, I even suggested the review of our Advisory Council members. But what I don't get is the sheer vitriol in statements like Moreschi's. Why assume bad faith in saying "forget about throwing IAR in my face"? I just don't get it. --RoninBKETC 10:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

(re-indednt) Yes, let's all try and keep cool. Saying "so you can forget about throwing IAR in my face." is likely to cause an arguement, over a very small thing really. It's no good to anyone. I personally think that the Coffee Lounge has gone way out of control, especially recently. I also think that, even a its best, it is only tangibly (is that a word?) related to building the encyclopedia. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with the Coffee Lounge being deleted, but I am more than open to any sugestions on how to make the coffee lounge better before then :) Thε Halo Θ 11:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

My apologies if the tone of my last comment caused offence, but I feel very strongly that the Coffee Lounge should go. And in previous Game MFDs I have had IAR cynically used against me, so my frustration is perhaps understandable. Moreschi 11:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Certianly understandable, and everyone is allowed a slip in tone. As long as we all try and keep a cool head, the discussion should be much better for everyone. Oh, and thanks for fixing my spelling ;) Thε Halo Θ 11:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I think the word you're looking for is tangentially, not tangibly :-) And yes, I think the coffee lounge should go too. the wub "?!" 11:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I agree that IAR has been overused, and used innappropriately at times. However, I do agree that the Coffee Lounge is necessary for building the encyclopedia, in a roundabout way...

If you're having problems or are frustrated, where do you go? Some people come to the coffee lounge and talk about it, we sympathise/reason/reassure/help, they say thanks, and we all move on, happier and more enthusiastic about editing the encyclopedia because of it.
When you're excited about something you've done or accomplished on the encyclopedia, where do you go? You post it on the coffee lounge, people share their achievments as well, everyone goes away happier for sharing what they've done and are more enthusiastic about the encyclopedia.
When you're frustrated with the hum-drum activities like categorising, wikifying, etc., or your brain is fried from all that article-writing, where do you go? You go to the coffee lounge, talk about something unrelated, relax a bit because of it, and when you're feeling better you go back and finish what you've started.

I can't spend more than one or two hours reverting vandalism without getting annoyed/fed up with humanity. I go to the coffee lounge, read some of the random postings by people I consider to be colleagues/friends, add one or two myself, feel better, and then go back and spend another hour or two reverting vandalism. Is that a bad thing? Without the coffee lounge I'd just leave Wikipedia for the day, and several hours of work would be lost. I'm sure others feel the same way. — Editor at Large(speak) 16:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have a new idea. What if we delete the coffee lounge, and create something new using the ideas given above. We could allow conversations about current events, both on and off Wikipedia, stress alerts, and topics that have a Wikipedia article (but the conversation must have some relation to the article). I think that with the ideas above, Coffee lounge is a bad name, and suggests that the page is for nothing but relaxing and socializing. It may be part of the reason that some users are very strongly opposed to even giving it another change to change. If we limit the conversation that goes on here, and give a name that suggests more value to Wikipedia, then there is a possibility that it may contribute to the project, and encourage writing articles more than the current Coffee lounge. I don't know what the title could be, though.  Shardsofmetal  03:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Sorry, I can't believe I forgot to sign...Reply

As a thought for everyone who still wants a place to relax from editing, remember that there is the Esperanza IRC channel, which serves much of the same function and is off-wiki. -- Natalya 23:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
For the IRC channel you all have to be on at once, though. With the Coffee Lounge was you could post something and people had days/weeks to respond.
As for a name for the suggested replacement for the coffee lounge, what about the "Esperanza forum"? boring title, yes, but it sounds like a place for discussion rather than chatting. — Editor at Large(speak) 02:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Personally, I think that that is a fine name. My only concern is that some users will see the word "forum", and get the wrong idea. It would be cool, I think, if somehow the word "stress" or "improvement" or something similar could be worked in there, but I can't think of a way. I think the best way to find an appropriate name would be to make a list of the goals of such a page. Here are some goals I can think of:
  • Help users relieve stress in an effective, efficient, and civil manner
  • Allow editors to make wikifriends that might help them collaborate on articles
  • Discuss current events, about Wikipedia or otherwise, and allow users to express their opinions
  • Suggest appropriate Wikiprojects for users who would like to get more involved in the community
  • Allow discussion of things that have an Wikipedia article, provided the discussion has some relation to the article (actually, this was Ed's idea, but I think it's a good one)
Please add any other goals this new page should achieve.  Shardsofmetal  03:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I told another user (who supported keeping Esperanza) that while I personally enjoyed participating in the coffee lounge at times, there were also instances where the prevailing sense of humour there have really turned me away from the place and question its purpose. I don't have the diffs right now, but there have been instances of random dog noises, off-colour humour and random nonsense, none of which seemed capable of lifting people's spirits, let alone contribute towards the encyclopedia. In those instances, my wikistress went was increased rather than decreased by the coffee lounge. I know that I can be sensitive and that I have issues to work through, but surely there are other people who have had similar reactions to what they have seen there. I just wanted to let you know, as a member of Esperanza and as someone who voted "Keep, but with some reservations". --Kyoko 04:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Userpage award

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can I bring peoples' attention to this question I asked yesterday...? It doesn't really matter to me if we discuss it there or here. -- SCZenz 21:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey. It's being discussed at the overhaul page. I want it gone, personally, but maybe, maybe, by some act of God, it will be salvaged. We'll see. DoomsDay349 23:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Proposed amendment to Esperanza charter

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello everyone. There were quite a few valid concerns that occurred over at the MfD, and I'd like to make a suggestion as to how to address a few of those. I propose an amendement to the Esperanza charter, to be inserted in the "Mission" section, that reads:

A. Programs

All Esperanza programs shall be designed to either directly benefit the encyclopedia or directly assist, encourage, or support those who contribute to the encyclopedia. No programs shall exist solely for the purpose of entertainment or socializing, with the exception of off-wiki efforts such as the Esperanza IRC channel.

This amendment would be applied retroactively to all existing programs. I realize this may not be the most popular suggestion, as many of us love the coffee lounge, etc., and feel that it does some good for the encyclopedia's community, but based on the comments of the MfD, I highly doubt the Coffee Lounge would survive an MfD of its own. Rather than wait for that to happen, I suggest this proactive measure to begin our reform of Esperanza. I look forward to your constructive comments and criticism. Cheers, EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 00:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

This amendment has been brought up at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Charter now. Please voice your opinions about it, lots of input is important! -- Natalya 23:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Question about Esperanza

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I voted delete in the mfd discussion because to me this project appeared to encourage 'social networking', violating WP:NOT. Now, I'm not a member and would like to ask, what is it you guys do? Your main project page says you encourage a 'sense of community' by giving out compliments and generally trying to be nice. Now this is all well, but how do you guys go about doing this? Do you constantly patrol user talk pages to see if someone is having a problem? Or do users come here and say they are 'sad' or something of that sort? In a sense couldn't this whole project be replaced by an essay with summary of "Wikipedian are people too, so be nice"? The essay could also link to various templates like Template:welcome and Template:smile. So basically what I'm asking, why do you need a project to encourage 'mental support' to new and stressed wikipedians? Thank you. - Tutmosis 02:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm not really qualified to explain Esperanza as I only joined a few days ago, so I won't, but I would like to thank you for asking your questions in such a nice way. The MfD scared me a bit, I must admit, and I was afraid the incivility would continue. Hopefully not, if everyone is a courteous as you. :) Marialadouce | parlami 02:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. Anyway I'm a little confused why people are so eager to keep this project. By my deletion support I'm not trying to get rid of this project's users from wikipedia, I'm just saying that I see no point in this pages themselves. Wikipedians can still be nice to each other without a project page, in my view all this project is trying to do is get around policy of no 'social networking'. This project looks like it was made for people who want to get away from routines of wikipedia and to socialize, basically. Anyone is welcome to challenge my view, and I look forward to it. My understanding of things isn't perfect. - Tutmosis 02:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, Tutmosis, you really asked well, and politely too! Anyway, regarding your question, I'm not sure about the patrolling stuff. It doesn't seem like it's the right way to encourage a 'sense of community', so we can leave that method out. Secondly, Esperanza is a place for users to request for help, so, they can say they are 'sad'. However, we do not operate on that alone. Esperanza members will try to find users who are in need of help, and they will then post the username in the right page. If you want to, you can try to join Esperanza and experience it yourself. Its very nice, really...sigh...if only it won't be posted for deletion...anyway, I hope I answered some of your questions(I'm only a newbie here,so I don't actually know much about Esperanza, except all those that I have told you). PS:The MfD scares me too... Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC) 13:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Let's consider the Esperanza pages one by one

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Let us, as a community, consider each page/project one by one. I propose we begin with the Coffee Lounge, since it seems to be one of the bigger items of contention. Comment at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Coffee Lounge, and let's see if we can't come to a consensus in a few days. Yes? --Fang Aili talk 02:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Coffee Lounge really needs a revamp as it is always targeted for deletion. We really need a major overhaul to achieve our goals as an organisation to benefit the encyclopedia. --Terence Ong (C | R) 09:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Esperanza's mission

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I always thought positively of Esperanza's ideas of keeping and building a strong Wikipedian community. However, Esperanza seems to be building a strong Esperanza community instead. Instead of something like a WikiProject Community Building or a WikiProject Be Kind and Appreciate Other Editors it has become a club most of whose community building activities are self-centered. It appears to me less as a group reaching out to all Wikipedians than as an association of young Wikipedians, and many of the activities seem to appeal mostly to young people. Or at least, they don't appeal to me, and that might be because I'm above 30. The recent "let's do something for the encyclopedia" activities serve to me as a confirmation of this trend of becoming a young wikipedian's club: they are where the club has an activity where they show young Wikipedians can contribute well in this organizational form. Appearing to look like a club, though, seems directly against the statement from Wikipedia:Esperanza "Esperanzians try to spread hope throughout the encyclopedia, and Spanish is used in the hope that a segment of the Wikipedia community will never again break away as a portion of the Spanish Wikipedia did to form Enciclopedia Libre." because it shows a fractured community. I don't personally care how much work Esperanzans do on the encyclopedia, the CotM will probably not be as effective as that of a focused WikiProject anyway. But I think you need to rethink what Esperanza was started for and whether the current form accomplishes that. Building a community and especially reaching out to a community as diverse as the Wikipedian community is hard work, requires lots of creativity and understanding of people of all kinds, and can't be simply done by putting nice templates and smiling faces on editors' talk pages. Still, I am an optimist and I still hope that Esperanza can work for the Wikipedia community instead of for itself as a subcommunity, and that the recent MFD helps Esperanza to find its focus again. Good luck from a non-member, Kusma (討論) 09:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Kusma, thanks for your good luck wish. We Esperanza members always hope to become a better community in Wikipedia. We will remember your advice and put it to good use. Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC) 14:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you try to become a better community in Wikipedia, it sounds like you are not working to strengthen the Wikipedia community, but the Esperanza subcommunity. This can cause a weakening of the Wikipedia community as a whole, so could be against Esperanza's stated goals. Kusma (討論) 15:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the comments, Kusma, I think many people will appreciate them after reading them. One thing though, true, Esperanza has many young members (as does Wikipedia), but you shouldn't make such an assumption about the entirety of Esperanza.  :) -- Natalya 16:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, Esperanza does have a lot of young members, but what does it matter if Wikipedia can have a few more users to help in editing? Sure, they might be inexperienced, but it is us seniors who should be guiding them, aren't we? (Not that I am a senior, don't be mistaken. I'm just putting 'us' because it sounds better. '...it is you seniors who should be guiding them sounds rude.') If any young member needs help, then us Esperazians will help them, and if we can guide them properly, they will become very good editors later! Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC) 12:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Coffee Lounge straw poll

Latest comment: 18 years ago22 comments14 people in discussion

I think it best if this contentious manner is resolved in-house, something that I don't think would be against policy in any way - after all, it is Esperanza's Coffee Lounge - another painful MFD is a thing to be avoided. I would like to set up a straw poll on this issue: should the Coffee Lounge go, or should it be kept? If it is to be kept, perhaps it would be best to give a couple of weeks for reform: and then, if this is not done or meets with big resistance within Esperanza, IMO an MFD will be necessary to gain the consensus of the wider community. Best to all, Moreschi 17:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

You might want to see this overhaul page for debate. DoomsDay349 00:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, there are two straw polls going on and we should restrict to the overhaul page where the coffee lounge is being specifically discussed.--Húsönd 02:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Keep

  • I'm in the clear minority here but I'll talk anyway. Keep, tag with {{historical}}, then don't use anyomore. My rationale for suggesting this is on behalf of the many people who have made edits at the Coffee lounge and their edit counts (Not myself, I've made 2 edits there I think). Also it has become a known part of WP, see the 50+ Archives, and should be kept for historical intrests.

†he Bread 03:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Delete

  • Unecyclopaedic: violates WP:NOT a place for social networking (discussing your medical problems???) - an "on-wiki chat centre" shouldn't really be allowed in any shape or form; it is potentially deletorious to the image of Wikipedia as a reputable encyclopaedia and has proved catastrophic for the image and perception among Wikipedians of Esperanza. Moreschi 17:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • Delete in its current form. Right now, it is a clear violation of WP:NOT, and nearly everyone agrees that it is not helpful to Wikipedia or Esperanza. However, there is a discussion going on here (hopefully those "overhaul" subpages will be centralised soon) about a possible reformed Coffee Lounge (I'm currently calling the reformed version the "Editor's Lounge", at least in my head). A discussion forum about articles, for example "I'm starting to write about a popular video game. Any pointers about what to put in and what to leave out?" could actually be very good for the encyclopedia, and any newbies that Esperanza attracts. However, even if there is some kind of reformed Lounge, the Coffee Lounge should be taken to Wikia and/or Deleted. Thε Halo Θ 17:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • Comment - yes, I think it'll be much easier to delete the current version and build the "Editor's Lounge" from scratch, rather than struggle through reforming the dreck that is currently there - sorry if anyone takes offence, but after dog noises I think that "dreck" is a fair description. Moreschi 17:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • Per NOT etc. I am not sure how beneficial an 'editor's lounge' would be — how would it be different to the 'coffee lounge'? I saw a suggestion above that discussion there be limited to subjects covered on the encyclopedia (but not necessarily the encyclopedia's coverage of the topics). How would this be enforced (?), and also since ideally the limitation would be synonymous with 'everything' it simply does not work. No, if people want to socialise they can start a forum (and no-one is objecting to a bit of banter on user talk pages, either). But I really do think an 'editor's lounge' will just be another coffee lounge under a different name (given time for the dust to settle on this one)...humans are just like that. The Crying Orc 18:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • Not if you make it something like Requests for Assistance (the other other RFA). Currently, the Coffee Lounge is pretty much a violation of several policies, at this point, not just WP:NOT. Titoxd(?!?) 21:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
      • Actually, under my proposal, a new group of monitors would be appointed strictly for the task of monitoring the Editor's Lounge. The basic idea is for discussion of inter-wiki ideas, like discussing policy and edits to it, which could be valuable because it allows new policy ideas to get out into the open. Of course, that's not to mean we shouldn't say anything on that discussion page. But it could be a valuable place. And also, this really should have been at the overhaul page...so really you cannot make any decisions without considering the opinions there. I encourage all of you to repeat your views there, where it will be better found. DoomsDay349 21:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • Delete, per directly above. Titoxd(?!?) 21:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • Delete per above. editor review me!-TeckWizTalkContribs# of Edits 22:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • Delete per The Crying Orc, and as far as "questions on editing," I think the Help Desk and the Village Pump are sufficient. Dar-Ape 23:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • Delete On second thought, can't a user put a help needed tag on his/her user page or simply as an editor for help? It's possible to compile a list of editors willing to help and I'm sure you already have that with coaching. So a talk page/lounge isn't really needed. Darthgriz98 00:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • Delete as per above and MfD page. I would not be opposed to the creation of a more Wikipedia-related page as per The Halo's comments. – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  00:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • Deleteas seems to be consensus around here.--Chili 00:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • Delete per MfD page - • The Giant Puffin • 23:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Proposed reforms

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

Hello, everyone! I brought up these proposed changes on Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Overhaul:

"Here's how you can get started: transwiki the coffee lounge, transwiki the games, and get rid of the pointless bureaucracy. Refactor Esperanza so that it focuses entirely on making the community happy, healthy, and wanting to write articles. Replace "Barnstar Brigade" with "Recognizing Positive Contributions" and perhaps award barnstars after that. Keep Stress Alerts. "Admin Coaching" is a misleading name; consider changing it to Editor Advice or something along those lines. "To Do list" is awesome. Kill the Userpage Awards. Reach Out is nice though maybe it can be merged with another page. Stressbusters and the Calendar are the two things I'm having trouble deciding whether to keep it or transwiki it."

The people who commented it said that it should be brought up on the main talk page. So now here I am bringing it up. How do my proposed plans sound? ★MESSEDROCKER★ 21:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Excellent. You must be a mind-reader: my thoughts exactly. Moreschi 21:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
The people whom I specifically want comments from are as follows: Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, HighwayCello and The Halo. You see, they're on the Advisory Council, which per my reforms would be dissolved. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 21:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Our opinions are no more important than any other Esperanzian, but here are mine, as requested :) The start that was laid out at Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza#Restructure_of_Esperanza is a very good start; COTM, the Tutorial Drive, the Alerts Page, and Admin Coaching (the name can be debated as people wish) should all certainly stay. The games have already disapeared, the coffee lounge is in the process of being dealt with (see above), whether it be deleted, moved, or modyfied. The To Do list is also well to be kept. If the suggested rename for the Barnstar Briagade makes people realize that is is useful, then that is good. The userpage awards will likely be debated, though probably not as hotly as the coffee lounge. Stressbusters and Reach Out have always been rather abstract programs, more venues for discussion than for action. And the calendar really is nice, it would be good for it to stay. That's just the quick version of my thoughts at the moment. -- Natalya 22:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I've just recently been at all the overhaul pages and created new ones, so check them out for some alternative, yet similar, ideas. My way keeps the governance, as we need someone to enforce the new policies...though I won't name them, I can think of several users that may not like this, especially the coffee lounge reform/deletion. DoomsDay349 22:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Personally, I think the member list is harmful to Esperanza. I think it's part of the reason for the perception of Esperanza as some kind of clique or secret club. Membership should be defined by participation: a clear-cut "member/nonmember" distinction is an unnecessary segregation. Feezo (Talk) 22:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I guess that validates WikiProject Disambiguation as being a pretty secret society too... Do not worry, I jest! :D I just thought it would be funny, hopefully some laughs are still okay. I can see the issue of the members list being more problematic than with any other Wikiproject, but I wonder what everyone thinks of removing it? If we change around Esperanza, it won't have as much of a club feel, and therefore a list of participants wouldn't be as much of an issue.
As for the leadership of Esperanza, despite my position I speak unbiasedly when I say that everytime the question of whether or not Esperanza needs any leadership is brought up, it's always decided that in order to keep things running smoothly, it is helpful. If we decide that that's no longer needed, then that's absolutely cool, but we should also consider what the past has brought up. -- Natalya 23:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
As I said when seeing the original preposal, I like the ideas. Per above, I'm not sure we'd need a members list per se, but we might need to play that by ear. Similarly, I'd like to keep the charter and the AC for now, as I think it does help with a smooth running, but I also think that if the new Esperanza can run smoothly all on its own, then we can easily get rid of it then. Thε Halo Θ 23:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Overhauls

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

For quicker accessibility and to get this out to everyone, here is a link to all the overhauls that we have as of yet. Any more, I will update them. Debate is appreciated.

Please come by and discuss. DoomsDay349 23:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Who decided that the overhaul had to take place across multiple pages? Why can't there be a centralized discussion on what needs to change, what needs to go, and what needs to stay? ★MESSEDROCKER★ 00:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I pretty much agree, but I just went along with the style. We can merge them all onto a centralized overhaul page, if you think that's the best idea. DoomsDay349 00:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I think that any one individual page would become gargantuan with discussion. Part of the problem at the MfD was that some people were pushing for everything to go, others wanted some gone but allowed for some to stay, and some wanted everything to stay. This method seems to allow that sort of discussion to take place. - Che Nuevara 00:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I missed the MFD discussion and would like to make just one point that is related to Esperanza as a whole. That is: that WP is one of the largest (the largest?) organisations in the world relying on volunteers. And other serious volunteer organisations take volunteer support seriously. It should be taken very seriously in WP, because the whole enterprise is addictive. It attracts disproportionate numbers of people who are in some way vulnerable - insomnia sufferers to cite only the most obvious condition. So for the WP enterprise to be morally justifiable it has a responsibility to give some basic support to those whose efforts it relies on. Esperanza and the Kindness Campaign are the main ways in which that currently happens; they must be expanded and improved, not deleted. Sorry this is turning into a bit of an essay. Please feel free to move it to another ___location if there is a more appropriate one. Itsmejudith 01:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Signature

Latest comment: 18 years ago14 comments8 people in discussion

This is not a proposed reform in any way, but I wanted to bring my thoughts up here in case any other users agree with me or disagree with me and would like to discuss this. In short, I am considering removing the green "e" from my signature. I realize this is not compulsory, but it is used in some form by almost all members. Esperanza is about creating a closer knit community, but I feel that an overt advertisement of membership sets these signatures apart, and albeit rare exceptions, Esperanza is the only organization that commands a place in its members signatures. Additionally, the Esperanza subpage contains little real information; one could simply click on a simple signature and be told on the following user page that this contributor is a member of Esperanza. I would appreciate any thoughts, as I am not fully committed to this yet. Dar-Ape 23:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Totally agreed. I would have my Esperanza page deleted but I don't know the process =P. I already removed the green 9 from my sig, as it was a distraction to other editors. I think I have a two line sig now, which is good I think. It was three lines before. It's tough to create policy for this though...I mean, hey, Esperanza tells us what we can and can't have in our signatures! What I would do is delete the template. That'll cut off the source entirely. DoomsDay349 00:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
If you created it and it's in your userspace, you can tag it for speedy delete. - Che Nuevara 00:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I've always thought that some people assume the green in my sig is for EA. It's not. - Che Nuevara 00:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'm getting rid of that stuff. It's useless, you know?--SUITWhat!? 42 00:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Mine is proposed for speedy deletion...dunno if they acted on it yet. I hope I used the right template... DoomsDay349 00:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
What did you use? I use {{db-userreq}}--SUITWhat!? 42 00:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
There's absolutely nothing wrong with a green e. lols. - Hahnchen 01:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Now that you point it out, Hahnchen, I'm very curious as to why your e links to evil. - Che Nuevara 01:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
{{db-userreq}} is correct. – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  01:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I just redirected mine so my old signatures wouldn't have a dead link, but whatever floats your boat. Dar-Ape 01:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I will admit to having sort of spoofed the EA subpage on my userpage (as well as using it to spoof disambig pages). Check out my main userpage -- there's no need for an EA template to do userpage disambig work. - Che Nuevara 01:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Really, Hahnchen, your 'e' links to evil... Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC) 13:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

If we agree on this, we can't really tell people "you can't have a green "e" in your signature, but we can take that bit out of So you've joined Esperanza..., so that if people put it in, it is by choice. It seems like that is a pretty reasonable option. -- Natalya 13:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

AC Meeting

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Can we have an AC Meeting anytime soon? I think that due to the massive overhauls we're having, it is necessary to be able to get this finished before the next MfD comes (I know it's going to come back; there's a debate over the result of our first MfD!).--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 04:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Know it's going to come back? Not looking on the brightside of life Ed ;) If our reforms go well, we will focus on the encyclopdia a lot more, so hopefully there should be no reason for a second MfD. Also, the AC has been Meeting a lot unoffically during this whole period, so there's no real reason for one schedualed meeting, I think. Thε Halo Θ 15:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Additionally, these issues and changes are so important that having a dialouge between all Esperanza members is really helpful. -- Natalya 17:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I was on IRC but no one was discussing. Meh, I'd have liked to have a live chat. DoomsDay349 21:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

In response to Natalya, is it true that since the Charter is being reformed as well, we can't really use the Charter to reform the Charter? ;) Anyway, I do think a community discussion should really be important for these issues.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 00:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

New essay inspired by recent MFD.

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have written an essay inspired by the recent MFD. Read it and tell me what you think on the essay's talk page. It can be found at: User:Jayron32/Orthodoxy and heresy at Wikipedia --Jayron32 04:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

User Page Award nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza/User Page Award -- SCZenz 23:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the link :) Thε Halo Θ 23:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Delete the Coffee Lounge?

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

From both discussions about the Coffee Lounge so far, my reading of it is that the consenus is to delete it (and then maybe start a new thing in it's place...). Am I right in thinking this, or do people want to wait some more before deciding if a consenus has been reached? Thε Halo Θ 23:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I seriously think that we should delete it. If we are to start something else in its place, it should include EVERYONE, not just EA.--Chili 23:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I think it would be alright to propose Coffee Lounge for deletion now, but please preserve the overhaul page. Discussion would continue and a new thing would be put up. And, Chili,you have good ideas; check out the overhaul page and please put your views down! DoomsDay349 06:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Removal of non encyclopedic programs

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Esperanza is about a sense of community. If we eliminate all programs except ones that have to do with Wikipedia, your basically getting rid of everything that has a sense of community, like Barnster Brigade, Birthday/first edit day congrats, etc. However, though I say that programs like these deserve to stay, these programs help editors by giving them support. Programs like the coffee lounge should be deleted because they don't help editors at all. In short, if it helps Wikipedia and the editors, it should stay. editor review me!-TeckWizTalkContribs# of Edits 01:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Results of Overhaul Discussions

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Let's say that one of the resolutions of an overhaul (like this one) resulted in the community in favor of deletion. What policy on Wikipedia could get that page deleted? Can we just delete the page because the community decided on it? Or must we get an external admin to deal with it?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 02:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's going to be deleted? Damn. // Sasuke-kun27 02:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
If there is a broad enough consensus to delete it (many editors have weighed in) it can just be deleted by any admin. Let's leave the discussion open for a few more days, though. —Mets501 (talk) 02:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Governance

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is currently discussion over whether or not to keep the Esperanza governance, located here. Please discuss; this is something that needs mucho discussion. DoomsDay349 07:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Coffee Lounge MFD

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Yup, it's finally up. The coffee lounge is up for MFD, with good reason. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza/Coffee lounge and also Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Coffee Lounge. DoomsDay349 07:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yay!--SUITWhat!? 42 07:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Ummm... you're oddly positive. DoomsDay349 07:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, just stay positive. Just stay positive. Yay. Well, it'd happen eventually any way.--SUITWhat!? 42 07:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Whatever. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 07:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

An idea on the membership list

Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Having read the comments at all the latest deletion discussions it appears that a lot of people view EA as a sort of clique or club within wikipedia that serves to benefit its members rather than the community as a whole. I think this is turning into a problem that's serving to polarise us against the community in various subtle ways.

I would therefore like to suggest we get rid of the membership list. I'm not sure it is very useful as it is at the moment. Most entries on the list are inactive and it's not like you have to be a member to be a part of Esperanza. We should (well, we do) welcome everyone, member or not. Are we not here to do a service to the community as a whole rather than our members.

Removing clear demarcations of membership I think would be a step towards breaking down the us/them polarization that's pervading discussions about us at the moment. Esperanza should be all inclusive rather than be perceived as a members club.  YDAM TALK 08:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think that this was brought up somewhere else, though I can't find it now. Anyway, I'd be more than happy to get rid of the members list, for the reasons above. A 700 user long members list kind of made us look more like a social club then a real wikipedia project anyway. Thε Halo Θ 11:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't mind keeping the userboxes and banners. As well as the green e's. I suppose that some people might see the green e as divisive, though. --Kyoko 13:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I, again, agree :) This is a WikiProject, and wikiprojects often have userboxes and banners, so I see no reason to get rid of those. Also, I think that anyone who wants to keep the e should be allowed to. I've still got mine, it just doesn't link anywhere. However, it is now part of how I am, and how I few myself, so I would like to keep it. Thε Halo Θ 13:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Of course, I've got no objection to green e's and userbox's. I don't think getting rid of those is going to really achieve much.  YDAM TALK 13:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I think the bit of discussion Halo was talking about was in the second half of Wikipedia_talk:Esperanza#Proposed_reforms. -- Natalya 13:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Natalya, that's just what I was thinking of :) Thε Halo Θ 13:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Encyclopedia-building games?

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

With the recent MfD nomination of Esperanza, I got this idea from several threads at various locations, including the MfD talk page and Village Pump.

Perhaps we should have some games which build the encyclopedia. This would make contributing more fun and less stressful. We could have a scoring system and prizes. In addition, we'll show our critics that we do build the encyclopedia.

What do you think? Any ideas for games? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Take a look at Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association. On the one hand, it's in the Sandbox, and therefore perceived as harmless. On the other, it has the stated goal of being "a good place to practice making links to articles, and to start looking for interesting articles on Wikipedia." I don't know why we can't apply this model that Wikipedia seems to accept, to some of our community building projects. --RoninBKETC 14:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Coffee Lounge Deleted

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Coffee Lounge has been deleted, as per this discussion. Thε Halo Θ 13:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Barnstar Brigade page up for deletion

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Please discuss the nomination for deletion here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza/Barnstar Brigade --tgheretford (talk) 14:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Probably becuase there seems to be a consensus here to wait for the reforms before a mass of MfDs on Esperanza programs. Thε Halo Θ 14:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
If there is anything good that came out from that discussion (apart from the deletion!) I have suggested a (preferably urgent) review of userpages, userboxes and user signatures guidelines at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Overhaul of Userpages, userboxes and user signatures, as per suggestions of a number of contributors to that MfD. --tgheretford (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

You're wanted and needed elsewhere!

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

When Esparanza came up for MfD, some of us at Wikibooks started salivating. We're in dire need of some community-building tools and tactics... much more so than wikipedia.

I hope the project survives here, because it seems to me that a lot of people get a lot out of it. But we also hope you'll consider doing what you do on wikipedia for us!

Things you could do:

  • We have no history of barnstars, but a lot of the wikibookians both deserve them and would be happy to get them.
  • Dewikify! (a perverse pleasure for those who have been dutifully wikifying?)
  • Have a coffee lounge. Have games on it. We could care less, but of course we'd appreciate it if you'd help clear some backlogs or give input when we need it!
  • Copyedit. Most wikibooks are a "one person project", which gets pretty lonely and doesn't take advantage of the joys of wikis.
  • Take a vacation. Wikistress is nearly unheard of on wikibooks. Apathy is our problem.

Really! We need you guys. This is an entire project suffering from bad morale (two projects were split off from wikibooks within the past year, and we're a bit shell-shocked). Come on down... you'll be welcomed. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 18:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I like Esperanza and all but I'm not gonna move to another Wiki..--SUITWhat!? 42 18:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the offer SB :) I do something kind of similar at Wikisource when Stressed bt still wanting to edit, so I see no reason why I should give Wikibooks a look at. I already have an account there after all. Thε Halo Θ 18:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
SUIT: it's not exactly "another wiki"... for example, this link to my user talk page on wikibooks doesn't have one of those funny external link arrow thingies :-). Wikipedians are often unaware of how the wikimedia family works.
Halo: I'm awed by anyone who works on wikisource... that is a very lonely project to work on! --SB_Johnny|talk|books 21:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I could see starting an Esperanza on WikiBooks. I'd like to let the Esperanza here play out a bit, and then once we've got a good model to go by, bring it to WikiBooks. That's only if I had a lot of support from people here. DoomsDay349 21:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

So we're expanding this into other wikis now? Will we have one at Uncyclopedia? I have an acount there.--SUIT 21:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

The Simple Wikipedia has an Esperanza already.--Chili 22:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Becoming a part of the community, not a subculture

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

It is very important that Esperanza is a part of the Wikipedia community, not separated from it. For lack of a better name, I have created a subpage at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Outreach that I hope everyone will start discussion at. (And yes, I know that it is ironic to call an integration subpage "outreach"...if you have a better idea, suggestions are welcome.) EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 23:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

For the moment I've moved this page to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Becoming a part of the community. Other suggestions are still welcome. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 23:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Editor forum

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I made a proposal at the proposal page from the suggestions and comments on the many pages discussing the coffee lounge. Please have a look at it and share your opinions about it.  Shardsofmetal  02:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

The spirit of Esperanza

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

The Esperanza community currently is in crisis. We're being scrutinised by everyone, and we're falling apart under the pressure. This needs to stop.

A stronger community fosters a nicer place in which to work. The nicer the place is to work, the more people will want to work there. The more people want to work here, the more contributions they will make, and the greater the encyclopedia will become. Thus, Esperanza was created. Esperanza aimed to promote the key principles of kindness and civility within the community, thus improving the encyclopedia.

Esperanza was never meant to play a direct part in encyclopedia-building. It was never meant to be about our contributions to the encyclopedia content. Within Esperanza, we were there to support contributors, so they did more. Of course, being Esperanzian didn't preclude contributing - far from it - but it gave us the extra role of supporting the community.

Esperanza has lost its way in this regard. The otherwise great programs for achieving these goals have now been deleted, having simply gone awry. The coffee lounge was meant to be a place where people could go when they needed a break: an online IRC. Where you can discuss things amongst others sharing your views. It bred silliness. The userpage award was supposed to encourage those with HTML talent, showing they have a place here, but it was seen as a silly distraction from our goal.

This is what worries me. People seem to want Wikipedians to be simply robots. They want us to not feel, and not get bored, to not want fun, and to not want to enjoy our time here. We are human, so this attitude fails in a big way. I believe Esperanza is still necessary, for creating that strong, united community, for that purpose set out at the beginning. I hope that I'm not alone. Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 13:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree with all the above. Some of Esperanza has lost its way. Some of it has become less relevant, and some of it became plain silly. That's not to say our original goals are now less than the once were. The ideal still remains the same. To try and make Wikipedia a happier, better environment to edit. However, it seems now that we want to rid Esperanza of any trace of it's former self, which is not where we want to go at all. If this MfD period has shown anything, it is that Wikipedia's community is far from a united force working towards the common goal of building an encyclopaedia and supporting one another while doing it. Because wikipedia is divided sometimes doesn't mean we must delete everything we ever stood for, just parts of things which no longer work so well. We must try to remember that Esperanza stands for hope, and while editing the encyclopaedia is a very large part of that, we must not forget our dedication to the wider wikipedia community. Thε Halo Θ 13:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I agree that the wholesale slaughter of Esperanza programs is a tragedy. Celestianpower, I understand that Esperanza wasn't as much about building the encyclopedia. Unfortunately, MfD has told us that we are not above the rules. The sentence that comes to mind about Esperanza is: "Building the encyclopedia, while building the community that builds the encyclopedia" Building the encyclopedia is where CotW's, whatever form Admin coaching takes, and general information sharing falls under. Building the community is where the loftier goals such as kindness and civility, wikistress reduction, and contribution recognition reside. As long as both sides of that equation are in balance, and one is not favored to the detriment of the other, Esperanza can create a better Wikipedia. --RoninBKETC 13:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I diasgree. I've never said we're above the rules. However, I don't see where we are above the rules. We are improving the encyclopedia (or at the very least, we're trying to) by improving the community, and improving the individual editors within it. If that's against the rules, then I'm not sure this is the right place for me to be. We're not about COTWs or direct contribution: there are hundreds of those projects already. We're adressing (or, once again, trying to adress) the community aspect, which is just as important. We're a simple Wikiproject, working on one aspect of the equation, just like other Wikiproject does. Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 13:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
What I am referring to is the oft-quoted, (or oft-thrown-in-our-face if you prefer,) WP:NOT policy that states that Wikipedia pages should exist "only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia." Even in comparing Esperanza to a WikiProject, all WikiProjects are for building the encyclopedia. Building the community should not, and does not have to come at the expense of building the encyclopedia. For Esperanza to survive, we will have to prove that building the community is the same thing as building the encyclopedia. I believe that they are the same. --RoninBKETC 14:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that's what I'm saying. Since it's my firm belief that a healthy community fosters a healthy encyclopedia, we are certainly presenting information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 15:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Right. The distinction we have to make clear to everyone else is that we are not building the community independent of the encyclopedia, which is the perception that is currently plagueing us. This is why I think projects like CotW help us, and I think a rebranding of ourselves (like my original bolded sentence above,) to clearly indicate we are still interested in building the encyclopedia would be helpful. I suppose on one level it's an appeasement, but on the other hand, I think that the Wikipedia community in general wants to be reassured that we hold their values as well. --RoninBKETC 17:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
You've just hit the nail on the head. We're making the community for the encyclopedia, not independant of it. That's a great way of putting it. Thanks! —Celestianpower háblame 21:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Overhaul update.

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Many of the discussions of reforms have gone into the voting phase, so I thought it would help you to have an update on the relevant issues:

  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Governance - There are currently four proposals: that the current governing system be kept as is, that it be abolished for either two or four months to test whether Esperanza actually needs that layer of bureaucracy, that it be replaced with two "consuls" to act a a balance of power, or that the council should be abolished permanently.
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Stress Alerts - Stress Alerts are still in the discussion phase, though a suggestion that they be deleted and resurrected in a third party format at the proposed noticeboard has been made.
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Appreciation Week - There are currently three proposals: that it be kept as is, that it be deleted as an Esperanzan project and be proposed for all Wikipedians at the village pump, or that it be deleted permanently.
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Members List - There are currently three proposals: that the list be kept, that it be kept but the inactive section removed, or that it should be deleted altogether. Discussion is ongoing as to whether it promotes Esperanzans as "set apart".

Thoughts and contributions to these discussions are welcome. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the update. With so many things going on, its hard to keep up - • The Giant Puffin • 12:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Forum

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I started a Forum page on User:Ed/Sandbox. I'll be working on it for a while, but feel free to edit it.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 00:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've done some work. Comments/suggestions welcome. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 16:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Constitutional Convention

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I hereby move, as a member of the Esperanza Club, that on December 31, 2006, at 11:59:59, the Charter expire, and set place for the creation of a new one, to be written by the members. WikieZach| talk 01:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

In amendment would be introduced to an article, then voted on. Since I am well knowledged in this area of politics, I would remain neutral and help with the process. The Current Charter's expiration time could be extended, but only for the new charter to be written. 24.131.63.39 01:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Esperanza&oldid=89140352"