Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:02, 3 January 2007

Esperanza is officially inactive. Please send any comments about it to Misplaced Pages's Village pump. This page is for discussion about the essay which has taken its place on the main page.

Archives

Archives before October 1, 2006 Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archives after October 1, 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 Post organisation discussions January 2007 Other archived talk pages Collaboration of the Month

The Collaboration of the Month has been redirected to Article Creation and Improvement Drive.

The disposition of Esperanza's other programs is displayed below...

 * See also: Misplaced Pages:Adopt-a-User

Community

This essay needs to stress the fact that, even though Esperanza is gone, community-building is just as important. I added a new section a few minutes ago, but was reverted. In order to avoid an edit war, I think it would be best if we discuss here.--Ed Reviews? 02:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If it is not blatently obvious to everyone who is not a former member of Esperanza that being nice has not ended with Esperanza, than an essay isn't hardly going to change matters. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course former members are aware that being nice to other editors is still essential to the community! My concerns are directed towards newbies who are new to Misplaced Pages and who don't understand why community is important or how one can improve the community.--Ed Reviews? 02:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

And, if it is not blatently obvious to someone that dropping a nice note on someone's talkpage if they're upset is a good idea, a note on the Esperanza page that advocates giving all and sundry barnstars is hardly going to make a difference. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It's up to individual editors to show that a friendly manner can be productive, and allow others to learn from the example. -- Natalya 02:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the job of educating and involving editors is a never ending task and I saw no problem with Ed's ideas in that addition.--Alf 03:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dev here that this essay shouldn't be used as a platform for arguing the benefits of community building. However, we could include a more NPOV version like this:

Aside from participating in the group's official programs, members of Esperanza were also encouraged to show support to other editors, through such methods as awarding barnstars for good work, and supporting other editors with kind words during hard times. Even though Esperanza has been closed down, some of its former members continue to advocate the need for supporting other editors in this manner. It is worth noting that these goals were not unique to Esperanza - several other community groups were also founded on the principle of supporting fellow editors, and some of them are still active. Quack 688 03:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Great! I think it should be inserted.--Ed Reviews? 04:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Disposition of programs

What do people think of the new layout for the disposition of the programs? Though it is informative, it seems like the shorter listing of the programs still active was more appropriate for the decision that was made regarding Esperanza. It also kept the page more succinct. Thoughts? -- Natalya 03:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

We should have a list of the programs for a while. Maybe a few months? -Amarkov _edits 03:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the shorter listing was better. It was to the point, not advertising. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

But people should know where the programs went. For instance, if I want to find the calendar, how do I know where to go? -Amarkov _edits 03:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The Calendar was listed: . I agree with Dev920, I think the old version was better. List the programs that are still active or have equivalents in bullet form in the infobox, and leave discussion of the others to the essay. —bbatsell ¿? 03:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the shorter list. The larger one takes up too much space. Links could be added to archives/new pages if needed. I do not think the images or table are needed. – Heaven's Wrath   03:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The current version just seems to clutter the essay. (my 2 cents...)--Ed Reviews? 03:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like there's general agreement, so I'll put it to what it was before. And don't worry Amarkov, all of the programs are still listed in the lower section of the essay. You're right though, it's definitly important to cover what Esperanza did. -- Natalya 03:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't aware there was another list. I didn't care for it at the front, but a list needed to be somewhere. -Amarkov _edits 03:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too stressed whether the deleted programs still have their original icons, or if they're just mentioned in the essay text. But either way, there should be direct links to the deleted programs, so their history can be easily accessed. Quack 688 03:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Trading Spaces program

Should we mention on the page that the Trading Spaces program has been to moved here, part of Wikiproject User page help?--24.20.69.240 03:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... it was moved a long time ago, so it may be thut auuuutuat it's already accepted as a program no longer associated with Esperanza. -- Natalya 03:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I never considered it an EA program, but it might be of interest to other editors.--Ed Reviews? 04:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The essay page currently lists it as a former program,as does the program page itself (though since haven`t been watching Esperanza from the start, I don`t really know). Anyways, I thought that if it is listed there, it would be helpful to link to its current location so people(esp. newcomers) would know where to find it, but it`s not a big deal to me either way. 24.20.69.240 10:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I miss the old days

When I was the sole lowly member, ruthlessly governed by 15 people. It was so awsome! (I resigned a few weeks later, but still, It was great!) El_C 04:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL, that's classic. Isn't it great we can share that little nugget of Esperanza's history! Now we know who Esperanza's first dogsbody was. :-p

(On a serious note, it is interesting to see how Esperanza changed from then to now. That's exactly why keeping the history will let everyone take a step back and learn from Esperanza's mistakes.) Quack 688 07:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Am I still considered an Esperanzan?

I don't think so. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The term "Esperanzan" is getting quite problematic now.--Ed Reviews? 14:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What does matter is that you carry the sense of community that Esperanza fostered with you throughout your editing. -- Natalya 16:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment.

Just wanted to say that the page as it stands is now fine and we should all now go away and get on with some editing. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What about the first 2 sections of discussion on this talk page?--Ed Reviews? 14:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Trouble viewing earlier versions of WP:EA

All of the earlier versions of Misplaced Pages:Esperanza before the placement of the essay are messed up. The essay is still displayed, and numerous red-links pop up everywhere!--Ed Reviews? 16:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That's because on the old EA page the different subpages were transcluded onto the page, and they all now redirect to the essay, so now the old versions have the current version of the essay transcluded all over them... not sure what the best way to fix that is, can you do a "noinclude" on redirects? —bbatsell ¿? 17:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we restore those subpages?--Ed Reviews? 17:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, it's exactly this endless niggling over meaningless aspects that made me vote for full deletion, so this wouldn't happen. Has it not occurred to you that you can simply look through the history of the subpages that link to the front page if you're so interested? FFS, who is going to want to anyway? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dev; I don't mean to be rude, but did you bother reading the discussion? The reason Ed was asking whether the subpages could be restored was so that users looking at the history of WP:EA would not be confronted with pages that are largely illegible due to transclusion. I don't think it's that out of the question that users curious about Esparanza will look through its history, especially considering the tremendous amount of debate and discussion its deletion has generated; in addition, a lot can be learned from reading it. —bbatsell ¿? 19:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you totally. When newbies look through the MfD, they would obviously try to go through the history in order to gain more information.--Ed Reviews? 20:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're simply totally overestimating the number of people who are going to look through these subpages. The only people who will are people who want to use it in arguments and debate. Any newbie who wants to set up an Esperanza type organisation is not going to look through the history - they're simply going to create it. Funnily enough, I didn't think there was much point saving Esperanza history for it's use as a wedge in battle. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

And to think I was just telling somebody in e-mail that I was pretty ambivalent about restoring the subpages, because while it might be nice to look at Esperanza's history, it feels as if much that was associated with it is unintentionally divisive and even hurtful. --Kyoko 22:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The history would be important for the people who want to make a new organization. Let's say that an editor proposes to make an organization against userboxes. And let's say that the founder says, "I think it would be a great idea if we have a Committee to govern the entire organization." How would a former member of Esperanza respond? By saying, "I think this is not a great idea, given the fact that it failed with Esperanza." The submitter of the proposal would say, "I don't understand. What is the problem of having a governing body?" The other user would repond, "You can understand me better by referring to the Governance page." Oh, wait! There is none! My point exactly!--Ed Reviews? 22:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No, he wouldn't. He'd say "Look at the MFD and the main page where everything is explained for you." Even if the governance page was there it would be useless as the older versions do not criticise the governance in any way. Moreschi 22:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What if someone wished to contact a former Councillor? Surely there would be no way to find out without the actual Governance pages.--Ed Reviews? 22:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Mein Kampf outlines some nasty ideas. Plenty of people have written essays about it. Why do we need copies of the originals any more? Doesn't keeping them around just encourage people to do bad things? (Let's be perfectly clear here. I am not trying to make any comparisons whatsoever between the content or notability of Esperanza versus Mein Kampf. But as encyclopedia editors, we, more than anyone else, should recognize the value of keeping primary sources, even if we have secondary sources (like the MfDs and frontpage essays) which discuss those primary sources.) Quack 688 01:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Esperanza has been folded up. I cannot think of a good reason why someone should wish to contact someone else in their role as a former councillor of Esperanza. However, perhaps one or two mentions of AC members should go into the main page essay to address this concern? This would presumably solve the problem. Moreschi 22:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"How would a former member of Esperanza respond? By saying, "I think this is not a great idea, given the fact that it failed with Esperanza."" I would like to think that anyone who is faced with that kind of idiocy would reply "No, because that's a fucking stupid idea and totally contravenes every possible Wikipedian principle and policy you can imagine." Do you seriously believe the only thing wrong with that scenario is that Esperanza tried it and got rejected? Is that your only possible thought? Come on. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

So, when Esperanza was first proposed, was there a massive chorus of voices saying "No, because that's a fucking stupid idea and totally contravenes every possible Wikipedian principle and policy you can imagine."? I haven't found such a chorus. But who knows? Maybe there was such a discussion on Esperanza's pages when it first started. Oh, wait. I can't find them cause they got deleted. That's a shame, huh. Quack 688 01:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)