Talk:Association of Exclusionist Wikipedians

---

---

Our Current Agenda

1. Logo

The AEW members have decided to create a logo without any copyright. Good things take time, but it should not take to long. It is in progress. - Sebastian *^{The Rain Man * *} * 21:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I have already incorporated the first draft. The second one had a ugly grey margin in mozilla. Also please: make it in a high resolution! I'm talking 1000px wide or more. 50px is not gonna cut it: diamonds, remember? Zanaq 17:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

2. Announcing AEW

Sebastian proposes to await major announcements of AEW's founding till the logo is finished and accepted among our members. Later it should be proclaimed in all Wikinews and other stages around the globe.

yeah, sure. Zanaq 17:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

3. Photos for Commons

...that topic has been excluded. --Sebastian 17:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Agenda

Once we have agreed on an agenda, it must be disclosed in full, on the content page: for now I don't really see an "exclusionist agenda". 1) The logo thing is not really agenda-like, more process-like. Let's not put our internal processes on the content page, only the result. (a special case of avoiding self-reference). 2) Once we have talked about and agreed upon when and how we will unleash exclusionism on the unsuspecting world, it will be disclosed on the content page. 3) I don't see how pictures from commons have anything to do with exclusionism. I disagree with this agenda-point. Zanaq 06:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am for keeping the agenda concise and evident. All active members (in other words Zanaq and Sebastian) could tell their few main issues. If everybody here is fine with them, we could bring them into an elegant and succinct form. - Sebastian 06:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

So here are my proposals:

1. We're seeking a good Community atmosphere
2. Everybody can and should get an exclusionist, no matter what other philosophy he belongs to (philosophys are relative, but "quality is paramount" is absolute). We work for that.
3. (According to 2.) we give ourselves airs
4. Every exclusionist should have a stylish fan page on meta, our fan pages can be big (it's not the same as the usual contents)
5. We want to get more women to become Wikipedians (the current low ratio of 10 to 15 per cent is not an exclusive thing)

Sebastian 03:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Bigger is Better

Can all members agree that Bigger is Better goes against core exclusionist philosophy: Quality is Paramount? Zanaq 15:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, to exclude a talk about that, it's better to concentrate on the relevant thing; "Quality is Paramount" sounds good. It should be our slogan and will replace "International Meta Exclusionists" on our logo. Sebastian 17:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm al for excluding, but if you want to include it anyway, please make sure the angle of the text "AEW" equals the angle of the subtext. Zanaq 08:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. --Sebastian 05:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: Principally no bad idea to exclude the text. But I think we should do that some time later. Because today not everybody is as sublime as we are. We were best to give all a chance to apprehend our glamorous ideas and ideals for the beginning. Later the sparkling diamond will speak for itself (for us). How you think about that? - Sebastian 06:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

As long as it looks cool I agree. On a sidenote I marked WELCOME ON MOUNT OLYMPUS as {delete|wrong way to move a page} because a) I hate the all caps (bigger is not better) b) I hate the "WELCOME ON" (bigger is not better) c) I hate the non-descript nature d) I hate GFDL violation. ;-) If you use the move-button we can have a move-war. :-P Zanaq 07:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

There's to much hate in the air. We're aspireing to a good atmosphere and NOT towards hate and war. Please would you respect that. The current title of our member list was provisional anyway. To get a compromise, we could change the name of our member list into "Welcome on Mount Olympus". It is a major maxim of Wikipedia to welcome new members and it is a major maxim of the AEW. To make that clear; of course we minimize were it seems necessary. But we can't declare "bigger is not better" in general. Because we support Wikipedia and its cardinal idea. Otherwise, bad people could confuse our glamorous ideals with something else.

Further we should attach importance to ourselves. Our godlike philosophy speaks for itself and is our figurehead. I don't know why you spoil it up with that spam anyway. Better exclude that. It's superfluous. --Sebastian 02:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

they should be excluded anyway. I can absolutely not agree that bigger may be better. Exclude the spam if you must. Why would one call it "mount olympus" anyway? it is too non-descript. that one would be welcome is self-evident. Remember to exclude only that which is sub-par. Zanaq 10:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, to get back to that "bigger is better" thing; you excluded that from our statement anyway, so now it's gone. So I can't see a problem about that. But I have thougth about it. Predicates like "bigger is better" or "less is better" are relative. So it doesn't really make sense to determine such things. Whereas "Quality is Paramount" is an absolute thing, what makes it exclusive. I must admit, I'm gettin more and more in favour of excluding the whole text of our logo rather soon. --Sebastian 06:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent: that's the spirit! ;-) Zanaq 10:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Logo

Logos

• 
  The version for dark backgrounds
• 
  The Sparkling Diamond - Our Future Logo
• 
  Alternate

The new logos are cool! But why on earth did the AEW members decide to create a logo without any copyright? Can't we just keep the income royalities and merchandising to ourselves and keep this exclusive? --89.145.216.90 16:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Invite to Integration Project

Considering your "cut diamond approach" to wiki, I invite you to contribute to the Integration Project as a possible solution to article content. Cwolfsheep 18:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Can you discuss how the AEW differs from the Assocation of Deletionist Wikipedians? I think Exclusionist is a better word, as it directly confronts the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, BUT unfortunately the Deletionists seem to have a head start with a similar philosophy and larger membership. I am not criticizing the AEW, but think the two groups should merge for a stronger group- unless there are philosophical differences that I haven't detected. Thanks. 75.26.5.96 18:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

From what I can see, the difference between the two is that deletionists delete articles, and exclusionists delete irrelevant content but leave the article, which is why you can be both inclusionist/exclusionist but not inclusionist/deletionist. While exclusionist is the opposite of the name inclusionist semantically, I don't think it is the direct opposite philosophically, because 'inclusionist' is relative to whole articles whereas 'exclusionist' is not referring to articles but to content which muddies them up and makes them too long or confusing. Tyciol 18:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User bar?

A lot of the other Wikipedian associations have user bars for people to put on their pages, would it be possible to make one for members based on the logo? Tyciol 18:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a draft version of a userbox en:User:Kraftlos/Userboxes/Exclusionist --Kraftlos 12:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice box. I have it on my WP user page. Would it be worth transferring it into the main userbox space, to make it more accessible? Rwxrwxrwx 19:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there a userbox space that's more accessible to the other Wiki's? --Kraftlos 00:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I added it as a template on the English Wikipedia: {{User A of Excl}}. I have it on my User Page--Jules.LT (talk) 10:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

New logo

I would like to submit my proposal of a new logo for AEW. Hope you will like it.

Proposal logo

--Path slopu (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Is this project still active?

I increasingly feel that Wikipedia has reached a point at which exclusion or deletion becomes more often helpful for Wikipedia than further inclusion. Now I'm wondering why apparently so few people see it this way. (As evidenced by the growth of duplications here and the lack of participation in this WP. The latter might be because many, like me, are loath to label themselves with an “-ist” word, apart from profession names and a few words such as “cyclist”.)

So: Is this project still active? I'm posting this same message on Talk:Association of Deletionist Wikipedians; if I receive a message by only one association, then I'd suggest merging the other association there. And if I receive no reply ... well, I wouldn't go so far as to delete both associations, but mark them as historical. ◅ SebastianHelm (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, in most cases I believe the best result for Wikipedia can be reached by merging. But that's a lot of work. It gives me some hope that there exists an Association of Mergist Wikipedians, but it seems this hasn't been active in recent years, either. So I will post a similar message there. ◅ SebastianHelm (talk) 09:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Logo

Can File:AEW alt logo.png

be adopted as an alternative, simpler, logo? Edward-Woodrow (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)