User talk:Versageek

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Hi Versageek. Welcome to English Wikiquote.

Enjoy! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


Oi, I answered your question on the reference desk where is my cash? Better had add a smilely <-% so you don't think I'm demanding money with menaces MeltBanana 00:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the R. Turnbull quote. While I'm sure that wasn't the book I got it from, it is without a doubt, the original source.
I plead 'youthful ignorance' on the charge of not properly documenting sources when I added it to my collection. I was about 14yrs old at the time! I know better now :-) - Versageek 06:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't feel too foolish about not thinking of sourcing, Versageek. Renowned author and business maven Laurence J. Peter (of "Peter Principle" fame) hadn't learned this lesson after nearly six decades when he published Peter's Quotations, his own collection of useful quotes from many sources. Unfortunately, this is the norm outside of the formal quote dictionaries like Bartlett's Famous Quotations and The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, which Wikiquote strives to emulate (and improve upon). I'm happy to see you and MeltBanana on board with the need for proper sourcing. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

same quote in two places?[edit]

I want to take the R.Turnbull quote I had asked about on the Reference Desk and actually add it to Wikiquote. It's about both Doubt & Faith (but not necessarily religion, although the source is a book about religion). Can I add it to both topic pages, or should I just add it to one of them? Or is there a better way? - Versageek 17:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd put it in both "Doubt" and "Faith", as they're both appropriate. Themes can overlap sometimes, and quotes can involve more than one on occasion. Also, since theme quotes should be from notable people and works, most of them will probably be in the person or work's article, too.

I wouldn't put it into "Religion" for two reasons: (1) inclusion in theme articles isn't based on the source, and (2) "Religion" has quite enough material just addressing explicit mentions of religion. If we included everything that had an implicit connection, the religion articles would become encyclopedias of their own. ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)