Wikiquote:Village pump

edit the header

Create a new topic

Wikiquote discussion pages (edit) see also: requests
Village pump comment | history | archive General policy discussions and proposals, requests for permissions and major announcements.	Reference desk comment | history | archive Questions and discussions about specific quotes.

All Wikiquote: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 - All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5

Archives

2003 2004 2005 01-06 / 07-09 / 09-12 2006 01-05 / 06 / 07-09 / 10-11 / 12 2007 01 / 02 / 03 / 04 / 05-06 / 07 / 08-11 / 12 2008 01a / 01-08 / 01-08b / 01-08c 02-04 / 05-06 / 07-08 / 09-10 / 11-12 2009 01-02 / 03-09 / 10-12 2010 01-06 / 07-12 2011 01-05 / 06-08 / 09-12 2012 01-02

Welcome, newcomers and baffled oldtimers! If you have a question about Wikiquote and how it works, please click the link below "create a new topic" , and then you can place your submission at the bottom of the list, and someone will attempt to answer it for you. (If you have a question about who said what, go to the reference desk instead.)

Before asking a question, check if it's answered by the Wikiquote:FAQ or other pages linked from Wikiquote:Help. Latest news on the project would be available at Wikiquote:Community portal and Wikiquote:Announcements.

Before answering a newcomer's question abruptly, consider rereading Please do not bite the newcomers.

Questions and answers will not remain on this page indefinitely (otherwise it would very soon become too long to be editable). After a period of time with no further activity, information will be moved to other relevant sections of Wikiquote, (such as the FAQ pages) or placed in one of the village pump archives if it is of general interest, or deleted. Please consider dating and titling your discussions so as to facilitate this.

---

Main Page and images

Ningauble says in another thread of this page (just on the above right now); "Re. DB2412's idea for a quantitative survey: I am not aware of any way to do this that would not be very labor intensive; but I believe I do know which page has the highest ratio of images to quotes: it is the Main Page. ~ Ningauble 18:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)"(orig.). Though I have no metric either, intuitively I concur with Ningauble. I have no idea on several things, in particular

1. What makes those images necessary
2. What makes each of those images relevant to the featured quote (honestly in many times I miss it)
3. Where we find the criteria for image additions; we have a discussion page on quote selection but images are added without any discussion, any process, if I recall correctly.

I don't claim all those images are irrelevant, for example, an image of the portrait of an author attached to his or her saying, but I don't think either every usage of images appropriate. As far as I know, there is no consensus making if QoTD should be accompanied with images - and if asked, I would decline, in the current situation - it doesn't look on NPOV, rather certain New Age Movement advocacy or something, which is no Wikimedia Movement mission at all. We should avoid misunderstanding, specially unnecessary one. Thoughts? --Aphaia 18:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I should have mentioned there is a separate thread at the top of this page about Images on Main Page. Although it appears quite lengthy, only five users have commented there. ~ Ningauble 19:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I am only briefly checking in here now, and I acknowledge many appropriate concerns have been raised, and it is about time many of them begin to be addressed. I don't have much time now, but intend to DO much to address MANY concerns in coming weeks. MANY of you are aware of my propensity for accuracy that frustrates others in many ways, but I cannot deny that I am impelled to be as honest and fair as I can be, even if it will sometimes seem harsh to MANY. Be prepared. So it goes… ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

• Update: Pending the outcome of ongoing discussion and multiple complaints about image use on the Main Page, and taking into account the fact that we have had complaints about image use on the Main Page via OTRS, I've removed current and upcoming images from Quote of the day — until such time as we have a consensus as to image use policy on the Main Page. diff diff diff diff diff. -- Cirt (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • While I wonder if such an immediate removal was demanded, I might be wrong and missed something. I didn't get involved in the latest discussion (thank you Ningauble for pointing it out), and confess I haven't comprehended it entirely; it's too long to read. On the other hand, it seems participates agree on that concerned there raised are worthy to reflect.A summary of such discussions, or at least a list of such concerns will be appreciated rest we fail to miss them again after a lengthy discussion.
  • Feedback to OTRS is also concerns we would like to consider. Cirt, can you give links to recent OTRS tickets which raise the concerns you mentioned? Some of us can access them so that we altogether take those thoughts into account. Cheers, --Aphaia 12:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

There are MANY forms of laudable diligence, and certainly some forms of despicable diligence at finding ways to destroy and diminish the information available to people. There is a VASTLY different character to acts of INDICATING or EXPRESSING ideas that might sometimes be unfamiliar or unappreciated by many and SUPPRESSING ideas and even DIMINISHING and seeking to ELIMINATE the RIGHTS of others to make them — the one involves an acceptance and promotion of OPEN and HONEST contentions — which may or may not be respectful in many regards, and the other involves INNATE disrespect for the dignity and rights of human beings to think differently from oneself at all.

I would like to KNOW what is REMOTELY objectionable in this layout which was used yesterday UNTIL CENSORED by the SUDDEN DICTATORIAL DECISION of Cirt.

I went down to the sacred store Where I'd heard the music years before But the man there said the music wouldn't play And in the streets the children screamed The lovers cried and the poets dreamed But not a word was spoken The church bells all were broken And the three men I admire most The Father, Son and Holy Ghost They caught the last train for the coast The Day the Music Died. ~ Don McLean ~

OR in the layout that was devised FOR today's current QOTD :

I grow aware of various forms of man and of myself. I am form and I am formless, I am life and I am matter, mortal and immortal. I am one and many — myself and humanity in flux. I extend a multiple of ways in experience in space. I am myself now, lying on my back in the jungle grass, passing through the ether between satellites and stars. My aging body transmits an ageless life stream. Molecular and atomic replacement change life's composition. Molecules take part in structure and in training, countless trillions of them. After my death, the molecules of my being will return to the earth and sky. They came from the stars. I am of the stars. ~ Charles Lindbergh ~

I request that an admin restore these layouts and those others removed from Wikiquote:Quote of the day/February 2012 to the pages and that no decisions to SUDDENLY CHANGE long-standing policies and practices and BAN images from the main page be enacted without COMMUNITY approval.

With TENS OF THOUSANDS of hits typically occurring on the main page EVERY day the ONLY such complaints ever mentioned that I am aware of were those in APRIL last year when people misunderstanding what some use of Swastikas actually represented understandably complained — and to use such a RARE occasion LAST YEAR to suddenly justify the REMOVAL of these layouts I consider another act of preposterous presumptuous censorship on the part of Cirt, and one which I genuinely believe to be another manifestation of a personally malicious harassment of me my work on Wikimedia projects — to add to the long standing campaign of cross-wiki DEFAMATION and SLANDERING of me and my uses of alternate accounts in ways I still assert NEVER violated any actual policies, and only a very few occasions MANY years prior to accusations against me could even be construed to be genuinely dubious use on THIS wiki ALONE. When MUCH of what some have wanted to pass off for significant evidence against me are actually examined they are ludicrous — like treating the posting of STANDARD links to Wikiquote on corresponding Wikipedia pages as improper activity.

I request that admins and others DISCUSS this matter, and argue that this work should be restored and NO further censorship occur without CLEAR reason of violation of POLICY — and I do NOT mean such SUDDENLY CREATED POLICY STATEMENTS as Cirt decides to UNILATERALLY declare to be OFFICIAL POLICY without discussion. I might not have time today to discuss matters so fully as I would wish, but will attempt to check in on things when I can. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 12:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

For YEARS I have diligently served this project and attempted to make the PRESENTATION of quotes more interesting to people, and the layouts I have designed haver RARELY raised objections. I am NOT interested in finding ways to make the project less interesting and inviting by increasing strictures against creativity and increasing efforts to find new ways to impose new restrictions and limitations on others activities in ways for which there have actually NOT developed any clear consensus. I truly am appalled and disgusted by some of the recent activity of Cirt, and consider it deplorable. I can forgive the personal hostility regularly exhibited by this person to me and my activities, but I consider the increasing attempts to diminish information and the presentation abilities available to people generally as ultimately detrimental to the project as a whole. I truly wish everyone well, and I hope the appalling REMOVAL of images without CLEAR warrant by the community will be reversed by admins today. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 12:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

N Not Done because the request of Kalki lacks either project policy or guideline or community consensus which justifies such usage of images on the Main Page. Please make consensus first: as said earlier I don't know any clear consensus on this issue. --Aphaia 13:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I will note that there has been tacit acceptance and approval of the PRACTICE for years by all but a FEW people, and though these do include some diligent workers on building this project in significant ways objections currently being made of retention of layouts are made by people who I truly believe OFTEN seem MOST interested in BOSSING OTHERS AROUND, sometimes drastically inhibiting and IMPEDING the proper activity of others, and NOT adding material or doing CREATIVE work. So it goes... ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 14:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

@Aphaia (talk · contributions), please see comment by Adrignola (talk · contributions): "We're getting email complaints on this as well." Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Cirt's action does appear to be abrupt and draconian, but I fully sympathize with the impulse to just put a stop to this until the community decides.

  I confess that at one point during last year's discussion I became so exasperated with Kalki's refusal to compromise or cede ownership of the Main Page, even in the face of unanimity among everyone else who commented that this had gone too far, that I was sorely tempted to simply remove {{Main Page Quote of the day}} from the Main Page; but I decided to make a nice cup of tea instead. ~ Ningauble 15:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Thank you, Ningauble, for sharing your response regarding Kalki's "ownership of the Main Page", as you put it. Quite an apt characterization. -- Cirt (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, I will note these remarks made about the use of swastikas from MANY different eastern traditions as well as a few of the Nazis, in a layout of a quote CLEARLY having anti-authoritarian sentiments in JUNE of LAST YEAR — are being used to SUDDENLY NOW IMPOSE dictatorially a SUPPRESSION of images, without ANY clear community consensus AGAINST the CONTINUED use of such layouts as have been used for years. When Admins and bureaucrats and Checkusers are elected to SERVE the projects, people do NOT elect them to be their BOSSES and MASTERS to be treated with abject OBEDIENCE — but this is INCREASINGLY what SOME appear eager to MAKE themselves over others, using advantages of their positions, power and prestige to suppress, stifle and punish dissent. I do NOT own the Main page, NOR claim to — but you do NOT OWN ME, and NONE of YOU OWN the right to DICTATE policy to others not ESTABLISHED by community consensus. Ningauble's frustrations I can partly understand, but there is MUCH to note about the behavior taken to suppress activity in ways I consider quite improper, and to maintain extreme hostility on ultimately slight justification and much pretense about many things. This is certainly ONE thing which should continue to be discussed, but there are MANY matters I feel should be extensively addressed by ALL participants in the coming months, including the fact that ADMINS should NOT just CREATE POLICY PAGES or suddenly label any policy page drafts as OFFICIAL policy, without COMMUNITY notification and discussion here at the Village Pump, as Cirt has clearly on several recent and PAST occasions done. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 15:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

I want to clarify something: I might be wrong in my comment about any PAST incidents of CREATING policy pages beyond those recent ones— but I had noticed long ago that he or she had ADDED policies to a policy page without ANY discussion, and I thought it entirely inappropriate, but had too many other things to contend about to make much of a deal about it at the time. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 16:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• If you have genuine concerns about improper conduct on my part then I encourage you to open a request for comment in a separate thread. I would sincerely welcome an opportunity to learn from community review of any specific problems with my conduct. Otherwise, argumentum ad hominem is simply a distraction from this deliberation; and vague, unsubstantiated allegations of unspecified improprieties and deceptions are simply uncivil. ~ Ningauble 16:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• I believe people can have genuine concerns about the conduct of ALL of us, including myself, and I do NOT mean to cast major character aspersions upon anyone by making some observations born about my irritation at some of he strategies used in regard to this issue, which I had considered remarking about before. I noticed soon after you raised the issue you IMMEDIATELY did a clearing and archiving of this page which brought it to the very TOP of the page — where it HAS REMAINED for most of the past year — and in all those months, until recently, it received VERY LITTLE support or attention from others, DESPITE tens of thousands of people EACH day viewing the main page, and being HIGHLY prominent in all that time. There were major flaws and deficiencies in the logic of some of the comments in recent months which did accumulate there that I considered addressing, but refrained from doing so because I wanted to avoid to open or public a show of contempt at what was being done. Arguably it would have been MUCH better if I had made SOME of my objections known more clearly earlier before Cirt's recent seizure upon an OLD issue to find a NEW way to severely harass me and interfere with my activities here and attempts to PRESENT a wide variety of worthy views to a wide variety of people — which I believe is a worthy goal for ANY human being in ANY project. The constraining and diminishment of the Human RIGHTS to do many things is what I usually strenuously object to. Though I am notable for my LONG DETERMINED ASSERTIONS, I believe that most are nearly always in DEFENSE of Liberty and rarely, if ever, against any truly proper forms of Freedom. Blessings to all. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 18:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks
  • "If you have genuine concerns about improper conduct on my part then I encourage you to open a request for comment in a separate thread;" but I must contradict a misstatement of fact:

    I have never moved a brand new discussion to the top of the page. I initiated that discussion 15:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC), and did indeed archive the page‎ a few minutes later at 16:09 (UTC), but that revision left the section at the bottom of the page. The page has only been archived twice since then.

    ‎If anyone else wants to help with archiving the page they would be welcome. Recognizing that nobody seems to be in a hurry to remove old discussions, I have only been archiving threads that had no activity for several months. The frequency of archiving and choice of cutoff date are arbitrary, as I have no objective criteria. (I am usually moved to act by the slowness of page loading, something that is exacerbated by transclusion or substitution of image-laden pages that might as well, for purposes of discussion, have been referenced with a link). ~ Ningauble 15:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Nearly all conduct seems proper to those most habitually engaged in it — disputes arise over differing notions of propriety, and what one is willing to tolerate, censure, promote or acclaim. I stand corrected that the first archiving you did immediately afterward did NOT bring this section to the top of the page — merely your subsequent archivings in which you skipped over archiving an issue that hadn't been commented upon in MONTHS to bring it to the top of the page, where it subsequently did find a couple of people more averse to the use of images to join in comments against them. The promotion of prohibitions rather than productivity and genuine protection of rights has markedly grown on this wiki, and though it might not seem disturbing to some, I honestly find this deplorable. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 17:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Finishing Bartlett's 1919

The project to import all of the 1919 edition of Bartlett's Quotations is almost done. All remaining unchecked quotes have been imported into project space on the following pages: 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

This is still a fairly large undertaking. Please help by checking to make sure that the quotes on these pages exist on the pages of the author under whom they are listed, formatting and adding them if they are not there, and removing checked quotes from the project space lists. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Guys, seriously - some help here? It's an easy task. If we could pull together and all pick off a few quotes from these pages, it would be done much faster. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Survey invitation

The Wikimedia Foundation would like to invite you to take part in a brief survey.

With this survey, the Foundation hopes to figure out which resources Wikimedians want and need (some may require funding), and how to prioritize them. Not all Foundation programs will be on here (core operations are specifically excluded) – just resources that individual contributors or Wikimedia-affiliated organizations such as chapters might ask for.

The goal here is to identify what YOU (or groups, such as chapters or clubs) might be interested in, ranking the options by preference. We have not included on this list things like “keep the servers running”, because they’re not a responsibility of individual contributors or volunteer organizations. This survey is intended to tell us what funding priorities contributors agree and disagree on.

To read more about the survey, and to take part, please visit the survey page. You may select the language in which to take the survey with the pull-down menu at the top.

This invitation is being sent only to those projects where the survey has been translated in full or in majority into your language. It is, however, open to any contributor from any project. Please feel free to share the link with other Wikimedians and to invite their participation.

If you have any questions for me, please address them to my talk page, since I won’t be able to keep an eye at every point where I place the notice.

Thank you! Slaporte (WMF) (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

What happened to the Greek proverbs page?

In October 2010, I added a Greek proverb to the Greek proverbs page, and several Latin translations of the same proverb (by Erasmus, Sir Francis Bacon, etc.) to the Latin proverbs page, linking them to the Greek proverb. Today I noticed that the link was red, and found that the Greek proverbs page has disappeared. I cannot find "Greek proverbs" in the Votes for deletion log, nor do I see why Greek proverbs would be a less valuable page than Latin proverbs. Has it been moved?

Amccune (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

This page, and other proverbs pages like it, were deleted for not having sources for the quotes (see WQ:VP#Proverbs_pages). If you have sources, the quotes can be restored to the talk page, pending adding the proper sources. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

In particular, this page was PROD tagged for lack of sources - there were none on the page at all - and no one objected before the PROD expired. BD2412 T 21:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Requests for adminship

There are currently two requests for admin status at the Wikiquote:Requests for adminship page, that of Pmlineditor (talk · contributions) myself, Kalki (talk · contributions). ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 17:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

New Wikimedia Shop feedback/help requested

Hey all,

Some of you may already know that we've opened a shop at http://shop.wikimedia.org to sell Wikimedia Merchandise. We're now entering our "Community Launch" allowing us to hopefully get as much feedback from the community about the store, it's products and everything else involved. For those that are interested we've set up an FAQ/information page, feedback page and design page. We also have a 10% discount up for at least the next 2 weeks (CLAUNCH or 'Wikimedia Community Launch' in the discount box at checkout) and a $10 maximum shipping fee world wide for most orders.

However the big thing I wanted to ask you about was Wikiquote gear. Right now everything on there is Wikipedia related but we want to make sure we have merch from all of the projects as well. So far we have a couple things on order:

• Stickers from all of the projects
• 1" buttons (or 'badges' ) from all of the projects
• Are in the design and digital mockup phase of lapel pins for all of the projects to both go independently and as a set. Right now we're getting mockups to see how they look and to see if we want to go with the Pewter look that we have right now for the globe (this new set will have an interlocked v W for the wikipedia piece) or the full color enamel look like This Strike Command pin.

We want to have more though both soon and in the future and I wanted to know what you thought. One of my thoughts for something early on was a series similar to the I Edit Wikipedia shirts (we have two versions right now) on the shop for each project. If we did something like that should we just use Edit or adjust the verb? " I quote?" though that may be a bit much.. other ideas for this or other products?. Jalexander (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there a consensus on an image question?

Is it possible to establish a consensus about a question that seems to have come up in a few other contexts? I've been removing doubtfully-relevant images from the W. H. Auden page. Most of these images were added by a single editor; that editor seems to use some of the same images on a number of other pages, and they seem to be just as irrelevant on those many other pages as they seem to be on the Auden page. I've removed many of these images, and the original editor has reverted them; I've now removed them again, following the policy at [[1]], and the editor has reverted them again.

Is it possible to get a consensus on this, one way or the other, so that we can end this back-and-forth? I certainly don't want to waste bandwidth on a long discussion, as I think the issues are extremely clear, and that they seem to have been discussed at length in earlier threads. So I'll simply listen to whatever comments might be made, and won't clutter up this page with comments that would merely duplicate many earlier ones in other discussions. Thank you for any help you can provide. Macspaunday (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion on the proper use of images here: Wikiquote_talk:Image_use_policy#General_policy_considerations - feel free to contribute to the discussion. But as this discussion is ongoing, I would have to agree with Kalki that the removal of the images on the W. H. Auden page is premature. It very well may be that once the discussion ends and a refined policy is crafted that such images as you noted on the page will again be removed in compliance with the policy (and that is the way the discussion appears to be headed). But until or if that occurs, to answer your question: no, there is no consensus yet on the removal of them. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I will look forward to the end of the discussion and not take any further action until the matter is settled. It's only my opinion, but it seems to me very clear that the discussion is moving in an entirely useful and appropriate direction. Macspaunday (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree - the issue is not settled yet, and the nuances may take some time to arrive at, but it is likely that most of the images you removed will eventually have to go. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────────┘
@Macspaunday (talk · contributions), looks like you were reverted, see history. -- Cirt (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as I commented above, without a formal policy in place, I don't blame Kalki for reverting the removal of the images, since they (and others) have been tacitly accepted on the site for far longer than the current discussion. As I said, it very well may be the case that once the policy is finalized that these images should again be removed, but in the absence of said policy, Kalki is within his rights to maintain the images. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but there are other policies that are in place, such as WQ:NPOV and WQ:NOT. -- Cirt (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but neither of these is explicitly directed toward images - which is why we are having these discussions in the first place. Don't get me wrong, I do agree that we need better policies in this area and as I mentioned, the discussions are headed in the right direction for tying up this loose end (and you can judge my inclinations from my contributions to the discussion). But until all this is completed, I don't fault Kalki or anyone else for operating as they see fit in the absence of something explicitly prohibiting their actions (which I do not believe we as yet have). And the other party in this identified content dispute (Macspaunday) has already agreed to not continue the dispute until the resolution of the issue and the formalization of a policy. My point in commenting is that pointing out that Kalki had again reverted the edits does not even matter for now and that action was not really wrong under current policies. Once policies change, as I assume they will given the discussion, there would be a firm stand taken on such actions. Until that day, I see nothing really wrong with what Kalki did (other than the fact that I would rather one did not engage in an edit war but rather discussed the conflicting opinions on a Talk page). ~ UDScott (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, we certainly agree as to your last point. :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Action on a usurpation request

An editor has put in a usurpation request for User:Osiris. The requesting editor is using that username at simple English Wikipedia, and has quite reasonably indicated that it would be fruitless to notify that target because it "appears to be an old, indefinitely-blocked sockpuppet that was never used". In fact, this is one of the many accounts that were registered by Kalki before he was disciplined for engaging in this practice. I left a note on Kalki's talk page a few days ago asking whether there is any particular reason why this usurpation request should not be granted, but have heard no response. In fact, I note that Kalki has not edited here since March 26, which is an unusual length of absence for Kalki. I have since further noted on Kalki's talk page that I am fairly strongly inclined to go ahead and grant the usurpation request, as I am hard pressed to see a reason why this particular username should be held in abeyance any longer. Although our usurpation rules currently require a three-week notification period, I agree with the requesting editor that this makes no sense for an indef-blocked sock-puppet account, and particularly for one previously used by Kalki, whose continuing participation in his project is contingent on not editing under any other account. In light of the foregoing, does anyone have any objection to the above usurpation request being granted without going through the usual three week wait? Cheers! BD2412 T 16:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I will not object to the usurpation request. Though it is a name I am likely to continue to use elsewhere, for various reasons, and there are certainly many reasonable objections I have to the general circumstances by which I have agreed to be restrained from using my alternate accounts here to benign and beneficial purposes (as I insist I always have done, despite the accusations and suppositions of a few), and I would almost certainly have done MUCH more with that name, had I not been so constrained, those constraints being in place, and likely to remain so for some time yet, there are no reasonable objections I am likely to be able to make in the coming weeks to such actions. I am far too busy with other things of great urgency and importance to take much concern with some of the procedures that are going on here, and have gone on, and the editor seems to be a responsible one whom I hope and expect will use the name honorably, for honorable edits and interesting contributions, as I would have. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

The usurpation request has been carried out. Frankly, Kalki, since you have your own account from which to edit, I see no reason why you should be able to stand in the way of other people wanting to use any other username that you may have registered. I think it is more likely to discourage people from editing here if the names they would like to use have been made unavailable in this manner. BD2412 T 19:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I intend to stand in the way of NO one editing RESPONSIBLY and HONESTLY under ANY and ALL names they might choose UNSUPERVISED and UNCONSTRAINED by those who SUPPOSE they KNOW best what is best for ALL. The user names here and elsewhere originally were available on a largely first-claim basis — and I claimed many, and I continue to assert that I have NOT intended nor attempted to disruptively or unethically edit under any of mine, NOR even to claim sole use of name Kalki and take it away from the few editors on other wikis who have used it besides me, since registering my very easy SUL claim of being by far the most prolific editor on any Wikimedia wiki under that name. People are very often callous and hostile to people who have rationales or motives they do not or cannot immediately understand, and I neither expect nor demand sympathy from anyone for my particular course of actions, and the principles I am impelled to follow, which might conflict with some of their suppositions and current understandings. I merely register my dissent from many of the suppositions which have been used to argue against what I assert are and should remain the proper rights of myself and others. It is not to be expected that many others will concur with me at this point, but neither is it to be expected that I will concur with others on this matter, as I retain my own reasons and motives, all of them I hold to be actually beneficial to most others, whatever might be supposed by some. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 20:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

Wikiquote in the news (5)

Whatever it means

Commentator Charlie Jane Anders ("How to Fake Being An Expert in Any Major Media Character, In 7 Easy Steps", io9, 6 February 2012) offers this advice: "Step 6. Memorize a few key phrases: You don't need to know what they mean — you just need to be able to spout them on cue, when someone brings up the character. [...] Wikiquote is your friend."

— Just between friends, you don't even need to worry about whether they mean anything.

Call of duty

Mark Steyn ("Who's Obama sneering at?", The Orange County Register, 16 March 2012 updated 19 March 2012) had some fun with Barak Obama's 15 March 2012 speech at Prince George's Community College, in which the president poked fun at some historical shortsighted perspectives, noting that "the entire passage sounded as if it was plucked straight from one of those 'Top Twenty Useful Quotes for Forward-Looking Inspirational Speakers' websites. And whaddayaknow? Rutherford B. Hayes, the TV flash in the pan, the horse is here to stay – they're all at the Wikiquote page on 'Incorrect Predictions.' Fancy that!"

— If our president (or his speechwriter) needs us, we are proud to serve.

What he said

Urban legend researcher Brian Cronin ("Did 'Bull Durham' misquote Walt Whitman on baseball?", Los Angeles Times, 28 March 2012) thanks Wikiquote for pointing out a dubious quote, quotes our attribution note in full, and offers his opinion on the origin of the paraphrase.

— Thanks Brian. The Walt Whitman article has been updated accordingly.

~ Reported by Ningauble (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Away for a few days.

I'm going to be away from Wikiquote for a few days. I'd be tickled if some of our excellent volunteers could get a few more quotes moved out of the sixteen pages of unchecked quotations linked from the top of Wikiquote:Bartlett's 1919 Index. If we already have the quote, delete it from the list; if we don't have it, add it and cite to Bartlett's as the source. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Bolding Quotes

This is a question in regards to formatting. I see no reference in the style guides that offers advice on when or when not to use bold text while formatting a particular quote. Several pages seem to use bold text liberally and without any apparent discretion. Sometimes its use appears to be an emphasis within in a particular quote. Sometimes entire quotes are formatted with bold text. Emphasizing an entire quote provides no additional clarity while reading it. Is there any community consensus on when a quote or part of a quote should be formatted with bold text? Dburton (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be that we leave it to case-by-case editor discretion. Some users are quite restrained in applying boldface, some have gone totally overboard by bolding every quote on a page, and there is a broad range in between. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

If you don't like how the quotes are bolded on a specific page, you can always change it and see if anyone disagrees. --Tryst (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that boldface is useful in only a few cases, where it really is useful to call attention to a particular quotation or segment thereof. For example, if in the course of documenting a well-known quotation an editor adds two or three sentences of the surrounding context, bolding the better-known part will help the reader visually locate the particular quotation they are looking for. However, this should still be done sparingly, lest readers be overwhelmed by the excessive use of emphasis. (This is reasonable because changing font weight is traditionally used very infrequently when typesetting running text, so most written sources will not use boldface at all.) 121a0012 (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that emphasizing well known phrases within larger quotes would be acceptable. Another use I would agree with would be boldfacing a part of a quote that the original author was known to emphasize in the original source. These are the only two cases that I would consider appropriate. Dburton (talk) 05:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we should bold particularly well known quotes even if they do not appear in context on the page. --Tryst (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dburton on both cases. Re first case: however I think we don't use it excessively, nor avoid misleading our reader those emphasis is find in the original source, I think it is useful though. Sometimes we find a well known quote is a part of less frequently referred quote. We would like not to confuse readers as if they are separated ones but actually in a whole. Or sometimes we find the well known quote meant different things originally and it is clear when we see the known quote in the original context. Highlight is useful in those cases. We may want to add a note such emphases are given by us, not by the original author, for avoiding any confusion.

Re second case (original emphasis). I think we should keep original emphasis as possible as we can: for this purpose we need to source a well criticized text. --Aphaia (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't use bold text. It violates WQ:NPOV. It's best to just avoid that, and default to neutral style formatting. -- Cirt (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

As Cirt says: if the original author didn't use emphasis, then adding emphasis violates WQ:NPOV. - Macspaunday (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

If a deviation from how the author originally presented material is a violation of NPOV, would the subjective criteria we use to select quotes from works be problematic as well with regards to that policy ? I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of using neutral style, but I'm more concerned with the inconsistency I've seen in the use of boldface than the principle. --Tryst (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a strict interpretation of WQ:NPOV would lead to the barring of all bolding, but I think this goes a bit far. As Tryst asks, isn't the mere selection of which quotes appear on pages also providing a POV? I think this is a case where we need to step back a bit and not have a knee-jerk reaction to have an unnecessarily stringent application of rules. While I realize that often the bolding can push a certain POV, I find that more often than not, it is because a certain quote is either very well known or is one that a user finds particularly pithy. What is the harm in allowing this to be highlighted? If pushing a POV becomes evident on a page (especially for a divisive topic, such as abortion) I can see where this would have to be monitored and removed. But for the majority of the pages here, I do not see a problem with having certain quotes highlighted with bolded text. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is an NPOV violation at all to bold the most well-known portion of a lesser known longer quote. In so doing, we are not indicating that we personally feel that the bolded portion is more important or praiseworthy, but merely indicating that it is generally more widely used. Of course, there should be some way to indicate that this is the case beyond bolding the quote. For example, in Knute Rockne, All American, I bolded the short portion of a longer quote where just the short portion was on the American Film Institute's list of the top 100 movie quotations in American cinema. BD2412 T 02:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly true to say that the simple act of extracting text from a larger work in order to present a quotation is in some sense a violation of NPOV, but since the whole WQ enterprise depends on it, it's clear that we're all willing to live with it. I suppose it's worth asking how restrained we should feel from adding more non-NPOV elements to a page. Everyone seems to have a different limit - some of us are willing to accept bolding but not irrelevant illustrations, some are willing to accept both, some neither. My guess is that the consensus here is that bolding is OK, even though some of us would be slightly happier without it. But I think this discussion is worth having, because it's always easy to forget that what sounds perfectly reasonable to one person looks like a violation of NPOV to someone else. - Macspaunday (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you think that my bolding of the AFI-selected portion of the quote in Knute Rockne, All American is NPOV? If quote citations generally indicated the particular importance of the bolded portions, would that prevent it from being NPOV? BD2412 T 17:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest so: if the bolded portion is commonly quoted by itself, then it would be NPOV to bold it. --Tryst (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

On a slightly different issue, what is the position on adding links to other articles? I started an article on Henry Savile Clarke by quoting four lines from a poem he wrote. That quote now has five links to other pages. (It had six, but I removed one as a duplicate of a link in the intro.) I'm all for helpful cross-links, but these seemed excessive. They also significantly affect the appearance of the page, in the same way as bolding, because of course the linked words are blue.--Collingwood (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

This is an issue I have gradually changed my own position on, unlike the use of bolding which had been promoted as a relatively neutral device for editors to use for emphasis of notable quotes or portions of quotes from the very earliest days of this project, no more innately objectionable to people with even the shallowest sense of what Neutral Point of View policies imply than the process of selecting of the quotes themselves — and which I still strongly support. Originally there were so few pages on this wiki as to subjects or "theme" pages that links to them were mostly useless, and I supported only wiki links to persons or to various unusual words or words with diverse usage. Gradually more people added other links, and gradually I came to agree that now there are enough theme pages of various sorts that I believe we should provide links to them, as a way to encourage introductions to diverse thoughts, opinions and expressions, and promote greater numbers of contributions from whatever readers might be inspired enough by the available examples to be interested in doing so. I now strongly encourage the addition of diverse active wiki-links, as well as bolding for emphasis, as a proper tool for encouraging participation — although I remain reluctant to accept and generally oppose the addition of dead-links that show up as red links — which would likely invite a massive amount of page creation by people who lack awareness of long promoted formatting standards here. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 12:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

I wouldn't link to very common words, simply because if there's too much blue in the text it becomes more difficult to read. This again I think is an issue which can be dealt with case-by-case. --Tryst (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hypertext makes a virtue out of lack of organization, allowing ideas and thoughts to be juxtaposed at will. [...] The advent of hypertext is apt to make writing much more difficult, not easier. Good writing, that is. —Donald Norman, The Design of Everyday Things

This issue is mentioned at Wikiquote:Manual of style#Free link style, which says "This guideline has yet to be discussed for Wikiquote — some feel that it may not be appropriate in the middle of quotations." It is doubtless a Good Thing™ to link people and works, and the appearance is hardly more emphatic than capitalizing proper names.

I have mixed feelings about linking to theme pages. I do appreciate the benefit of advertising theme pages in this way, for they are an important class of articles that should have high visibility. However, highlighting concepts with links can lend a peculiar emphasis with the potential for distortion, and it can be rather subjective to decide where the potential is or is not realized. It can also become downright distracting. I do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but the example Collingwood cites strikes me as unduly cluttered – not my idea of good writing or editing. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Those wikilinks transform the quotation into a mashup of disconnected ideas. I hope there can be consensus that this kind of linking is wildly inappropriate. In effect, the editors have taken charge of the meaning, and the poor author has been reduced to a platform from which editors can impose their own interpretations. This is far worse than bolding. - Macspaunday (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC) 17:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to the statement that "wikilinks transform the quotation into a mashup of disconnected ideas" — the quotation itself remains what it is — to be interpreted in various ways by various people, according to their levels of intellectual perceptions and imagination — and in response to wikilinks meaning that "the editors have taken charge of the meaning, and the poor author has been reduced to a platform from which editors can impose their own interpretations" — this is the actual OPPOSITE of what hypertext links are inclined to permit and promote. Hypertext is a wonderful tool which can often be used to prevent the chanelling of people's minds into very narrow "reality tunnels" by ANYONE. It can also, of course be misused and overused when people actually interested in constraining the ideas available to people permit channeling ONLY to such ranges of interpretations as are admirable to their perspectives — but there is relatively little danger of this where many people of diverse opinions are free to edit both links and the pages linked to, and people who are inclined to constrain others, their thoughts and expressions improperly can be actively opposed by conscientious dissidents of various sorts. I believe any truly vital and competent society, group or project of human beings does not seek absolute calm, comfort and conformity to concretely comprehended controls or commands— but true cooperation and collaboration in opening up an keeping open channels to great diversity and growth beyond the absolute control of anyone with very limited and partisan agenda. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

I suppose I thought that WQ was designed to present quotations by other people, not the "thoughts and expressions" of the editors, but perhaps I was mistaken. - Macspaunday (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree to an extent. Although I do not think that editors should use quotes as a vehicle to express their own politics or other views, I do think that if a quote references roses, for example, we should link to our page on Roses, because people who find one quote on the subject to be interesting might enjoy reading others. BD2412 T 00:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

New admin nomination

Collingwood (talk · contributions), who has been very active here since late last year, has applied for adminship privileges here at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Collingwood‎‎. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 18:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I have my eye on this. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Archive bot

Hello. I am expressing my interest in running an archive bot here, and would like to know if anyone would like this. It would be similar to those used on the English Wikipedia. Hazard-SJ (talk) 06:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Could be useful, especially for this page, although things are rather quiet over here. --Tryst (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to know if people would be interested though, because I'm almost certain that whoever reviews a possible request for approval might want to be aware. Hazard-SJ (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Please do. 121a0012 (talk) 02:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Approval requested. Hazard-SJ (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The license warnings under the edit box (and maybe the footer too)

Part of me thinks its a little inaccurate for what exactly we do here. Part of it says "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted", and of course, below it in big letters, "DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!"

But thenagain, most of the pages here are technically contain "copyrighted work", and we use fair use to keep it there. All of those notices seem like boilerplate from other wikis that could be revised to meet our needs. To start, the license notice right under the editing box, in my opinion, should better reflect our assertion of a license over both original content (such as descriptions, non-content pages, etc.) and the presentation/selection of non-original content.

Starting there, it should say something like this:

By clicking the “Save page” button, you agree to license your original content, and the compilation of non-original content contained in this page, under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.

Further more, the notices under the Insert Characters box should really reflect the consensus we have on quote length/content/etc. (Why is WQ:C still a draft?) i.e. "If this is a page for a copyrighted work, ensure that you only incorporate enough quotes to still be considered fair use", etc.

Anyone agree? ViperSnake151 (talk) 03:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

This makes sense, although it should be remembered that other wikis also contain copyright material used under fair use. Wikipedia often has quotes, and also photos, which we don't have. I don't know how easy it would be to change this wiki without changing others.--Collingwood (talk) 06:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest changing the MediaWiki text per ViperSnake151 - could be confusing to users who are clued-up on copyright, seeing as a large proportion of the quotations on Wikiquote ARE copyrighted. --Tryst (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

There are a couple different notices involved here:

• MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning appears above the edit summary.
• MediaWiki:Wikimedia-editpage-tos-summary appears below the Save/Show buttons.

See Meta:Licensing update/Implementation#Terms for edit screen for policy requirements for these messages. I have a few thoughts about revising these:

1. I do not think the first message needs to be changed. I understand the idea of alluding to presentation copyright, but "your contribution" is sufficiently all-encompassing and does not need to be particularized as "your original content, and the compilation of non-original content contained in this page." You agree to release everything you post here, period.
2. In the second message, I don't like the bold-all-caps line either. I would prefer to replace it with the following:

   • Quotations from copyrighted material that exceed the bounds of Fair Use will be deleted.

3. The part of the second message that has always bugged me is "Please cite your sources so others can check your work." That is fine for Wikipedia, where one needs to verify information upon which original writing is based; but we are talking about quotations here and, as I often say, "If it ain't cited, it ain't a quote." (You can quote me on that.) I would prefer to replace it with the following:

   • Please cite your sources. Un-sourced attributions will be deleted. If it ain't cited, it ain't a quote.

That is just my 3¢ on these system messages. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I would do this for the lower area

• You are encouraged to follow the layout guide and manual of style.
• In order to be considered fair use, excessive quotations from copyrighted works may be removed.
• Do not simply copy and paste lists of quotes from other websites; there may be legal issues, or not be in the correct formatting used by Wikiquote.
• For testing, please use a sandbox

This summarizes everything neatly. ViperSnake151 (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I like it, but I would suggest working a link to WQ:LOQ. BD2412 T 04:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Why not pipe "excessive quotations" to WQ:LOQ ? Also agree with Ningauble that there should be a message which explicitly encourages sourcing. --Tryst (talk) 12:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

And also

Something else I've noticed, is that too many "proposed" or "draft" policies are being used like they actually are policy, and thus shouldn't be enforced (like WQ:LOQ, which isn't even marked as anything). Even something important like WQ:COPY isn't even approved.

Just what is and isn't policy here?! ViperSnake151 (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that we need to decide which of these drafts should be policy and mark them as such. BD2412 T 21:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I've created Wikiquote:Requests for comments, based on the system over at Commons, which I think might be good way to decided which ones can be accepted etc. Would we need to confirm that page as a policy before opening an RFC on our policies ? --Tryst (talk) 09:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I also agree that we need to formalize these things, because common sense seems inadequate to the need. I am not sure which ones, or portions thereof, might better be called "guidelines" rather than "policies" due to the amount of subjectivity involved. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy called BRD - be bold, revert, discuss; the basic idea is that if you think something should be done, do it; if yo think something shouldn't have been done, revert it; and once a bold action has been reverted, discuss it to come to a resolution. That is a good policy for us to adopt when we are dealing with such subjective things as what makes a quotable quote. However, I do think we need to adopt WQ:Q as policy so that we can at least say that this is not a free-for-all, and that we have reasons grounded in policy (which is itself backed up by common sense explained on the policy page) for allowing or deleting quotes. BD2412 T 04:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)