# Wikiquote:Village pump

Create a new topic
Village pump

General policy discussions and proposals, requests for permissions and major announcements.

Reference desk

Questions and discussions about specific quotes.

 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 / 03-04 / 05-08 / 09-12

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.

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.

## Let's have some real last words about fake last words

Okay, the whole "last words in whatever" type articles frustrate me. They just don't strike me as anything worthwhile. Basically everything in Category:Fictional last words is worthless.

Look at Last words in God of War series games; quoting "Unnamed Woman"? Oh yeah, very beneficial. Or Last words in Tales From the Crypt media; the entire show features lots of people dying, so we get gems like "What? No!", "Where's Alan?", and "Yes, let's." Last words in The X-Files media has similarly inane quotes: "No.", "Wow...", and "No." (yes, that's a repeat, because that's someone's last word multiple times) Last words in Harry Potter media says that Harry Potter has "yielded many memorable last words", which apparently includes "Harry...Potter...", "You weren't.", "Harry!", and "Ow." Aliens is one of my all-time favorite movies, and yet Last words in Aliens media lists such heavy-hitting phrases as "Alright, I'm in! Ramp closed." and "Go!"

If you think I'm picking solely on pop culture articles... well, I kind of am, but I think stuff like Fictional last words in literature is a bit of a failure as well. It's a complete mishmash of stuff, introducing more than a little bit of redundancy, without any real restriction on what should be added. Then you've got stuff thats even worse, like Fictional last words in internet series and Fictional last words in webcomics... Ugh.

That all leads me to my next point. We've got limits on quotations for fictional material, but these completely sidestep that policy. If something actually is notable (such as Dumbledore's line "Severus...please..."), it should be placed on the page for that particular piece of media, ideally with a few lines before and after it so that we've got a bit of context for the line.

These aren't real people that we're quoting here; what they say can be legitimately quotable. These are just fictional people, saying things that someone else wrote, and we've got absolutely no scope for these pages so we can (and do) end up with utterly non-notable quotes from characters who entire purpose is to die.

In an ideal world, all of these pages would be deleted, but I thought I'd at least put a feeler out before trying to run everything thru VfD en masse; I could be the minority opinion here. EVula // talk // // 05:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Heh, I just realized that the subject line suggests that we all die after discussing this. And this is why I shouldn't write things at 1am. EVula // talk // // 15:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. While there may be a handful of quite memorable last lines, these would be better served to be placed on the pages for the work in which they appear rather than collections such as these. Most of what appears on these pages is hardly memorable (as demonstrated above by EVula) and require longer contextual information than the length of the "quote" itself. I would support getting rid of all of these pages. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
A page of really good last lines would be useful, but impossible to maintain; it would soon be swamped with rubbish.--Collingwood (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Just as a follow-up, here's the VfD: Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Category:Fictional last words. EVula // talk // // 18:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I am concerned that it is out of process to have a blanket nomination for so many different articles at different levels of quality and development. What we are really talking about here is not the quality of this set of pages, but having rules and processes, which should be formally established rather than being instituted through the backdoor means of deleting pages that don't conform with unwritten rules. Collingwood contends that "a page of really good last lines would be useful, but impossible to maintain". I agree with the first part, but I think that the possibility of maintaining such a page (and the rational for deleting the existing set of pages) would hinge on the open development of rules and procedures governing such pages. The same process should apply, by the way, to pages like Opening lines. I would propose, to this end, that rather than engaging in a mass deletion which might force us or a future generation of editors to reinvent the wheel in the future, we implement an objectively sound policy designed to permit a page of notable last words and apply this policy to the pages that now exist. I think that if we delete all of the unoriginal and non-notable examples, and impose limitations per media so that LOQ concerns are not raised, we can ultimately cull these pages to a very small number of significant quotes and merge them into a small number of theme pages. BD2412 T 16:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

In order to avoid a process wherein the good is thrown out with the bad, I have written some proposed guidelines for last words in fictional media. These are, appropriately enough, at Wikiquote talk:Fictional characters#Proposed guideline for last words in fictional media. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Although the deletion debate on these pages ended without consensus to delete, I would still like to move forward with the guidelines proposed for these pages, which will filter out a lot of what may be considered junk. BD2412 T 11:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

## Improving communication between your wiki and "tech people"

Hi. I'm posting this as part of my job for the WMF, where I currently work on technical communications.

As you'll probably agree, communication between Wikipedia contributors and "tech people" (primarily MediaWiki developers, but also designers and other engineers) hasn't always been ideal. In recent years, Wikimedia employees have made efforts to become more transparent, for example by writing monthly activity reports, by providing hubs listing current activities, and by maintaining "activity pages" for each significant activity. Furthermore, the yearly engineering goals for the WMF were developed publicly, and the more granular Roadmap is updated weekly.

Now, that's all well and such, but what I'd rather like to discuss is how we can better engage in true collaboration and 2-way discussion, not just reports and announcements. It's easy to post a link to a new feature that's already been implemented, and tell users "Please provide feedback!". It's much more difficult to truly collaborate every step of the way, from the early planning to deployment.

Some "big" tech projects sponsored by the WMF are lucky enough to have Oliver Keyes who can spend a lot of time discussing with editors, basically incarnating this 2-way communication channel between users and engineering staff. But Oliver can only do so much: he has to focus on a handful of features, and primarily discusses with the English Wikipedia community. We want to be able to do this for dozens of engineering projects with hundreds of wikis, in many languages, and truly collaborate to build new features together. Hiring hundreds of Community Liaisons isn't really a viable option.

There are probably things in the way we do tech stuff (e.g. new software features and deployments) that drive you insane. You probably have lots of ideas about what the ideal situation should be, and how to get there: What can the developer community (staff and volunteers) do to get there? (in the short term, medium term, long term?) What can users do to get there?

I certainly don't claim to have all the answers, and I can't do a proper job to improve things without your help. So please help me help make your lives easier, and speak up.

This is intended to be a very open discussion. Unapologetic complaining is fine; suggestions are also welcome. Stock of ponies is limited. guillom (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• I find it a little difficult to address problems of communication in general, so I will be posting some observations about particular situations, and try to generalize from these to respond to your questions about what can be done. First, I would like to mention a general conundrum that is a source of frustration to me:

I feel caught in the paradoxical situation of experiencing a lack of pertinent communication and an unusable glut of information available. The lack is very apparent when we are repeatedly taken unawares by things that break when changes are rolled out. The glut exists in a multitude of venues where developments are tracked, discussed, announced, etc., at various levels ranging from picayune details to woolgathering generalities. The conundrum for useful communication lies in determining what is relevant to whom – it is not always readily apparent. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

On my talk page, guillom indicates that feedback here has been incorporated at Technical_communications/Fall_2012_consultation (cited in and linked from reference footnote 2).

I note that, in incorporating my feedback into the report/analysis, he picked up on the infoglut aspect but neglected the point about failure to communicate. This latter was the point of "Case in point: MediaWiki message support" below: failure to provide targeted advance notice of "breaking changes", i.e., those which will break existing functionality. The report focuses on technical solutions to communication problems, but this is primarily a cultural and procedural issue, not a technical one. It does not matter what technical means are available if developers are going to act like bulls in a china shop anyway.

I also note that the point about documentation was disregarded. Perhaps this is due to some organizational framework in which documenting what works and how to use it is not within the purview of Technical Communications. Technical solutions under consideration focus on access to and searching of bug trackers, mail lists, blogs, & etc. Eavesdropping on ephemera is all well and good, but it is no substitute for looking up definitive answers in comprehensive, up to date, and well organized documentation. The programmers have not historically been keen on providing this. If not the Technical Communications Manager, then who is in a position to make it happen?

I might almost get the feeling that attempts to communicate are here futile, due to the perception that end users actually have nothing worthwhile to communicate. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I did notice the "failure to communicate" part, and I did add it to the summary, under the phrasing "Messages are missed and communication breakdowns happen because people aren't talking and listening in the same venues". I think that "failure to communicate" is how you experienced the issue in the specific case you detailed below, but it's only one side of the story. The fact is that people did communicate in advance about the change: Steven Walling started a discussion on the wikitech-l list precisely to ask how to advertise the change. Then, as you mentioned earlier, Nemo_bis left a message on the system message's talk page. Those messages were missed, and I intend to work on how to avoid this in the future, but in this case the problem wasn't that "developers [acted] like bulls in a china shop". It was that the place they were talking and the place you were listening didn't match.
On documentation: I'm only one person, and as much as I'd like to, I don't have the resources, or the authority, to provide a "comprehensive, up to date, and well organized documentation" for every single feature or software change. What I try to do is make sure that project documentation is up-to-date, with tools like team hubs and activity pages. More recently, I've started to expand the m:Glossary on meta to try and provide a "comprehensive, up to date" first point of entry. More generally, taking the case below as a starting point, what recommendation would you make regarding documentation to improve relations between users and developers?
Last, if I thought that "end users actually ha[d] nothing worthwhile to communicate", I wouldn't have started (against my boss' wishes) a wide, lengthy and multilingual consultation process to hear their opinions and complaints. I would have just gone ahead, taken the easy path and implemented what I was told to implement, without hearing from end users. For the sake of this discussion, a tiny bit of appreciation here would be more welcome than sarcasm. guillom (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I'll bite: thank you for at least trying!

What does this have to do with communication?
1. I have utterly no idea who else to suggest this to.
2. The smoother the introduction of new features, the less communicating you need to do. (I might be wrong, but I have the impression much of the communicating right now, is warning that something might break, or apologizing because it did!)
173.206.176.77 01:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. As a proof of concept, after it.quote's pages on aNobii[1] [2] (which is very popular in Italy), I've created similar pages for en.quote[3] using the ISBN mentioned in your pages, which however are very few compared to it.quote's and didn't provide a good critical mass. Maybe using the titles without ISBNs would allow to get a better list and have more visibility, but that requires more work; let me know if you want access to the profiles (it's currently tied to a Wikimedia Italia email address). Thanks, Nemo 08:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I notice the account at aNobii and at least three accounts at GoodReads ([4] [5] [6]) are using Wikimedia Foundation trademarks (word mark and logo) to identify and represent themselves. Whatever the Foundation might think of this situation, my own opinion, when I have occasionally thought about blogging as a Wikiquotian (which, thus far, better judgment has prevailed against) is that it never entered my head to use Wikiquote's name and trademarks as my own. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
In fact, as the accounts state, these are owned by Wikimedia Italia, which being a chapter as the right to use them. They don't claim to be representing anyone and are merely lists of books, by the way. In any case I said that it's a proof of concept and quite naturally if the community doesn't want to take care of them I'll close them. --Nemo 18:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I did not see a statement that the accounts are owned by a licensed chapter in the account profiles, presumably because the pertinent portion of the profiles is only visible to registered accountholders at GoodReads. If Wikimedia Italia wants to index books at GoodReads, I suppose that is its business. (Even if it wants to list Italian language works as "in English".)

However, it might consider doing so under its own name, in accordance with the standard wmf:Agreement between chapters and Wikimedia Foundation:

• "4.2. The Chapter is obliged to utilize the Wikimedia logo and name in all their related activities and is hereby authorized to do so by the Foundation." (This refers to the Wikimedia logo itself.)
It might also consider whether this use of the Wikiquote name and logo is consistent with the intent of its limited license under that agreement:
• "5.2. The Foundation hereby authorizes the Chapter to utilize these additional marks noncommercially free of any payment or royalties, solely for their own use in publicity, fundraising, media relations and management." (This refers to the logos of Wikimedia projects.)
I realize this seems like much ado about nothing, but identities are important. At least as it is displayed to non-registrants at GoodReads, this is not a "referential use" of the Wikiquote trademarks to refer to the project, it is identifying the account as "Wikiquote" rather than as "Wikimedia Italia". ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, that's the only way to list and show "the books on Wikiquote" and there's no misrepresentation.
All this discussion is useless, because there are only two possibilities: 1) the community considers it useful to have such a list of books on GoodReads, or 2) it doesn't. If (2), I'll delete the account, problem solved; if (1), we can find out how to do it well, improving clarity of identification etc. Please answer the real question first. Thanks, Nemo 10:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Given that there's been active disinterest in addressing the point (i.e. what's good for this project), I've deleted the account as I said. Thanks, Nemo 07:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Putting on the trademark lawyer hat for a moment, it seems to me that the use of the Wikiquote logo is unnecessary to convey the relationship between the GoodReads page and this project. I would check with the Foundation before presuming to use them. BD2412 T 19:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

## Be a Wikimedia fundraising "User Experience" volunteer!

Thank you to everyone who volunteered last year on the Wikimedia fundraising 'User Experience' project. We have talked to many different people in different countries and their feedback has helped us immensely in restructuring our pages. If you haven't heard of it yet, the 'User Experience' project has the goal of understanding the donation experience in different countries (outside the USA) and enhancing the localization of our donation pages.

I am (still) searching for volunteers to spend some time on a Skype chat with me, reviewing their own country's donation pages. It will be done on a 'usability' format (I will ask you to read the text and go through the donation flow) and will be asking your feedback in the meanwhile.

The only pre-requisite is for the volunteer to actually live in the country and to have access to at least one donation method that we offer for that country (mainly credit/debit card, but also real time banking like IDEAL, E-wallets, etc...) so we can do a live test and see if the donation goes through. **All volunteers will be reimbursed of the donations that eventually succeed (and they will be very low amounts, like 1-2 dollars)**

By helping us you are actually helping thousands of people to support our mission of free knowledge across the world. If you are interested (or know of anyone who could be) please email ppena@wikimedia.org. All countries needed (excepting USA)!!

Thanks!

Pats Pena
Global Fundraising Operations Manager, Wikimedia Foundation

Sent using Global message delivery, 20:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

## Quote citation template

Hey Everyone!

I'm very new to Wikiquote, so I apologize for any ignorance. I recently created a page where I used Wikipedia style references and a {{cleanup}} tag was placed on it. This led me to read the Manual of Style, where I see that "The following rules don't claim to be the last word. One way is often as good as another," I started playing around with a template that by default hides the citation, but can be viewed directly underneath the quote if [show] is selected. I was wondering if it would be okay to move this feature into the mainspace for use.

I returned to userspace to work on the template, and an example of it is here. It leaves the quote plain, but the rest is templated. It appears identical to the style of quoting on the site, or can appear if removing the small text and the dash. I chose these because my initial goal was to create a template like the one on Wikipedia, but that formatting is trivial in the long run. The inline citation I believe can be very useful because it does not disturb the first impression of the page: a list of quotes and who has said them. If a user wishes to check to see if it is accurate, or a reader wants to see where it came from, they would select [show] and the citation appears directly beneath. This seems to be a viable option in formatting as I see it in mainspace pages already, except it is not hidden or linked inline with the work being quoted (like here). This could also simplify pages, because using this template could remove the need of using a "Reference" section since the sources appear inline, which also removes excessive scrolling.

Since there seems to be some tolerance in formatting, would it be okay with the community if I created this in the mainspace? Any formatting concerns can be addressed; I'm not cemented in the need for the preceding dash for the source. Thank you for reading that; have a nice day :) - Starcartographer (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, I don't think could apply to all quotes, like in films for example; rather, this template as an option for citing quotes. - Starcartographer (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I like it. Standardization is good, and you've done a fine job with that template, though we already have a slew of templates in Category:Citation templates; I think we just need to actually use them is all, but I wouldn't mind seeing their format follow yours. EVula // talk // // 18:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Evula. I'm going to test a page or two on some subjects to see how it works out. I'll be working on Stevie Nicks for now. - Starcartographer (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Update: I've added the template content to {{Cite quote}}, it seems to be running smoothly so far if anyone is interested. Check out the Stevie Nicks page (one of my favorite singers) and mostly found citations for the quotes originally there, as well as adding some by her and about her. - Starcartographer (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Can we have some more discussion about these new templates and look and feel for pages before implementing them? It's good to have an example page (which we now have after your work on Stevie Nicks), but I noticed you've also created Fleetwood Mac with the new look as well. Please refrain from adding other pages with the new templates (or changing existing ones) until the proposed changes can be properly considered by the user community. As to the new templates, I'm not entirely crazy about them myself. I need to consider a bit more before enumerating my reasons or objections, but for one, such a radical change in our pages would entail a ton of work. I'm not against change per se, but that needs to be considered - and it would not be my recommendation to have some pages that use our traditional templates and some with a new one. In any case, the use of proposed templates that substantially alter the appearance of pages should have some period of discussion before being put into general use (not to mention changing pages already in existence). ~ UDScott (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for that; I've restored the article and formatted Fleetwood Mac to look similar to existing pages.
Given the choices at Category:Citation templates, I hope that the {{Cite quote}} can work as an option. I've left Stevie Nicks as it was, so let's talk! - Starcartographer (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that - I hope to be able to write more soon on the new templates. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────────┘
Pardon the lateness of my reply, but I have been a little busy; and the template under discussion is a bit of a moving target, having been edited extensively in the intervening few days. I appreciate the intention to improve the appearance of our articles, but I do not think this is headed in the right direction for Wikiquote.
• Firstly, regarding the opening remarks about hiding citations by default, showing them only when a reader wants to investigate the source: I could not disagree more. Unlike Wikipedia, where citations are supporting information, quotation is the main event here, and citation is integral to it. (Etymologically, the word "quote" originally referred to a citation, a demarcation in the source document, and only later came to be used to refer to the words quoted.) I do not doubt that some readers are not interested in the sources, and there are some websites (e.g. BrainlessQuoteBrainyQuote and ThoughtItWasThinkExist) that do not bother with citations at all; but this is what makes Wikiquote stand out: quotation + citation = the main body of Wikiquote content. The citations are not something extra.

Also, the expand/collapse feature of the "navbox collapsible" class does not work at Wikiquote. This is something specific to Wikipedia's custom CSS that is not currently supported on Wikiquote.

• Secondly, regarding the use of miniscule format for citations, I do not approve of diminishing (literally) the role of citations, for the same reason as in my first point. Wikipedia's quote templates may use fine print in sidebars, marginalia, and other callouts that are incidental to the main body of text; but at Wikiquote the quotations and their citations, together, are the main body of the article.
• Second-and-a halfly (regarding the same use of miniscule format, for a different reason): from a personal perspective, fine print hurts my eyes. I think it should be reserved primarily for material one does not really want anyone to read, such as "gotcha" terms on the back of a consumer contract. The template format would render as much as half the body of some articles in fine print, and it gives me a headache to even think about reading them. (May you all live long enough to experience presbyopia firsthand.)
• Thirdly, there is a significant glitch in the format. Inline indentation with a dash causes long text to wrap to the next line at the left margin. The resulting "outdent" in the middle of a paragraph or sentence is jarring. The standard bullet format uses a "hanging indent" to move the entire paragraph (HTML division) to the right of the bullet.
• Fourthly, the dual (and multiple) citation structure of the template is awkward. It appears to contemplate using an abbreviated primary citation with few options for providing details, and one or more secondary citations with loads of parameters. In the first place, I do not care for the idea of incomplete primary citations. In the second place, there are a variety of reasons we include secondary citations: to give the source of a translation from the original work, to provide corroborating evidence for an attribution lacking a primary source, to identify a source that gives a primary citation which has not been verified, to cite variant texts and misquotations, to provide evidence of notability, etc. & etc. The template does not provide a way to indicate what these secondary citations are about.
• Lastly, but very importantly, templates are hard. Simplicity of markup is essential for the success of a project that "anyone can edit", and intricate templates are flashing red stop signs for the uninitiated. This is not to say that templates are always bad – we already have templates for organizing the information within a citation, but their use is optional: they do not impact position of the citation or the structure of the page, they operate independently within the framework of the page.

Combining page structure and citation details in a single template makes the template virtually mandatory for a consistent appearance. How is a user to come up with HTML to match that format when adding annotations not contemplated in the template design? How is a newcomer to figure out how to contribute anything in the first place? It is incomparably easier to type ** to bullet a citation or other annotation under a quote than to figure out how to use a complex template with, at last count, over a hundred named parameters (I lost count: it is that complicated).

I do appreciate the desire to make the quotations stand out better. People have tried a variety of ways to do this (e.g. extra whitespace, boldface, among others) with limited success. I have even mentioned some ideas of my own before (they were not very practical), so I am not saying that the old way is the only way or that there is no room for improvement. I don't think this is a better way, but by all means keep on looking for one. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey Ninguable, the delay is totally fine, I'm not in a rush! I see that Wikiquote is a small community of hardworking registered editors which is much different from my home wiki, which is not to say that there aren't hardworking editors there :)
Thank you for going over the template and seriously considering it. Before I discuss the points you raised, I would just like to reiterate that I only intended for this to be an option, as Wikipedia has too many options for not just formatting quotes, but formatting citations and a whole mess of other things. And of course, as a Wikipedian I want to stress that my opinions are largely based on the standards and beliefs thereof, that when I say things in a definitive matter it is only my humble opinion, and that I am still green to the Wikiquote culture.
First point: When I think of the information someone is interested in regarding who said what, when, etc., I mostly think of it as non-citation. For example, and as a warning I plan to use Stevie Nicks quotes for any examples, when quoting one of her lyrics "I don't want to know the reasons why, Love keeps right on walking down the line." is a reader interested in what book I've found a textual source to back it up? Does a reader care that it appeared in Donald Bracketts investigative look into the band "Fleetwood Mac: 40 Years of Creative Chaos"? What most would be interested in is what album it appears on and such. Having the page interrupted with
seems highly unnecessary. Another example being "Stevie bridges the gap between the powerful rock singers of the sixties, like Janis Joplin and Grace Slick, and what's going on today." as said by Sheryl Crow. It appears in a book "Rumours Exposed." Though I'm not certain, it appears among a few other famous female singers praising Nicks, I doubt that the writer of the book called them each up and asked for their opinion; I think that the writer simply collected quotes over the years and published it in the same few paragraphs. Although Crow is who is being quoted, she is not the author of the citation. My point with that being that there is not necessary relevance pf the quote to the citation, it is by all means a tool to let users check if it is factual, or for readers to go further if they are interested. So when we say "citation," I think of something generally to verify, which is wholly different than information about the quote. Of course, this is not a rule, as citing an excerpt from Fahrenheit 451 may not need a secondary source since stating that it occurs on page 56 will suffice (though different editions could easily muck this up, but that's a different subject). Offering a secondary source, like this allows a user without access to the book to verify, and although it is not the source and holds no relevance to the quote, it is a usable citation, one which I believe does not need to appear alongside a "clean" looking quote by default.
Second point: I am totally open to changing the size in the template. I only chose that because I liked the look as it appears in Wikipedia's {{Quote}} template. Sorry to hurt your eyes ;) I guess if pressed for an opinion, I like how it looks to differentiate the quote from the quote information, and it is likely a result of the way I'm used to seeing quotes on Wikipedia.
Third point: Although I can make some templates work, my personal finest being {{Infobox Zodiac}} I still consider myself much of an amateur; I think that I could probably figure a way to create a hanging indent or indented box. It is not my intention to have it look that and hadn't noticed until you pointed it out and I shrunk my browser width.
The multiple citations appearing are supposed to work thusly, though I make no claim on their effectiveness nor usability: if using one citation, the template can piggyback onto the existing {{Citation}} directly within the template. For more than one citation I couldn't think of a better way than to use the template within {{Cite quote}} if a better way exists I am unaware of it. The use of these for translations and such does not exist yet but it certainly could, maybe a parameter to precede the citation like "original" or "translation". - Starcartographer (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Last point: I agree, templating is definitely more difficult, but it's manageable and I don't think it's a reason not to use them. We can accept either, by which I mean plain citations and any citation template, not just this one, and, plain citations. Wikipedia does this and it looks disorganized. However, in the end or further down the road, these things are improved.
Thank you for responding and giving feedback; I look forward to talking more about these things if you'd like to. - Starcartographer (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
It's been a few days since hearing back from anyone. Where does the template I created stand, can I use it? - Starcartographer (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
My two cents: My first inclination with regards to the proposed template changes is that while they may look nice, I do not feel they are needed and may in fact downplay an important aspect of this site. As Ningauble more eloquently described above, the changes hide and therefore decrease in importance the citations for the quotes. I do not support this. Second, I also feel that the use of templates is not very easy, especially for newer users. If the templates could be used to render something that looks very similar to what we already have (much like the cite news or cite web templates do now) then my objection would be lessened. The point is that it would be better to have the use or non-use of a template not affect the look and feel of the page. I feel this is especially important on a site like ours that gets much less traffic than Wikipedia. If we hope to encourage new users to remain and become active, the site needs to be as easy to use as possible. I know that when I was making my first edits, not only was I quite confused on how to do it, but if it had been any more complicated, I would likely not have continued contributing (and if someone like myself, who loves quotes, wavered like this, I can imagine the casual user might be even more inclined to leave). Finally, I also believe that such a radical change to the look and feel would cause an enormous amount of work to transform existing pages to the new template. I do believe that our pages should look alike as much as possible, so if the community decided to move to a new template, I would expect that such an undertaking would be necessary. I am not using the prospect of such work as an excuse, but in this case, I believe the other deficiencies in the template outweigh the value that could be gained from all that work. I would echo Ningauble that your attempts to improve the site are to be lauded, but I'm just not sure this is the way to go. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I also +1 Ningauble on all points. This comment to add a couple pointers: 1) if you want to adopt template-based quotation, you have to study fr.quote first, because they already did so a long while ago (stats are not positively impressing and en.quote is saved by the many random contributors despite the few very active ones); 2) more useful an effort would be not templatification for the sake of it, but a thorough plan involving Wikidata: m:Wikidata/Notes/Future#Wikiquote is still a stub, more attention is needed (and you could ask/help fr.quote to pioneer, if you care about it). --Nemo 09:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Nemo, UDScott, and Ningauble. A better solution, if we actually wanted to make the citations less prominent, would be to change the CSS for <li> elements in the main namespace. 121a0012 (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

NOTE: This template has been nominated for deletion at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Template:Cite quote. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

## New Logo/Favicon

It's hard to recognize the current Wikiquote logo as something for a quote site. I suggest a different one with quotation marks (like possible the "Think Quarterly" favicon[7], from "Think with Google")or the fountain pen "W" in the current logo.
Syberiyxx (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem with using quotation marks is that they aren't universal; for example, French uses a different format for quotation marks (see w:fr:Guillemet). I think the existing logo (and its favicon) is fine, but it's also not something that is likely to be changed at a local level; changing a project's logo would involve much broader involvement at Meta. EVula // talk // // 05:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I quite like our present logo and see no need to change it.--Collingwood (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Neolux is to blame. :) Daniel Tomé (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

## Wikimedia sites to move to primary data center in Ashburn, Virginia. Read-only mode expected.

(Apologies if this message isn't in your language.) Next week, the Wikimedia Foundation will transition its main technical operations to a new data center in Ashburn, Virginia, USA. This is intended to improve the technical performance and reliability of all Wikimedia sites, including this wiki. There will be some times when the site will be in read-only mode, and there may be full outages; the current target windows for the migration are January 22nd, 23rd and 24th, 2013, from 17:00 to 01:00 UTC (see other timezones on timeanddate.com). More information is available in the full announcement.

If you would like to stay informed of future technical upgrades, consider becoming a Tech ambassador and joining the ambassadors mailing list. You will be able to help your fellow Wikimedians have a voice in technical discussions and be notified of important decisions.

Guillaume Paumier, via the Global message delivery system (wrong page? You can fix it.). 15:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Protected template Please amend Template:Otherwiki to add Wikivoyage. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Done I swiped the code from species:Template:Sisterprojects, which also included Wikidata. EVula // talk // // 01:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

## Picture of the Year voting round 1 open

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons.

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

This message was delivered based on m:Distribution list/Global message delivery. Translation fetched from: commons:Commons:Picture of the Year/2012/Translations/Village Pump/en -- Rillke (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

## Russell's Nobel Lecture

Yesterday I noticed, see here, that there might be a possible copyvio problem with the section of the Bertrand Russell article about Russell's Nobel Lecture. Now I don't have enough experience here. Could anybody assist in determining if there is an actual problem, explain what to do next and/or set some wheels in motion? -- Mdd (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

## Wikiquote:Bots#RileyBot

Hi, I don't mean to be rude or too forward but I would just like to mention that there is an awaiting bot request (filed by yours truly :) at Wikiquote:Bots#RileyBot. Thank you. -Riley Huntley (SWMT) 03:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

## Help turn ideas into grants in the new IdeaLab

• Do you have an idea for a project to improve this community or website?
• Do you think you could complete your idea if only you had some funding?
• Do you want to help other people turn their ideas into project plans or grant proposals?

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking new ideas and proposals for Individual Engagement Grants. These grants fund individuals or small groups to complete projects that help improve this community. If interested, please submit a completed proposal by February 15, 2013. Please visit https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG for more information.

Thanks! --Siko Bouterse, Head of Individual Engagement Grants, Wikimedia Foundation 20:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Distributed via Global message delivery. (Wrong page? Correct it here.)

 Find more about Village pump at Wikipedia's sister projects Article at Wikipedia Definitions and translations from Wiktionary Media from Commons Learning resources from Wikiversity News stories from Wikinews Source texts from Wikisource Textbooks from Wikibooks

Hi, after a suggestion at Template talk:Sisterlinks I created a new Template:Sister project links. Could anybody help checking if this template is stable? I am working with google-chrome and everything looks fine? -- Mdd (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

In the article Art, it looks just fine to me. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, as a (second test) the template is added in the Category:Art, and here (just for fun). Both seem to work. I guess we could just be bold and start using this template (in a day or so). -- Mdd (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed in the Category:Art, that the template does need it parameters (see here) to link to sister categories. -- Mdd (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

## Wikiquote: Limits on quotations

This page is now nearly four and a half years old, and yet it is still marked as a proposed policy. There have been rumblings of altering it further and even relaxing the limits suggested in it. Can we have some discussion that will finalize it for now and move it to official policy status? Absent this, it is hard to treat it as something that should be enforced and numerous disagreements and edit wars seem to be the result. I am not against changing anything in it and see some merit in relaxing the limits it establishes, but this should be a community decision (with relevant input from those of us with some knowledge on copyright law). This issue has been dragged on long enough in my opinion and it would be nice to get some closure at last. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I certainly am inclined to assert that MOST rules determined by a very few people at ANY time should generally be VERY provisional, but perceive that within the coming weeks and months there probably should be discussion on relaxing and revising some of these proposed rules and even some of the more firmly established ones, to reach some kind of consensus upon them which can promote greater levels of harmony and cooperation, rather than discord, confusion, apathy and distress. ~ Kalki·· 15:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC) + tweak
My recommendations for relaxation of the limitations were premised on my experience practicing intellectual property law. BD2412 T 02:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
BD2412's argument seems valid; enact it as it is. Some people who come here thumb their nose at the limits and even go as far as call me names like this guy and that anon who had the misfortune of messing around with me last year and hasn't appeared since. Can't hack the limitations? Leave. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree that we need to find a way to move forward on this, because we really need something that can serve the purpose of documenting and explaining community consensus in a manner that settles or obviates most of the disputes in this area. I am not sure whether the next step should be an up or down vote on making the current version an official policy or guideline (with the caveat that Wikiquote:Copyrights is policy, which it officially is not), or whether we should first have a request for proposals to improve it in ways that might broaden consensus.

The areas that have seen the most frequent and heated disputes (i.e. audiovisual and interactive media) might benefit from adjusting the numerical limits, or from providing a more persuasive explanation, targeting aficionados of such media, of why less can be better, or both. My impression of the most heated disputes is that the issue was not so much the size of the limits, but the existence of any limit; so I doubt that tinkering with numerical values alone would have much impact on the frequency or intensity of contention. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The underlying rationale behind the current limit on "Electronic games" seems to be that some people want to use limits on quotations to attempt to solve "quotability" problems, which is not a legitimate reason for having a crippling three quote limit, in my opinion. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
My opinion is that we should actually revisit the limits themselves. I like the proposal that BD2412 had here which would, in effect, double the amount of quotes for films and tv shows. I support such a change before making it official policy. I would also be open to relaxing the limits for other types of pages as well. ~ UDScott (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Sure. Just note that the current limit is much stricter for video-games than for films/television, and that proposal doesn't mention them (electronic games). ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Which is exactly why I also mentioned that I would support relaxing limits for other types of pages too. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and I appreciate it (that's why I said "sure"). I suggest that if there must be a fixed "numerical value" limit for electronic games, it should be of at least 5 quotes. As for films/television, BD2412's proposal sounds plausible, and though I would think that applying per hour limits could be tricky, it already seems to be common practice here. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Although Daniel was referring to a specific three quote limit, I must say that the more general proposition that it is not legitimate to use limits on quotations to solve "quotability" problems would, in my opinion, be wrong. Brevity is an important attribute of quality. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Question: what is the origin of the original limitation numbers? I'm curious if there are copyright issues that we have to abide by; I'm all for increasing the maximum numbers in most cases (though any many, I think the solution is to just cut crap we have), but it'd be better if we had some sort of formal guidance. EVula // talk // // 17:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
InvisibleSun initially created the page, I would guess setting limits that had been proposed in previous discussions. There is some arbitrariness to these. BD2412 T 02:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Proposal: Again, the discussion seems to have died out a bit. So I will make a straightforward proposal: I move that we double the number of allowable quotes for each of the types of articles - with the exception of TV shows. For example, this would result in films having one quote for every 6 minutes (instead of 1 for every 12 minutes) and electronic games having up to 6 quotes. I do not propose to extend the limit for TV shows because I feel that the current limit allows for more than enough quotes (especially since TV shows usually have multiple seasons) and allowing more would lead to a lessening of quality on these pages. Any thoughts/objections/suggestions from others? ~ UDScott (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the new limits and the rationale for leaving the TV limit the same. EVula // talk // // 15:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree, except that I would relax the limitations for TV shows that are part of a series to one quote per ten minutes of running time, rounded up (i.e., a standard 22 minute sitcom would get three quotes). I would further relax limitations for older series, allowing perhaps one extra quote per episode for every twenty years since the final season of the show in question (so that a typical 49-minute episode of Hill Street Blues, which ran until 1987, would permit six quotes, one for each ten minutes, plus one extra for age, while a 26-minute episode of I Love Lucy, which ran until 1960, would get five quotes, one for each ten minutes, plus two extra for age. In proposing this, I am mindful of the usual factors weighing in favor of fair use - that we are a nonprofit, educational purveyor of quotes, and that our presentation of textual transcriptions of quotes is unlikely to have an effect on the commercial value of the works in question, which are video presentations. The age bonus would recognize that the older a work is, the less likely it will have its commercial value challenged by the reproduction of quotes. BD2412 T 01:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. I like the thinking, but this seems a bit less straightforward than I was hoping. Personally, I'd rather stick to one limit and not base it on the age of the work. Instead, I would favor your suggestion of 1 quote per 10 minutes of running time, rounded up - but I would keep this standard for all shows, no matter their age. Knowing that we traditionally consider a show like Hill Street Blues to be an hour-long show (including commercials), I would favor allowing 6 quotes per episode. For half-hour shows like I Love Lucy, this would result in 3 quotes per episode. And now that I am thinking about it, would it make sense to use the same standards for films - meaning having 1 quote per 10 minutes of running time? This would have the advantage of maintaining consistency between TV shows and films, as well as making it quite simple to calculate how many quotes should be allowed for a film's page (just divide by 10). ~ UDScott (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I like the proposal, but maybe we should be more cautious... How about also including a clear upper limit for quotes per films in general (something like 15 or 20 quotes max per article)? Otherwise there could be some problems. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the need - if we establish how many quotes are permissible based on the running time of the film, that inherently sets the upper limit for films. Assuming the above limit (1 quote per 10 minutes of running time), the only way a page would exceed 20 quotes is if the film were longer than 200 minutes - and most films are considerably less than this (except maybe some director's cuts). Most films longer than that are not likely to be quoted here (in fact I don't see pages for any of the films listed at List of longest films by running time). ~ UDScott (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
First, let's keep in mind that quotes for films can have up to "ten lines of dialogue". That wouldn't be a problem, if it is as you say, but could you explain to me how you did your math? You say "the only way a page would exceed 20 quotes is if the film were longer than 200 minutes", but actually, if we are to allow one quote for every 6 minutes, that means a film of 120 minutes could have up to 20 quotes (120/6=20). Right? ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
If you'll notice in my post immediately above your latest, I said assuming a limit of 1 quote per 10 minutes of running time, hence the math - this reflects the evolving discussion (after input from BD2412) from my original post that mentioned 1 quote per 6 minutes. Also, what I meant is that there seem to be few films above the 200-minute mark - and none that are quoted on the site so far. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh, my bad... It seems we were speaking at cross purposes. I was just trying to explain why there might be a problem with the first proposal. Sorry for the confusion: your math is, of course, correct. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
For the record, I can agree with the proposed new limits (i.e. max 6 quotes for video-games, and 1 quote per 10 min for films/shows). ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Once again, I would like to raise this issue and see if we cannot finalize this as official policy. In my opinion, there are two problems that continue to plague the project: first that this is only a "proposed guideline", so it is difficult to enforce (see the recent editing and discussion surrounding the George Carlin page or here) and second that there seems to remain disagreement regarding the number of allowed quotes per type of page. I have proposed some changes above, which seemed to be well-received, and yet we still have never had enough participation in the discussion to move this further along. Sure, further refinement is welcome and still possible, but can we not at least move this beyond a "proposed" state? ~ UDScott (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

## Image policy again

I've noticed that the image use policy approved last year seems to have been ignored in some edits in recent weeks. For example, on 6 July 2012 in Charles Sanders Peirce I removed some notably irrelevant images, but these have recently been restored, together with a comment about an "imbecilic dimwit" who failed to appreciate the relevance of the images.

Leaving aside the tone of that comment, the policy page says clearly: "An image that is not a literal representation of the subject of the page may be removed by any editor who believes it to be inappropriate. Thereafter, it should not be re-added without first obtaining consensus on the article talk page." This policy seems to have been ignored in this case and perhaps also in others.

The tone of earlier discussions of this topic suggests that a very significant majority of editors do not want Wikiquote to look like a kindergarten art project. Hoag's Object seems to be coming back as an illustration of everything and anything. Is there any hope that the excellent image use policy might be followed and that this breakdown in following a clear and official policy might be ended? - Macspaunday (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Macspaunday, it seems to me you didn't just remove an image (or two), but radically changed the way the article was illustrated. Now I also noticed you have been following a deletionist's path last year; this has been questioned before (for example here); and this is related to the change in Wikiquote:Image use policy early last year that led to that policy (as you already stated in your opening).
Now in this occasion you seem to have taken the policy to the new level that "All image that are not a literal representation of the subject of the page may be removed...". Here I am beginning to get some questions myself about that image policy. Is it its intention that a biographical article may not contain any thematic image? -- Mdd (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
All but two of three of the images used in that article are irrelevant decoration with no connection to the subject nor to the quotation that they are allegedly illustrating. User:Kalki has long had difficulty with this concept, and (s)he is in part the reason it was instituted, as nearly all of the articles (s)he has edited were filled to the brim with this sort of pointless, distracting decoration. 121a0012 (talk) 04:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Agree with this last comment by 121a0012 (talk · contributions), above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Re. Mdd's question: Not at all, the intention is that they need to be suitably relevant and that there needs to be an affirmative consensus for them if they are contested. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Macspaunday, may I ask why you removed the pictures from the Wuthering Heights section in the the Emily Bronte article? To my mind, there is no question that they did improve the appearance of the page, and were all carefully and intelligently selected. Of course they are subjective, but that is inevitable unless you are prepared to say that we must only use pictures of the authors themselves. Despite the Kalki-bashing above, I don't believe there actually is consensus for such a radical position as that. Yours, Daniel Tomé (talk) 11:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

If you don't feel there is a substantial consensus about that kind of image, I personally won't object if you revert the changes, though the image use policy requires that the question be raised on the talk page for the page itself. I think many editors feel that the art-project quality of many of these illustrations, where the same images (e.g. Hoag's Object) are used to illustrate a hundred or more pages, brings discredit to the whole project. I don't think we need to go through the whole discussion again, as this was discussed at great length on this page last summer. But if in fact the consensus is that images such as Hoag's Object are suitable on a hundred or more pages, then I certainly won't object. - Macspaunday (talk) 13:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Macspaunday, thank you for your reasonable reply. Let me just say in passing that while deleting pictures only takes a few seconds, discussing changes on the talk page can be very time-consuming, if one is expected to justify/give reasons for each picture, and explain why they might be relevant. Now, if you don't mind, I will restore at least some pictures to the Emily Brontë article (those that do not involve galaxies). Regards, Daniel Tomé (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, of course you should feel free to use your judgment without any objection from me. I certainly have no wish to get into an edit war, and I think edit wars bring discredit to the project in the same way (though less visibly) that a hundred or more instances of Hoag's Object and a hundred or more instances of 19th-century genre paintings bring discredit to the project. There may be disagreement about images, but, except for one or two repeat offenders, I think there's a very strong consensus against edit wars, which discourage sensible editors from participating in the project. It seems to me that the way to get things right in a project like this is through intelligent and well-articulated policies, and this project seems to have exactly that. - Macspaunday (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I have reviewed some of the comments here, and am going to make a relatively brief one, for me (as some of you are aware).
To the extent I am able to in the coming weeks, I intend to prepare some presentations about many ideas relevant to issues evident here, in project pages and on my user pages, but I am not making excessive haste to reveal all that I can, nor even some of the most important or powerful of things I know to be true, preferring to allow the passage of time to temper some of my anger and outrage at some persistently false assumptions which I find insulting and denigrative to Humanity, and to human potentials, and which have, in the past year, resulted in attempts at MASSIVE suppression of the presentation of images used to enhance and stimulate the interests of some who might just be briefly examining the project. Many of the images I believe help stimulate the imaginative capacities, which obviously some people lack, and which often prompts many to exhibit strong hostility to evidence of them in others. I usually prefer to speaking from transcendent stances where I can laugh at and forgive others for various forms of human folly to those where I must harshly chastise others for them. Sometimes that is simply unavoidable, in some situations of severe ignorance and confusion, many of which I hope can be avoided in the coming months. That is about all I have inclination to say at this point, but I perhaps will add more comments here within the next week or so. ~ Kalki·· 15:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

We need to apply some common sense in the use of images. We are a repository of quotes, not a picture book. I support having at least one illustrative image on each page to the extent that an image exists that illustrates the author or theme, and having a few images on long pages to break the monotony and provide further illustration. However, I oppose having a wall of images running down one side of the page, as an unnecessary distraction, and I oppose having the same abstract images used in one page after another, as any image that is nonspecific enough to be used in that way is probably too generic to be of illustrative value to the page. BD2412 T 02:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with this comment by BD2412 (talk · contributions), above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I am truly not very suprised that a few of the same people continually find ways to call for further restrictions on the freedoms of others — and as usual they belittle any ideas or liberties that are indicated by implying such things to be merely childish displays, in clever or naïve ways that are far worse than merely childish. It seems the issues will have to be addressed more thoroughly soon, but I expect it will take at least several weeks for them to be resolved more clearly, and possibly longer before anything resembling a truly fair and enduring resolution in regard to many things can be reached, but no matter what the events or circumstances in coming days and weeks, I never intend to be entirely silent in my opposition to greater restrictions on liberties and the ability to express ideas in effective ways allied with all forms of art and imagination, beyond such mechanistic and legalistic rules as some shallow minded people often find necessary or even pleasing, in such ways as they can never be to those with broader and more profound perspectives on many things. ~ Kalki·· 14:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
That was a rather swift and short response to recent comments, such as can occur where candor is more valued than forms of conformity, but I do wish to make it clear that whatever irritation I might have with some people's attitudes and behaviors, and the ways they misuse many of their abilities and freedoms to suppress those of others, I intend to forever respect the right of all opinions on matters to be presented, and do this out of a profound desire to allow that which is best to emerge — and NOT be suppressed by shallow or narrow expectations of what people can do or must do. Blessings to all. ~ Kalki·· 14:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
It occurs to me there is a real problem in applying the new Wikiquote:Image use policy, where those abstract image are already excluded. As to the application: In the Carl Sagan article 10 of those image where successfully removed after discussion, July 2012. And in that time in the Charles Sanders Peirce also all but three were removed. In restored those images recently, Kaki seem to disagree on how the new Image policy should be applied.
Just as important is, that after the Carl Sagan discussion 30 of the 40 images could stay... because they where considered relevant. It seems to me there could/should be at least a similar discussion on the Charles Sanders Peirce article, to determine which kind of images are relevant or not. -- Mdd (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
For the most part I agree with what BD2412 said. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I truly hope and intend to give many people far more reasons to trust and respect many of the ideas and rather anarchistic ethical ideals which I promote, even if they can develop little or no admirable trust towards me personally. ~ Kalki

Reading Mdd's comments has prompted me to extend my own previosly brief remarks to specify a few things I believe to be important for anyone concerned about this matter to realize. One of the most glaring and appalling aspects of this page which has become touted as "official policy" which I genuinely consider largely a betrayal of many foundational principles of ALL the wikimedia projects, is that it is innately and inherently NOT neutral and devised to REDUCE, constrain and not develop opportunities for true Neutrality in respect to contending impulses or ideas. Unlike the far more NATURAL and proper procedures which had LONG existed where any disputes as to content could be settled on talk pages, and which prejudicially favored NO particular sides in any disputes, this clearly seems to have been designed to INHERENTLY favor those seeking to REMOVE images — by making such a removal by ANYONE for ANY reason stated or not as a position to be FAVORED, and implied any attempt to RESTORE them to be an uncivil and deplorable and expressly FORBIDDEN act. The extent of my revulsion at this aspect of the page and a few others really CANNOT be adequately expressed in words, but MANY come to mind, which I will prudently refrain from presenting. I firmly believe that several aspects of the policies espoused are betrayals and corruptions of the ideals of FAR more free and FREEDOM PROMOTING editing practices with which the wikis were founded.

Taking literally and completely on its face this is nothing other than EXPLICIT SANCTIONING of even the most malicious and malevolent forms of VANDALISM, and a project level criminalization of the even the most benevolent and truly civil and social of motivations in adding or preserving images and respecting the emphasis they can place on certain remarkable quotations which editors believe deserve greater prominence. I believe that there can be no realistic dispute that such a rule was devised and crafted primarily as a means to strengthen the position of a VERY few people, at least some of them apparently much more interested in making rules for others than contributing constructively to the project or permitting others to do so, who insist that the use of images is an inherently bad and discreditable thing. On this site which gets tens of thousands of visits a day, and many of these images have been used for MANY years there have actually been only a VERY FEW controversies or disputes regarding images, and I would say that MOST of these have been involving the same few people, who seem to have various reasons to be hostile to the use of any images beyond some of the most unimaginative and trivial ways, or to me personally, or both.

I consider attempts at establishing and enforcing many aspects of this policy to be innately unjust. Though it was crafted by several, the major push for its completion in its existing form was clearly initiated last year by Cirt (talk · contributions), during a rather active state of his periodic harassment of me and my activities over the last few years, during a time where I was far too busy with other things to spend much time in disputes here.

I clearly saw that I had little support among the few most active and vociferous editors clamoring for more such rules against the options avaliable to others, which to some extent seemed tailored specifically to suppress and discredit me, the interests I promoted and and many of my activities on this wiki. I actually also had very little opportunity to involve myself in the disputes at the time, and recognized that disputing about the situations which developed and I found appalling was not worth my time and effort, as there were many projects I could actively contribute to with far less hostility on the part of a few, and whenever I could find enough time in the future to present some of my perspectives on matters would be soon enough. In the time since then there have been many presumptive ravages of MANY pages, where those who removed the images were PLAINLY ignorant of much about the ideals and themes of the quotes they captioned as well as those evoked or often plainly represented by the images themselves.

I recently have begun to make clear some of my intentions to more vigorously promote the ideals of civil disobedience, in opposition to attempts at making REDUCTIONS of human freedoms and respect for human ideas and liberties SEEM civil in ways which they truly are NOT.

I know that no matter how reasonable or extensive and sound my arguments, there are some I can reasonably expect to remain unreasonably hostile to MANY of my perspectives, as is their right as autonomous human beings. Thus, I believe that the time has come when I must make a few other ideas and truths far more apparent to some people, over coming weeks and months, which might at last persuade some to realize they have made grievous errors concerning many things. I am in no particular hurry to do so — and I have MANY other tasks to be involved in, but to the extent I can devote any time to clarifying some situations for others on pages throughout the project, and INDICATING, and eventually evidencing and proving various things about myself and my own motives in regard to many things on my personal talk pages, I shall do so. Despite my lifelong love of various forms of anonymity, and the vitally important NECESSITY of preserving it in many cases, I have actively begun considering the option of revealing MUCH about WHO and WHAT I am by various means, and WHEN and WHERE and WHY I have been active in many ways. But I make no firm commitments to this, because I remain loathe to reveal too much about myself or others to those with little or no capacity to appreciate many forms of truth that I believe most people could easily understand, where they are not misled by various forms of fear, hatred, prejudice and false and foul presumptions. I have made some indications that I have long studied various forms of arts and sciences far more extensively than most, and though I do not seek to claim to be an expert on many matters, I am someone with sufficient insight to have won respect for my knowledge and imaginative intelligence, and to distrust many of the assumptions of those supposed by themselves or others to be experts on various things, and thus I do not mind having others distrust me or my ideas, where they as yet see little or no reason to do so. I truly hope and intend to give many people far more reasons to trust and respect many of the ideas and anarchistic ethical ideals which I promote, even if they can develop little or no admirable trust towards me personally. Whatever the case might be, I truly seek to provide Blessings to all. So it goes… ~ Kalki·· 16:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC) + tweaks

I realize it's hard to exchange views on the image policy without referring to Kalki, for obvious reasons, but even though we should try not to bring personal issues into the discussion, I must nevertheless confess that I too am worried and bothered to see a few users here whose only recent "contributions" to Wikiquote have been attempts at bashing Kalki, which look, even if done in subtle ways, quite silly, to be perfectly honest. Of course it's not my place to tell people what to do with their time, and I've been told before that it's "suicidal" of me to criticize admins here, but... Come on Cirt. Your fixation with Kalki isn't healthy.
As to the image policy itself, let's keep in mind that there are usually only one or two pictures of any author available, which is a big problem for long articles. I have experienced this problem myself. For example, it took me countless hours to select and place pictures in the Bertrand Russell page, which still has some "subjective/imaginative" pictures, even after my going through the trouble to upload over 20 pictures of him to Wikimedia Commons. I don't actually believe many other users are willing to do that. And I hardly think that these articles should be limited to the very few available "unimaginative" pictures mentioned before.
I myself believe that the pictures make the page look better, and help to convey and highlight important quotes, so I must make it clear that I resist policies that suggest people should be free to simply remove said pictures, disregarding the efforts of those who strove to improve the page. Heck, how about replacing the picture, instead of deleting it? If you don't like something, improve it, don't tear it down. Oh, right, that would take more than a few seconds to do. We don't want that!
Personally, I think that only those who have gone through the process of adding pictures to articles (or replacing them), i.e., those who have had to use their imagination and creativity to improve an article, can really appreciate the efforts of others who did the same. So, I ask you, if you want to destroy something, show me that you can create something better first. I note that those who campaign against the use of pictures have yet to do that. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
It should not come as a surprise to anyone "those who campaign against the use of pictures" believe that "something better" is "fewer pictures". Again, Wikiquote is not someone's art project. It is a collection of quotations. How many illustrations are there in Bartlett's? I know there are none in Simpson's. 121a0012 (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking exactly that. I've never seen an illustration in any edition of Bartlett's, and generally our online "competitors", in addition to generally having unsourced and undated quotes, have none. That we have a few is good, and a stylistic area of superiority. Having too many would make us a bit ridiculous, I think. Since Daniel Tomé has noted that some editors tend to obsess over Kalki, I will add that I have always thought that Kalki is an excellent contributor of quotes and organizer of quotation pages. It would therefore be a boon to efforts in that direction if some of the time he spent worrying over images were similarly spent in the expansion of our compendium. We can worry more about adding images once we have completed the task of gathering all the world's notable quotes. BD2412 T 03:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, some of our online competitors use copious images – in the advertisements included on their pages. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
121a0012, you seem to be implying that the issue, for you, is not so much the use of "generic" or "irrelevant" pictures (such as that of galaxies or paintings), but rather that we actually have no right to use pictures at all on Wikiquote. Did I get that right? (Notice the shift here.) ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 09:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Is this inquiry intended seriously? It seems clear that "fewer" does not mean "none". ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Hint: try to take the logic of his argument far enough. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Hint: try not to stretch my comments far past the breaking point. I see no need to make any other response. 121a0012 (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Following the argument where it leads is not a stretch. But thanks for the clarification. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 09:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

That actually IS what a few people have been inclined to assert — and it is these few people allied with a few others, who have thought it convenient to their tastes and desires to compose a contract to BIND all others who work MUCH more than most of them to THEIR will.

I find many of their efforts little more than a massive amount of BULL PUCKY. I am quoting a common expression of Rachel Maddow here, which I believe is quite apt. I certainly believe my time would indeed be well spent gathering MORE of the the world's most notable quotes rather than having to act AS IF I or anyone else here should be ABSOLUTELY limited to anyone else's narrow or shallow inclinations and sensibilities of what I should do. I am MOTIVATED to find and include great thoughts BECAUSE I can appreciate diverse forms of BEAUTY in many diverse ideas, and am much inclined to DEFYING and rejecting the will and corruptive practices and policies of those most inclined to PRESCRIBE to others what they can or cannot and should or should not do with their own time. I find it a morbid and mortifying attitude which seeks to hobble and cripple the inclinations of others to bring all the knowledge and skills they CAN to PRESENTING quotes and ideas.

Though some might have the sly cleverness to frame their attitudes as an absolutist assertion "Wikiquote is not someone's art project" — I would say that it certainly is NOT "someone's" project — for either art of imposition of legalisms — but it certainly was established as a PUBLIC ARTS project — and I firmly believe that the ARTS of quotation and presenting quotations and the ideas they indicate is certainly more than can or should be defined or delineated by those obsessed with driving away and excluding anyone who indicates more poetic insights and imaginative use of imagery than they are inclined to appreciate.

I have something which might come as a surprise for those of little imagination and discernment, but this is wiki was NOT established as a mere file cabinet for text snippets, nor is it a place that should be as tightly bound to numerous formalities as a legal brief — it is a wiki project for the PRESENTATION of quotes, and for well over a century now MANY presentations of quotes have been framed with images to indicate various aspects of the ideas expressed in such quotes. There are definite costs to producing images in printed media, but how many magazines presenting any forms of information do so without images? I find the rational for EXCLUDING images is bound to 19th century practices and potentials which seek to ignore and exclude many 21st century options.

 Life itself is a quotation. ~ Jorge Luis Borges ~

I do not expect this rather mystical statement of Borges to appeal to everyone, nor to produce only one interpretation — nor do I expect any images to do so. I do expect them to prompt various forms of attention and thought that might not be awakened otherwise — perhaps including curiosity about various ancient symbols, and various associated ideas.

To strengthen some arguments in other matters, one of the disputants in this issue has at various times made note of being a lawyer, and this can be a very worthy profession, especially when employed in defense of liberty and justice and not the improper constraint of either, and I will now reveal that I have long restrained myself from noting that I have certain certifiable merits as well, and am what some would call a "super-genius" — and I am not merely being facetious nor exaggerating. I have had EXTRAORDINARILY high scores on official tests, at the upper ranges of measurability — such as would have easily permitted me to join the Prometheus Society, or even more exclusive ones, and which make most members of Mensa seem relative simpletons, had I actually wished to do so, but I really am NOT all that interested in joining or promoting highly EXCLUSIVE groups, and truly do NOT believe such one-dimensional numerical measures are all that valuable an indicator of many of the most important aspects of intelligence, and am wise enough to discern that the levels of compassion and Charitable Love and rational INTEGRITY people manifest and exhibit is FAR more important to Humanity than any measures of raw intelligence has ever been or could ever be. What people DO with their intelligence and are inclined to do, is far more important to me than what levels of it they are capable of manifesting. Protecting and promoting human capacities for Justice, Unity, Liberty and Joyous Universal Love are far more important to me than any scores or grades or popularity or forms of conventional political power.

I mention this primarily because I believe it will permit others to better appreciate some of the discernments I had already made about various critics of the artistries and intelligence of others by the time I was 5 or 6 year old, and which I have never perceived any reasons to amend, though I have expanded my awareness of their applicability considerably since then.

I am very tired of people I perceive to be of relatively little intellectual capacity or rational integrity believing they are SO superior to people who actually have retained enough of their HUMAN capacities for appreciation of diverse forms of beauty and beautifully complex relationships, and who prefer presentations with images that often take some time to correlate well with quotes. I have stated on a few occasions, I am ALWAYS ready to accommodate better choices, and to debate between various options, but if the choice is between some imaginative indication and the vapid imperious mandating of NO imaginative indication, I side with that which prompts thought and ideas and against that which prompts vacuity and ignorance.

Though I will probably not have time today, for I expect to be doing much traveling about over the next couple of days, I do eventually intend to further address some objections which I find rather paltry and pathetic, towards both poetic principles and pragmatic practices, but no matter how harsh my criticisms of some actions or attitudes might be or become in the interests of justice and liberty, I wish to note that I forgive others readily for many of their more innocent errors, for in relation to the forms of ignorance and confusion others exhibit, I have long admired the expressions:

 There, but for the grace of God, go I. ~ Paraphrase of John Bradford ~
 There but for fortune, go you or I ~ Phil Ochs ~

I took these MUCH to heart at a VERY early age, and was always more inclined to pity rather than scorn those who in many ways lacked my levels of intelligence, imagination and perception of many aspects of many things, and regularly sought to find ways to help them develop greater awareness of their own capacities for appreciation of the beauty of all things, and especially those of other human beings. I might have been able to easily count myself among many elites — but I am NOT an elitist — I am too much an absurdist profoundly enamored of the beauty of anarchist ethics and democratic MEANS towards promoting anarchist ethics to accept ANY form of absolutist delusions, such as favor many forms of elitism. That might be all I have time for now — I have to prepare to leave and expect to be gone most of the day. Blessings to all. ~ Kalki·· 11:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC) + tweaks

Kalki, I appreciate what you are saying, but I should admit — as much as it pains me to say this (because my heart is on your side) — that just as I don't like seeing people bashing you, I also think it's very unbecoming of you to bash others. Needless to say, I am not exempt here, but, after all, it's not me who goes around preaching "Universal Love." We are discussing an important matter, and it's really a bad idea to say things like "my IQ is so much higher than yours, and I pity you". That is very counterproductive... And you're much better than that. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Though a bit tardy in doing so, I wish to interject a few statements here in apology for some inadequacies of my previous statements. In somewhat of a rushed statement the other day, I did state that I "was always more inclined to pity rather than scorn those who in many ways lacked my levels of intelligence, imagination and perception of many aspects of many things, and regularly sought to find ways to help them develop greater awareness of their own capacities for appreciation of the beauty of all things, and especially those of other human beings." I will concede that what I intended by that statement was clearly not as clearly communicated in such ways as I might have wished. I know that many people improperly use the word "pity" almost synonymously with the word "contempt," but I wish to make very clear that in providing indications of how others have measured or ranked my intelligence levels, I did NOT state nor intend to imply anything like "my IQ is so much higher than yours, and I pity you" — but I had actually sought rather awkwardly to indicate that my intelligence had at a VERY early age PERMITTED and IMPELLED me to embrace a strong "live and let live" attitude and to reject and oppose the notions of those who believed that their supposed "superiority" in ANY particular regards, whether in intelligence, knowledge, or any roughly or precisely measurable qualities gave them license to denigrate others or their rights to their own inclinations. I also sought to emphasize to people who are often accustomed to expecting vengeful and vindictive and punitive responses to errors, that I was inclined to be forgiving of them. I concede that there were some deficiencies in my rushed presentation, and that I was being a bit derisive of some denigrative behavior, but I contrast derision of what I hold to be improper actions and will with denigration of human beings or their aesthetic affinities as if they had little or no worth, and my motivations in specifically mentioning IQ levels here involved an effort to vigorously repudiate the repeated denigration of the use of images with quotes AS IF they were something childish and infantile, and which "sophisticated" people should reject and deplore. I believed that tempering the inclination to further use that sort of argument was worth the risks and problems I actually expected to be associated with revealing that sort of fact about myself, and though it might have been done more tactfully in another way, I believe that fact is one I had to eventually indicate, as it might perhaps permit some other aspects of my peculiar experiences and attitudes about many things become somewhat easier for others to understand. I hope some of my work in coming weeks and months will clarify some of what I have done and am doing and intend to do far better than I presently can. Blessings to all. ~ Kalki·· 00:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
If I have misquoted you, I apologize. To be honest, when I look back at some of my comments on Talk pages I often think "what an idiot I was", so please don't take me all too seriously. Although these discussions are important, I realize they can cause a lot of distress, and I don't want to contribute to any more of that, so in the future I will try to focus more on contributing to articles, which is what I enjoy doing most, and less on arguing with fellow editors. I still have my own ideas, but, at the end of the day, we are all here for the same reasons. I hope everyone can enjoy Wikiquote to the fullest. Regards, Daniel Tomé (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with the proposition that Wikiquote is not a picture book or someone's art project. Having a few well selected images is a good thing; but having an excess of images, including those that are pointed and those that are pointless, has made many of our pages ridiculous, and brought discredit to our project.

Regarding those that are pointed, I want to be very clear: the stated objective of creatively and imaginatively expressing ideas and poetic insights about the quotations is not consistent with the founding principle of neutral point of view. A given quotation may give rise to a variety of different associations in the minds of different readers, or in the mind of a single reader. Ruminations and reflections about the quotes are not just a distraction, they are an imposition of personal views. It is not acceptable to do this with images any more than to do it in the text of an article.

A montage visualizing one person's stream of consciousness about what it all means just does not belong here. This is not to say that the ideas and associations expressed are childish, but that this is not the place to display them. This is not to prescribe what people can do with their own time, but what they can do in this venue. If someone wants to paint rainbows and unicorns on their body and dance naked in the park, that is none of our business. But please don't do it here. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed pretty much 100% with Ningauble. 121a0012 (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
• My feelings on this subject are that while I am not as bothered by the images as many others, I do believe that the selection of images where there is not an obvious connection to a page's subject does represent a POV that might not necessarily be shared by others. Thus, I supported, and continue to support, the revised image use policy that resulted from discussion and refinement last year. I do appreciate the concerns of some that such policies inherently, and sometimes directly, limit the creative aims of some, but I believe that some limits are sometimes needed. My objection is not that images are paired with quotes, but rather that they are selected by someone else and therefore discourage my own interpretation of the associated quotes (unless my interpretation happens to align with that of the user that selected the images). ~ UDScott (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
• The key complaint here refers to POV, but I think it's all a matter of degree. If we are to be really serious about it, we should also forbid the use of bold. That also only serves to highlight important lines from the point of view of the editor. What a terrible thing. And, of course, the very selection of quotes is subjective in the first place.
Going back to the basics here, pictures are useful to highlight important quotes. I don't think anyone can question that. If you do a proper Google search to find which quotes from Wikiquote are cited the most, the ones that appear under pictures are the clear winners, and that is no coincidence. So it should be clear that preserving "creative aims" is not the main argument here (at least for me). There is much more to allowing the use of pictures than just that (even if those pictures are "subjective"). Indeed, I think it obvious that many casual readers just don't bother reading through the sea of text in long pages, and simply prefer to look at the pictures and the selected quotes there. But maybe I'm wrong. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I find the use of boldface to be generally undesirable as well. I think it is marginally acceptable for the purpose of highlighting a particular phrase or clause from a longer quote which is objectively much better known than its context, but I don't use it myself. 121a0012 (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I actually disagree with some assumptions of some repeated statements which a few others tend to agree with here, and though I recognize I am in the minority in some regards, and might be for some time yet, I intend to persist in dissenting on many aspects of this issue, as I gradually examine various options for further argument. I actually do not have any strong expectation of immediately altering many people's perceptions or attitudes. I might review the course of events that have developed on the Wikimedia projects, and this one in particular, before I present what I believe will be some of the more important points that can eventually be made upon some matters. There are often significant subtleties to emphasize in all statements humans can make, and no one can properly expect to communicate all which they would like to, and ONLY that, and I wish to reexamine some matters I have not attended to in quite some time. Blessings to all. ~ Kalki·· 00:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

### Image discussion : section II

For so far, I seem to witness two opposite positions here: that of Deletionism and Inclusionism towards image-use. Now in stead of going from one side to an other, it might be possible to consider other options for illustration, see for example here. -- Mdd (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe this is, at best, a misleading analogy. We do occasionally have debates on what sorts of people, works, themes, etc., ought to have Wikiquote pages, but this is not that discussion. In this topic, we are merely concerned with the spamming of Wikiquote pages with large numbers of objectively irrelevant images by certain editors who appear to regard Wikiquote as the appropriate place to display their collages. If there are two positions here, it is those who believe this is acceptable (or at least tolerable) and those who think otherwise. Should we allow random unrelated images to be dumped into every Wikiquote page, or should we instead require that images have an objectively demonstrable connection to the material they are used to illustrate? Images should serve to improve readers' understanding of a page, not leave them wondering why only one of two dozen images has any connection to the subject. Whimsy has its place, but a reference work isn't it. 121a0012 (talk) 05:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
With "deletionism and inclusionism towards image-use" here, you can think of: (This following text was originally here but "article/knowledge/sources" is replace by "image"; and "Wikipedia" by "Wikiquote"):
• "Deletionists" are proponents of selective coverage and removal of images seen as unnecessary or highly substandard. Deletionist viewpoints are commonly motivated by a desire that Wikiquote be focused on and cover significant topics – along with the desire to place a firm cap upon proliferation of promotional use (seen as abuse of the website), trivia, and images which are of no general interest, lack suitable source material for high quality coverage, or are too short or otherwise unacceptably poor in quality.
• "Inclusionists" are proponents of broad retention, including retention of "harmless" images and images otherwise deemed substandard to allow for future improvement. Inclusionist viewpoints are commonly motivated by a desire to keep Wikiquote broad in coverage with a much lower entry barrier for topics covered – along with the belief in that it is impossible to tell what images might be "useful" or productive, that content often starts poor and is improved if time is allowed, that there is effectively no incremental cost of coverage, that arbitrary lines in the sand are unhelpful and may prove divisive, and that goodwill requires avoiding arbitrary deletion of others' work. Some extend this to include allowing a wider range of images...
With this in mind, you can consider some changes as act of deletionism, such as: here in Carl Sagan and here in Charles Sanders Peirce. And you can explain these actions as a response to too much inclusionism.
Now I prefer this analogy, above speaking of "the spamming of Wikiquote pages with large numbers of objectively irrelevant images". In the Carl Sagan article it turned out that most of those images removed were not so irrelevant after all. Eventually a compromise was reached. Now again my opinion here: in stead of going from one side to an other, it might be possible to consider other options for illustration. In other words, we could/should look for new ways to find compromises. -- Mdd (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I certainly agree with Mdd that MANY of the removals which have occurred since this rather deplorable "policy" statement was crafted and provided sanctioning of massive removal of material from many pages have been with clear ignorance or obstinate denial of MANY forms of relevance, and exhibited a wanton disregard for ANY relationship that some people do not wish to acknowledge. I have thus far not addressed many of these, but assert placing preference on the REMOVAL of material others find relevant is a de-facto BETRAYAL of the very processes with which Wikimedia wikis were founded — to make contributions EASY for people. This is "policy" is clearly designed to DISCOURAGE many forms of editing a VERY FEW people object to, to make such MUCH more difficult — and to treat ANY and all use of the admittedly still rather limited ranges of images Wikimedia Commons which ANYONE objects to as "not clearly relevant" or "simply subjective" in their minds.

Fear makes a bad trip. Man has been on a bad trip for a long time now. It is called THE CURSE OF GREYFACE
Everyone is a prisoner of his own experiences. No one can eliminate prejudices — just recognize them. ~ Edward R. Murrow

Work on Encyclopedic references to knowledge and facts in a relatively "objective" manner have their places, and one them is certainly the worthy project Wikipedia, but to declare a compendium of Quotations to be without any room for presentations of the wisdom of whimsy or wit would certainly impel a very dull drab abomination of depravity — which is precisely what some people seem to have in mind, I believe. To provide "objectively demonstrable connection" of anything to anything else is clearly perceived as "provable" or "unprovable" DEPENDENT upon one's subjectivities, to far greater extents than those who naively and QUITE subjectively consider themselves absolutely "objective" are ever likely to easily come to realize. To insist that most of the images used are "objectively irrelevant" in absolutist ways that seem innately ignorant and confused about the relativity and subjective relationship of nearly all terms and their own expressions — and these OBVIOUSLY intended to SEEM "authoritative" in what they take to be "objective" ways. Speaking with a bit more frank candor, I believe I clearly recognized most talk of "absolute objectivity" in relation to mortal minds and thought processes was a bunch of shallow, confused, and quite subjective pap and crap by the time I was seven years old. Like Søren Kierkegaard, Albert Camus and many existentialists or absurdists opposed to many naïve and mortifying forms of absolutism, I am inclined to extremely honest subjective examination of claims of "objectivity" — and find most of them deficient and flawed in more ways than can ever be fully enumerated, and simply manifestations of bigotries of people inclined to insist THEIR bigotries are NOT bigotries — and sometimes that the majority — or ALL who they believe MATTER or SHOULD matter, AGREE with them that they are NOT bigotries — and such blithely held bigotries go on existing and constraining the lives and minds of human beings.

I distrust all dead and mechanical formulas for expressing anything connected with human affairs and human personalities. Putting human affairs in exact formulas shows in itself a lack of the sense of humor and therefore a lack of wisdom. ~ Lin Yutang

Obviously, the quite derisive and denigrative statement equating the presentation of usually thoughtfully selected imagery to "random unrelated images" and "objectively irrelevant images" which are provided at the WIkimedia Commons to ENHANCE the project pages, to acts of commercial SPAMMING is something that is being presented AS IF it were a statement of clearly "objective truth" not to be doubted or denied. It might be my extremely honest subjective mind leading me "astray" from all too common forms of dissimulation, but it is apparent to me that what is being provided by some are attempts at maintaining or consolidating largely subjectively motivated oppositons and hostility to the use of images, supported to a great extent by some who actually edit very little here, but who seem prone to seek to COMMAND others very much, and to preemptively constrain some of those who have been most active here from the start in various ways.

Person to person, I truly do tend to be either rather reserved or casually jovial in many ways, and when I am prone to address matters harshly I am also prone to emphasize that though I have little affinity for many of the most popular and common forms of absolutism: the ideals which are closest to absolutes for me are those which promote Liberty and tolerant love of ALL humanity, and which bind none too tightly to formulated assumptions. I do believe that there are many forms of extreme conflicts and confusions which tend to diminish the more that Justice and Liberty are respected.

In the worst of time, there is the possibility of seeing hope... We can say "I can be a rainbow in the cloud for someone yet to be." That may be our calling. ~ Maya Angelou

I freely confess that I do love many forms of natural images to go with natural expressions that defy or transcend unnatural and mind constraining rules. I especially do like many images of the heavens and living things, and don't deny a fondness for lightning storms, the sun, stars, galaxies and rainbows. These can ALL be interpreted in MANY diverse ways — as CAN many fundamental words. Culturally, intellectually and probably viscerally and intuitively, they evoke a respect for liberty, diversity and ancient and modern traditions of appealing to natural and mystical beauties of nature and Reality — which I believe actually DO appeal to MOST people and to anyone who is not so blind, color-blind or mentally, emotionally or spiritually blind as to wish all others to be as blind and limited in options as they.

Holy lightning strikes all that's evil
Teaching us to love for goodness sake.
Hear the music of Love Eternal
Teaching us to reach for goodness sake.
~ Jon Anderson, in "Loved by the Sun", from the movie Legend (1985) - (YouTube Video)

I believe that since the time I was 4 or 5 years old, I had VERY clear sense of realization that even amidst MUCH torment and adversity, which they do not ignore or deny exists, the wisest and happiest people perceive MUCH of the Eternal Beauty of Reality and without wishing to constrain or control anyone's options and liberties, wish to help others to see most of what they can and more, so that they can grow to appreciate truths and beauty beyond their own reach or capacities of appreciation, while the most foolish and miserable are often clearly unfortunate in that they perceive but little of many forms of beauty, and strive to restrict and constrain others so that they see even less than they — often so that they can control and command them with little resistance. As I grew older, and saw such patterns of attitudes and behavior clearly repeating at MANY levels of human society, my awareness of the validity and applicability of these observations grew far more extensive, and I truly have sometimes been amazed how many people tend to remain relatively oblivious and even hostile to recognizing such truths about such patterns of behavior for most of their lives.

The very ESSENCE of bigotry, to me is summed up by the drive to EXCLUDE ideas and testimony, and to treat as much as possible that which does not flatter or support one's own particular views and preferences as unworthy of ANY respect or consideration or presentation. I have sought ways to fight bigotries of both mild and extreme kinds since I was a young child. At a relatively early age, amidst MANY diverse forms of bigotry and counter-bigotry among all manner of social, anti-social, political, anti-political, religious, anti-religious, scientific, anti-scientific, passionate, anti-passionate, traditional, anti-traditional, rational, and anti-rational factions of human society, I recognized all manner of people blaming other groups of people for ALL bigotry and problems that arose — and thus further promoting many forms of bigotry — and BLIND to the FACT that it was BIGOTRY itself — or ANY type which was ever and always the PRIMARY cause of many of the worst forms of human misery, stagnation and decay. It can be doubted or denied by few that many people are such bigots as are largely oblivious to their own forms of bigotry, and highly attentive and hostile only to the bigotries of others, and ironically eager to PUNISH many forms of bigotry other than their own, or such as they find useful or conveniently supportive of their own.

In one of his greatest and most memorable expressions, which has been one I have embraced since I was a young child, Friedrich Nietzsche declared: Beware of those in whom the will to punish is strong. Adapting this with the expression of the great Christian philosopher Augustine of Hippo, who said "Hate the sin but love the sinner" I resolved years ago to hate all the foulest and worst forms of bigotry, but to love and forgive the human beings who in their ignorance and confusion often fall into many of them, instructing myself in roughly such ways as this : Hate bigotry, and to the fullest extent you can reject bigotry on your part, and forgive the bigots.

I know that many people have intense fears of certain words and the bold and honest use of them. In the interests of putting some of those who seem most oblivious to many of the common forms of bigotry many embrace at greater ease and perhaps prompting attention in all to the many diverse forms of bigotry, I will not not deny embracing some forms of what could perhaps rather "objectively" be called "bigotry" myself — and certainly some forms of prejudices. If it is to be called prejudicial and bigoted by some to embrace ways of life, liberty, vital freedoms and the promotion of diversity and to NOT seriously consider the ways of death, destruction, morbidity, mortification and rigid constraints as having anything close to an equal or comparable appeal to me, then I believe I certainly am that sort of adamantly prejudiced bigot, and yet, confessing to this form of tolerant bigotry, I can thus forgive others more easily for being bigoted in intolerant ways that they may have believed to be right and best for them, and tend to wish to believe are right or best for everyone. I believe I certainly am NOT that type of bigot, and believe that it is proper and even NECESSARY for EACH and EVERY individual to determine what is BEST for themselves — perhaps with "a little help from their friends" but NOT with unjustly IMPOSED constraints which others might presume "best" for them or humanity.

Even if those relatively few people who would maintain and seek to further increase the suppressions of images prevail for a time yet, there are ideas I have long had on how to persist in making clearer my positions that there ARE and long have been and SHOULD remain far broader options, and though they will take a bit more work on my part in coming months, I am willing to bear a greater workload in efforts to protect and preserve many forms of freedoms and liberties — even those of my opponents and adversaries — which has clearly NOT always been the case with some of them towards me.

I am NOT someone eager to needlessly irritate or distress others, let alone significantly harm anyone or their rights to present ideas and opinions, yet for the sake of preserving or presenting greater options for thought and presentation to many, I will confess that I am willing to remain something an irritating gadfly to some, whose inclinations seem to be to constrain me and others in many in ways I find appalling. Even amidst necessary and proper conflicts in aims and intentions, I sincerely do wish all people well, and do what I can to help provide greater Blessings to all. ~ Kalki·· 14:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC) + tweaks

I find it a bit distressing that anyone would equate a policy to limit the number of images on Wikiquote pages with "bigotry", a term traditionally associated with discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or religion. BD2412 T 01:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I find it only slightly surprising and not all that distressing that someone would object to the use the QUITE CORRECT use of a word in full accord with its actual DEFINED meaning — and try to imply that BECAUSE it has developed strong associations with its use in highly specific contexts that it should be considered ineligible for use in ANY others, and perhaps imply that such a use is insulting or improper. I use the term PRECISELY in such ways as it is ACTUALLY DEFINED, and HAVE done so since I was a child. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913 + 1828) defines it precisely in such ways as I properly use it: "obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one's own belief and opinions, with narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them." I have long had to contend with MANY forms of bigotries, as do most human beings, and accept that it is about time that more people become aware of the extent they are often pressured by all manner of overt or subtle bigotries, that many find it "inconvenient" to acknowledge as bigotries. I wish to note that I do NOT seek to find excuses or reasons to PUNISH people as bigots as many might, and thus by my own rather rigorous ethical standards, descend into rather short-sighted forms of bigotry myself, but to effectively EXPOSE and FIGHT many forms of bigotry by INDICATING the REALITY that they ARE forms of BIGOTRY — though not necessarily as clearly and obviously deplorable to all as some of the profoundly stupid ethnic and religious bigotries many people rather stupidly embrace. I decline to accept the idea of the proper use of words being anything approaching a moral error or insult, just because some might perceive them to be, or seek to imply that they are. I often use words and symbols and images and signs or indicators in many diverse ways when I want to find ways to PROMPT people to actually THINK and look beyond what Francis Bacon called the idols of the mind, which they often embrace and form rather casually and unthinkingly. I was fortunate to have been introduced to many aspects of various forms of analysis even beyond those of Bacon, when still a very young child, but even as an adult I remain open to learning new forms of analysis — and do NOT seek to close my mind to the assessments of others.
Though at Wiktionary there is emphasis on the common use of the term in racial contexts, it certainly does not exclude others: "Intolerance or prejudice, especially religious or racial; discrimination (against); the characteristic qualities of a bigot." Though there are actually MANY diverse things which actually come to my mind in relation to this issue, I will simply close with further citations of such broad use as I do not perceive any fault in employing — at Merriam Webster, the synonyms listed for it are quite consistent with my usage : "dogmatism, illiberalism, illiberality, illiberalness, intolerance, intolerantness, narrow-mindedness, opinionatedness, partisanship, sectarianism, small-mindedness" as well as the usage example there: "a deeply ingrained bigotry prevented her from even considering the counterarguments." Antonyms listed as its opposites are "broad-mindedness, liberalism, liberality, open-mindedness, tolerance — and related Words are "conservatism, reactionaryism; insularism, insularity, parochialism, provincialism" — and I believe it is ABUNDANTLY clear that it is PRECISELY such which I am arguing against, and NOT trying to imply anything about the presence or absence of specifically racal, religious or ethnic bigotries. Like MANY terms I do NOT choose to use them in quite so NARROW and constrained ways as MANY others are inclined to do. Narrow interpretations of statements or words can often KILL options for progress — the spirit of broad forms of application provides people with many forms of critical potential and vitality, unconstrained by many of the common and often ridiculous subterfuges and fears many people seek to employ to constrain and limit others to arguments even more shallow and fragile than those they are accustomed to using. So it goes… ~ Kalki·· 03:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC) + tweaks

The opening thesis of this sub-thread is ill-conceived, unconstructive, and divisive.

Firstly, the "inclusionist/deletionist" dichotomy at Wikipedia relates to the question of which topics are suitable for having an article. It is not about deciding what material is germane for including within an article. There is no doubt in my mind that someone who persisted in adding extraneous images to Wikipedia articles, in the manner that has occurred here, would be progressively warned, blocked, and banned from Wikipedia if they did not desist, for reasons that are perfectly obvious and have absolutely nothing to do with "inclusionist/deletionist" philosophies.

Secondly, although an appeal to compromise is expressed, characterizing people's positions as partisan to an extrinsic philosophical dispute has exactly the opposite effect. If it is not quite tantamount to accusing people of prejudicial bigotry, it certainly invites precisely that sort of ad hominem argument, as demonstrated by the sputum subsequently posted here. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I honestly assert my firm belief in many of Ningauable's good intentions, but also assert that the opening line of Ningauble's statement is itself VERY "ill-conceived, unconstructive, and divisive." Far worse than that it then seems to proceed into a more overtly fear-inducing stance in a rather simplistic and officious manner.

Ninguable asserts "no doubt in my mind that someone who persisted in adding extraneous images to Wikipedia articles, in the manner that has occurred here, would be progressively warned, blocked, and banned from Wikipedia if they did not desist" — I actually have NO doubt of that as well — such use of images in an ENCYCLOPEDIA project would definitely be inappropriate, and I have NEVER been so STUPID as to insist it would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. He then goes on to assert that for reasons he believes "perfectly obvious" his interpretations of why some things are "obviously" not suitable on that project should be applied to this one — which in its earliest days was stated to be a place for the PRESENTATION of quotes — and the presentation of quotes is something I do NOT believe IS or should be something so narrowly and exclusively bound to HIS and a FEW other people's ideas of how it SHOULD or MUST be done. As was once stated PROMINENTLY and regularly: THIS IS NOT WIKIPEDIA.

To people who persist in insisting others MUST accept their views and NOT EVEN consider alternatives they do not want considered, I know it often comes as a shock to encounter such people as are not so easily intimidated into abject deference and compliance as many are.

I accept that there ARE conflicts of WILLS and UNDERSTANDINGS here — but I do NOT accept MANY of the rather common modes of seeking to SUPPRESS honest and OPEN discussion of various perspectives and perceptions of the roots and manifestations of the conflicts — so that they may be more thoroughly, and hopefully, properly and fairly addressed.

I can and do respect MANY of Ningauble's points and intentions and capacities to a great deal — which is one reason I am saddened that he persists in seeking to exclude much I and others believe is worthy to be included — and seeks to frame things in ways which EXCLUDE even many forms of QUITE valid arguments or comparisons, and apparently wishes to make them seem "totally irrelevant", because they are not all that flattering or supportive to many of his positions, and those of others who I believe to be more inclined to absolutist assumptions that the restrictions A FEW have wanted to impose on ALL should go UNQUESTIONED and UNOPPOSED.

Ningauble asserts "although an appeal to compromise is expressed, characterizing people's positions as partisan to an extrinsic philosophical dispute has exactly the opposite effect" — I assert that Mdd's appeal was genuinely worthy effort, even though I myself do not agree with his suggestion as actually a satisfactory solution to the problem — for many different reasons than Ningauble asserts. I believe those who seek to constrict the options available want to keep the arguments constrained to such points as would lead to absolute capitulation to their quite partisan and closed positions on THESE matters. Not quite so explicitly, but quite IMPLICITLY I believe that is precisely what is being demanded and asserted — and there remains adamant resistance to expanding the context of considerations beyond such as he and a few others might find fit and convenient to their positions.

I mention certain general philosophical stances, as might anyone, because I believe they ARE very relevant to the arguments and concerns here. Being a life-long absurdist who embraces a highly poetic pragmatism and highly romantic realism, and rigorous rationalism as well as many imaginative irrationalities and actually DOES accept the possibility or actuality of various types and forms of Absolutes — without futilely attempting to absolutely define ultimately indefinite ideas in terms of other ultimately indefinite things, and is INTENSELY aware of the relational and relative nature of ALL somewhat definable things, there is NO identifiable mortal or act of mortal beings which I accept as "absolutely good" or "absolutely evil" NOR "absolutely neither" — nor do I accept naïve notions of absolute equalities of balances between the complex mingling of notions and perspectives on good and evil. Those most inclined to some overt or disguised embrace of such sentiments and views as declare people or inclinations or things ABSOLUTELY good or evil, or ENTIRELY meaningless, will often find if VERY difficult to realize that there truly are and can be minds which are not prone to accept such paths of simplistic presumption. Even when and where they accept there ARE absolutes that can be believed and postulated, and perhaps even proven to be necessary — they CANNOT actually be absolutely and incorruptibly DEFINED to mortal minds nor perfectly and certainly MANIFEST by them— and ANY assumption that they CAN is itself a corruption and an error born of ignorance of the nebulosity and inter-relationships of MANY diverse aspects of MANY things.

Of course characterizing the views and sincere efforts of others as simply sputum is certainly to be excluded forever from ANY accusations of being anything related to ANY form of "prejudicial bigotry" — that seems clearly beyond all dispute here: As clear as spit. ~ Kalki

I choose to apologize a bit here: I realize that my absurdist stances on MANY things are such as I know will be unfamiliar and arcane and much too complicated for easy understanding in many ways to others, and this awareness is actually MUCH of what prompts me to be so meticulously elaborate in many attempts at rigorously honest statements — knowing well MANY of the inadequacies of MANY words, I yet must attempt to be as accurate as I can be, within the limits of Time and Circumstance to INDICATE much which I know to be beyond the reliable indications of words. I am NEVER trying to get ANYONE to think "just like me" on ANYTHING — but always trying to find ways to help others from assuming that they and others MUST think "just like ANYONE or EVERYONE" on ANY THING.

Ningauble closes with the assertion "If it is not quite tantamount to accusing people of prejudicial bigotry, it certainly invites precisely that sort of ad hominem argument, as demonstrated by the sputum subsequently posted here." As many should know, ad hominem arguments are those "made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument" — and is something I am QUITE familiar with, as many of my most reliable adversaries regularly use it quite casually — but of course characterizing the views and sincere efforts of others as simply sputum is certainly to be excluded forever from ANY accusations of being anything related to ANY form of "prejudicial bigotry" — that seems clearly beyond all dispute here: As clear as spit.

As an absurdist I have been laughing all my life in very many odd ways — quite often to keep from crying — at the ways all manners of absolutist bigotries are created and survive amongst people  — who take their often VERY limited and constrained perspectives as encompassing the greatest depths or heights of vision which ANY should need and which ALL should be willing to accept as the limits of their own.

I have also long observed bigotries of many types at work in responses to strong and even irrefutable observations of the propriety of broader and more general perspectives of others as "divisive" because such are OFTEN not supportive or flattering to those prejudices and presumptions of unquestioned and unquestionable righteousness and authority which many of the most shallow and weak arguments often DEPEND upon.

I know that it might sound very ludicrous to many who have not had such forms of experiences and insights as I have had, but though it sometimes mars the vision, I see the world of beauty and universality of transcendent heavenly glories beyond all the hellspit of implacable and intense hatreds I have ever encountered, and even my fiercest and foulest and most dangerous adversaries have been stunned to see me RISK and ACCEPT pain, disgrace, dangers, loss, injuries and what seemed to be certain DEATH in defiance of their DEMANDS that I submit myself or others to their will or those of others. Believe me, this little squabble over the rights to use images in a liberal rather than highly constrained manner is but a relatively minor problem, in my considerations.

I myself KNOW that words of sincere contempt and disgust for arguments and views and strategies can be VERY EFFECTIVE in powerful ways — even when they are not literally accurate in narrow sense — and sometimes will use them myself quite liberally, where they are not forbidden by such rules as are often devised to strengthen the relatively unimpressive appearances of the timidities or fears which often hide the simmering hatreds and resentments of many — which is precisely what I believe I am arguing against. I do NOT seek to constrain others by use of words or rules devised by them — I seek to KEEP all as free as possible from those who would MISUSE words to constrain and denigrate and destroy many forms of freedom which had LONG been respected here — before some clever and ostensibly "kind and gentle" ways of DISRESPECTING them grew more prominent and accepted by A FEW people.

At the beginning of this current period of dispute, I made some allusions to the constraints accepted as unquestioned norms in Pleasantville — one of my favorite allegorical films of recent years. I believe most would say that I usually tend to promote and use quite relevant, and generally pleasant imagery to enhance the pages, rather than unpleasant imagery — but as is sometimes obvious, I certainly have never sought to MANDATE that, and often recognize the appropriateness of unpleasant imagery as highly relevant in relation to some statements, relating to often unpleasant truths. I am adamantly AGAINST the restrictions of freedoms of ANYONE to express their honest views in any ways they see fit, so long as it is PROPERLY RESPECTFUL of the EQUALLY IMPORTANT rights of others to RESPOND. Where this is NOT respected, there is PLAINLY injustice and disrespect of what I hold to be the sacred principles of Liberty.

Even for the sake of my staunchest adversaries on matters dear to me, I will fight against the assumptions that seek to strongly IMPLY there is nothing in others but error, falsehood and what I often privately have long called "Pap and Crap" — an expression for sweet and bitter forms of debilitating nonsense, which I devised in my childhood, when harsher terms were generally forbidden. I believe that people should have the right to make arguments that myself or others might perceive to be full of little more than what might be called sputum — or pap and crap — and yet I always am willing to see MUCH good and potential for good in any human being — even those most prone to see little more than bad and inclinations to what they believe to be bad or evil in me.

I certainly must disagree strongly with Ningauable here, in relation to many relevant issues, but I believe he is one of the more generally likable of people who happen to be my adversaries on this issue, and hope that he can transcend any hostilities he might feel towards my stances and strategies — and perhaps someday come to appreciate more of their validity and worth. I considered somewhat harsher as well as somewhat more humorous responses to his observations — but having slept on it, as I was very tired earlier, and having reviewed some of my earlier typings on the matter, stripped out some of my harsher observations, and now provide this reply, and wish everyone blessings. I have actually come to expect another very busy week ahead of me now with local activities around my home — but I will devote some time here to the extent I can. So it goes… ~ Kalki·· 16:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC) + tweaks

Perhaps a bit of clarification is in order. It was not my intent to suggest that everything Kalki says is "pap and crap", and that is an unfortunate interpretation of my remark. Rather, in the context of objecting to argumentum ad hominem, I chose the word "sputum" to express my disgust at being spat upon with a giant loogie.

I have actually considered many of Kalki's arguments carefully, but this sort of argument is one that I do, indeed, dismiss completely and without rebuttal. The essence of argumentum ad hominem is not just an attack against the person holding a position, distasteful though it may be, but, specifically, an argument that a position is wrong because of the person holding it. As such, it is generally regarded as a logical fallacy because it is not relevant to the position in question. By disdaining the denunciation and declining to rebut it, I do not signify anything about its truth or falsity, only its relevance: neither impugning nor defending anybody's character and integrity are germane to the question. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the argument that Wikiquote is not Wikipedia, identifying the specific type of sillygism in the following line of reasoning is left as an exercise for the reader:

1. Wikipedia is not X.
2. Wikiquote is not Wikipedia.
3. Therefore Wikiquote is X.

My point in comparing the situation here with Wikipedia, which was prompted by differences of philosophy at Wikipedia being raised in the initial premise of this sub-thread, was twofold. Firstly, we are discussing a practice that is not even debatable at Wikipedia, so the analogy between this issue and those philosophical differences is emphatically inapt. Secondly, the two projects are similar in that each is devoted to a specific purpose. At Wikipedia that purpose does not encompass personal essays and artistic expressions of contributors' own ideas within articles. Although this is not specifically proscribed here at What Wikiquote is not (Wikiquote is not a lot of things that have not been enumerated), neither does it appear to me to be within the scope of Wikiquote's purpose.

Note that I did not assert, as Kalki claims I did, that it is "perfectly obvious" that unsuitability for Wikipedia should apply to Wikiquote; I said the unsuitability at Wikipedia is perfectly obvious (given the link I provided to WP:NOT). I do believe it ought to apply to this type of content here, and have said so, for reasons having to do with the Foundation's mission and principles, which reasons are a trifle subtler than what I would call "perfectly obvious". Kalki evidently disagrees, and I do not assert that this misses the obvious, only that I believe it is wrong. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

## Pac-Man (TV Series)

Noticing that not much had been done or altered since I voted to Keep the page for the Pac-Man (TV Series) at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Pac-Man (TV Series), I have just worked on the page more, in a way that might make the page more interesting to anyone not so juvenile in age or inclinations as to take much delight in many of the quotes, and yet not in so sub-juvenile a disposition as to be resolutely hostile to such juvenile interests. I added images to it, and wikilinks to more general concepts. Since it was nominated for deletion two editors of some notable intelligence have now worked to improve the page, organizing it, adding links, images, and editing it in various ways, and I hope that this note and my arguments there can persuade some to alter their perceptions a bit, and vote to keep the page, which I truly believe it would be a discredit to this project to delete, even if many might consider it a minor or trivial addition. ~ Kalki·· 13:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

My main reason for voting to delete this page has nothing to do with whether its subject is interesting or represents diversity and I find it a bit extreme to say that its removal does a disservice to the project and would "exhibit states of strong hostility to diversity" as you wrote at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Pac-Man (TV Series). The point is that much of what is on the page is just of poor quality - as I wrote, some examples include "Ga ga goo goo." or "Woo hoo! Mad Pac-dog! Mad Pac-dog!" or "Ooh! I never knew I had such big feet." If the page instead had quotes of a higher quality, perhaps it might survive. I also noted that as none of the quotes are sourced by episode (as TV pages should be), it requires extensive cleanup as well. As can be seen by my edit history, I am actually more inclined to keep TV and film pages than many others, but this one is just lacking quality. In the end, I think it's a bit of an overstatement to write that it would be a discredit to this project if the page in its current form is deleted. ~ UDScott (talk)
The quotes UDScott cited of Pac-Baby are actually equivalent to that of other "cute" characters from children's cartoons (see Pikachu, for example), and they might be relevant. As I said before (sorry to repeat) people don't go to a Pac-Man page expecting to read Shakespeare. Now, I do thank Kalki for his work, but I must make it clear that, although I too disapprove of deleting the article, it should go without saying that I believe those who disagree with me do have the best interest of the project in mind, and I certainly don't question their intentions. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
And just to address the above comment - I believe that the Pikachu "quotes" are some that should be removed as well - or at least have more dialogue around them to set context. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
UDScott is an editor whose contributions I generally admire, but IF the page is deleted there is NO chance it can grow, and I really do NOT care if this page or any page has quotes of "high quality" in terms of his standards OR of mine or those of ANY of the most frequent editors here. SOMEONE found the quotes interesting enough to make a page for it, and I have NEVER embraced the idea promoted by some, that MY standards or HIS, or YOURS, or OUR general standards, nor those of ANYONE should be IMPOSED as standards on anyone else as ABSOLUTE guides to their aims and actions and the continued PRESENCE of their work or activity here, if their motive is presenting quotes and some of the ideas they can INDICATE. I do NOT question the motives and GOOD INTENTIONS of those who have supported its deletion, but honestly consider such an attitude eager to remove any and all work many might consider to be of low or poor value, evidence of intellectually and morally impoverished intellectual SNOBBERY, even where it is not evident in most regards nor in unpopularly extreme ways. WHERE there MUST be conflict in competing issues or interests, I nearly ALWAYS side with permitting diversity and AGAINST anything suppressing it, so long as the additions or contributions are NOT clearly acts of vandalism, spam or sabatoge, and I consider the growth of the numbers of people who accept that there should be standards IMPOSED on the TASTES of others, based upon their own, for the retention of pages or other material continually appalling. I believe that there has been an appalling growth of inclination towards EXCLUSIONS here in recent years — and I do intend to oppose it with increased vigor in coming months. I hope that you will reconsider in the light of these arguments, EVEN if you continue to find the material "low quality" — SO DO I — but I am SINCERE in declaring that I find impulses to EXCLUDE it far LOWER, and sincerely do believe its deletion would be discreditable to the project. ~ Kalki·· 15:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
While I appreciate your desire to err on the side of having little or no exclusions rather than to have limits imposed, I still beg to disagree in one respect. I fear that if we do not have some guidance or limits that uphold the quality of the quotes on our site, we will rapidly fall to the level of many other lesser quote sites. I am all for including as much as makes sense. But I worry that if there are no boundaries set, we will open ourselves up to a flood of such poor additions. And let me be clear - it is the current set of quotes on this particular page that I find lacking. If better quotes (grouped by episode) were presented (or even if some of these quotes had more dialogue around them that set context), I would support having this page. I am not against having a page for this show (no matter how trivial or juvenile I might personally consider it), so long as what is on the page is improved. In the end, I don't think we are as far apart as it might seem - I am all for having more added to this site. I just hope to have at least some level of quality in what is included. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Really, please consider this before attempting to insist further on such standards: those who are most inclined to add such pages probably would NOT be aware or attentive to them, as has been richly evident over the years — and to bring the page up to them someone such as me or others far more interested in advanced notions of philosophy and science and arts and poetry, who are yet loathe to discourage the contributions and interests of others would have to spend even MORE of our limited time in attending to SEARCHING for something we have very little natural interest in, just because someone else with little interests in them wants to have a "clear dividing line" which would permit it to be discarded if it is not up to such standards. I truly prefer letting people with more advanced intellectual and emotional interests attend to them, and not have us burdened with having to preserve the presence of something that it is NOT actually all that burdensome to simply keep as it is. People should be free to contribute what actually does interest or concern them MOST — and not be burdened with excessive rules which make it a burden on those with such juvenile interests to included, and a burden on such people as myself, to spend much time protecting them from such intolerence or discouragment as I genuinely find worse than merely juvenile. I will probably have to be leaving soon, so I willl simply say, I hope my arguments can be persuasive to some, and increase participations in the vote, but whether that occurs or not, I send Blessings to all. ~ Kalki·· 16:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC) + tweaks
Comment: While I still believe all that I wrote above, in the interest of compromise, I have created an alternative page for consideration (see User:UDScott/Pac-Man (TV Series)). ~ UDScott (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I commend your extensive efforts, and though I would prefer that the images be retained, as I thought they made a fairly amusing sequence, I can accept it as a replacement, not having much actual interest in the page beyond that impelled by my defense and promotion of certain ethical principles, but I continue to object to trying to establish or develop quite so stringent standards on pages — which in this case required efforts on the part of several people who would normally not be inclined to pay it much attention at all. I much prefer manifesting a live-and-let-live attitude than a live-and-let-die one, and reject a live-and-let-kill one, if it is within my practical abilities to prevent needless destruction or suppression of innocent or proper aims. ~ Kalki·· 23:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

## Oz the Great and Powerful‎‎

Hi Kaki, sorry to hear from your external disputes. I have added a link at that Wikipedia article. -- Mdd (talk) 10:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks much. I try to not get too concerned about too many things at once, but I usually am rather involved in more than I can easily handle — but it makes life interesting. Glad to hear this before leaving on a short trip, prior to a longer one, after which I will be gone most of the day. ~ Kalki·· 10:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
These interwiki links are a good thing. I used to add them on a regular basis when articles were created here; but my review of new pages has been rather cursory of late. (If I have been remiss, it is partly because recent expansion in the amount of CSS and JavaScript at Wikipedia make it increasingly tedious for those with limited bandwidth to read and edit pages there.) I encourage people who patrol recent changes and additions here to consider updating the corresponding Wikipedia pages at the same time. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

## Convert complex templates to Lua to make them faster and more powerful

(Please consider translating this message for the benefit of your fellow Wikimedians)

Greetings. As you might have seen on the Wikimedia tech blog or the tech ambassadors list, a new functionality called "Lua" is being enabled on all Wikimedia sites today. Lua is a scripting language that enables you to write faster and more powerful MediaWiki templates.

If you have questions about how to convert existing templates to Lua (or how to create new ones), we'll be holding two support sessions on IRC next week: one on Wednesday (for Oceania, Asia & America) and one on Friday (for Europe, Africa & America); see m:IRC office hours for the details. If you can't make it, you can also get help at mw:Talk:Lua scripting.

If you'd like to learn about this kind of events earlier in advance, consider becoming a Tech ambassador by subscribing to the mailing list. You will also be able to help your fellow Wikimedians have a voice in technical discussions and be notified of important decisions.

Guillaume Paumier, via the Global message delivery system. 19:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC) (wrong page? You can fix it.)

Thanks for the notice. I read about today's deployment first at the Wikipedia Signpost. My first thought was to wonder whether it might be prudent to restrict editing in the new "Module:" namespace before novice programmers get in over their heads. A full fledged, Turing complete programming language is not for the uninitiated. But on the other hand, people have been free to make a muddle with the old-fashioned macro substitution {{ }} templates all along. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
There's not really that may templates used here, so there might not be that much of a use for it. That said though, once all the Cite templates are updated on wikipedia, it may be worth updating the cite templates here to use the lua version. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

## Software problem on "Jan Van Ruusbroec" page?

There seems to be some kind of software problem on the page: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jan_Van_Ruusbroec

I improved the page with many additions however sometimes when you first click on it the old page comes up without my additions but if you click "edit" the improved one is there in the code and appears again if you click save.

What could be the issue? —This unsigned comment is by Vouthon (talkcontribs) 12:00, 20 March 2013‎.

This happens from time to time, sometimes more than others. It is a perennial problem for the programmers because keeping multiple server caches synchronized is something of a black art. There is not much we end-users can do about it, but if it starts happening a lot you can report it at Bugzilla to prompt the programmers to have another look. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

## Uneven handling of WQ:CIVIL

Could the Wikiquote community please explain why it is more important to preserve uncivil and unsubstantiated comments about a real-named person, than to follow the guidelines suggested at WQ:CIVIL? Simply follow diffs forward from here, to see what I am talking about. I look forward to the thoughtful explanations of why preservation of hateful commentary is held in such high regard, even to the point of protecting a page to enshrine that hatred. -- 2001:558:1404:0:200:5EFE:93BF:D092 14:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Aphaia said what Aphaia said. Not our place to edit the content of his opinion any more than it's our place to edit quotes to be more palatable. Also, it's probably not libelous to generally call someone a "liar" (need to assert a specific lie, there) and definitely not to call someone "shabby." 74.93.215.9 15:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Comcast Business Internet customer. Note, the issue here is not about "libel" but about "uncivil" comments about another user. -- 2001:558:1404:0:200:5EFE:93BF:D092 16:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

## User:Kalki

Participants here may be interested in this proposal to unblock User:Kalki on en.wiki. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much, for posting this notice here; I actually would not have thought to do so. I certainly invite anyone to comment. I have been burdened by that block for years now since one of the most extensive assaults upon my character by Cirt (which have occurred sporadically over the years). I forgive him for having been so morally incompetent as to wish to constrain my proper rights to edit here and elsewhere, and certainly forgive those who were duped by his subterfuges, but I would certainly like to have that quite unjust and improper block, based primarily upon his accusations, soon be lifted. Blessings to all. ~ Kalki·· 20:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC) + tweaks
I noticed that you accuse me on that page in rather harsh terms: "Kalki routinely brought out the socks to back him up whenever another editor disagreed with him." I assert that this is simply a FALSEHOOD. There are a very few cases where such might have been mis-perceived to have occurred — but even in those it was usually quite inadvertent and unavoidable, and NOT something I intentionally aimed to do — and NEVER something I routinely or even deliberately did. In the years in which I was an admin and bureaucrat here I maintained many alternate accounts without seeking to establish too much of personality profile in regards to any of them — and NEVER a false one. You might characterize that as a "will to deceive" in ways you might wish to characterize as sinister, but I characterize it as a will to simply evade becoming a target of other people's bigoted delusions on MANY diverse issues — which is ironically something I believe HAS occurred. I truly wish you well, despite your vehement hostility to even allowing me to EDIT at all; and though I do not expect to persuade you, or alter your disposition, I truly seek to send you and all, what Blessings I can. So it goes… ~ Kalki·· 21:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC) + tweaks

I am appalled at the comment Beyond My Ken made there. It was really quite a misrepresentation... I have just posted my response to it now, but it was written under severe time pressure, and I now realize I forgot to add some important observations and, even more worrisome, my tone was not good; unfortunately I must leave to do other things now... I encourage everyone to participate in the discussion. Follow your conscience... ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. I too am under some time pressure, and have delayed leaving for a while, but I wish to note my gratitude. Blessings to all. ~ Kalki·· 22:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

## Math formula formatting code problems

The math code that had previously worked on some pages is not currently working. Current code on the Leonhard Euler and Pi pages which once permitted the display of the equation for Euler's identity here is thus displayed as :

$e^{i \pi} + 1 = 0. \,\!$

The following code currently works on Wikipedia, but not here:

$e^{i \pi} +1 = 0 \,$

Aware that there may have been many template deletions which were not challenged by me or anyone recently I am suspicious that some previously used template may have become deleted. Other than that, my first suspicions were that there might be problems with a new version of the software. I don't believe it to be a major problem, but it does detract from those pages where math equations are in use. ~ Kalki·· 04:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC) + tweaks

This has nothing to do with any templates, deleted or otherwise, it is handled entirely by the [itex] extension. Differences between results here and at Wikipedia may be due to Wikipedia still running Mediawiki version 1.21wmf12 while Wikiquote is a guinea pig for Mediawiki version 1.22wmf1, but I am only guessing. Although I am generally aware that the developers have been "improving" math rendering in recent months, I don't see anything in the MediaWiki 1.22/wmf1 release notes that obviously relates to this discrepancy. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Looks fine now; if there was a problem, I assume it's now fixed.--Abramsky (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Wow. I could not make much sense of this response previously, but I believe this might be some specific incompatibility in the Safari browser I normally use. Although in Safari the code does work in Wikipedia but not here, I just looked at this in Firefox and the code is working here, in that — but still not with the Safari browser. So either Apple or the Mediawiki developers will probably have to sort that out. So it goes... ~ Kalki·· 17:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The formulas look the same to me in Safari 6.02, Firefox 19.02, and Chrome 26.014. Weird. EVula // talk // // 18:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

## Text-only optional pages •

I know some people have objections to the use of images for various reasons, some I find very understandable and others less so, and since last year I was thinking of various ways text only versions of pages might be implemented.

I am beginning to test a concept I have had in mind for some time, but which has just crystalized into what I believe might be a workable form in the last couple of days. I actually began to think of ways to develop some kind of text-only version of pages with many graphics for the benefit of those on dial-up or other slow connections last year, but there were significant problems I foresaw with some of the options I had envisioned, and declined to bring them up.

I propose that on any page with graphics on them, but especially for those with 4 or more, we should make optional Text-only pages with the same title with a SPACE and BULLET mark after the normal name, and provide a link TO and FROM illustrated versions and Text-only versions of the pages, through such buttons as I have devised below for the Lin Yutang page:

—illustrated version
—text only version

The general form of such links could be THUS:

[[File:Sasha Kopf's Celtic knot ring.svg|14px|link=Lin Yutang]]<small>—illustrated version</small>

Other graphics than the ones I have suggested as a standard might of course be used — but I would suggest that it be recommended that only svg files be used, for speed of rendering.

This strategy would permit those with slower connections to find pages entirely free from graphics in the search bar, identified by the bulleted name ending — AND provide direct connections between the two pages for editors — so that upkeep to both versions could be more convenient.

IF no one objects I might begin testing the concept on a few more pages, and if it is sufficiently approved by most of us, within a short time, I will simply start creating such pages whatever chance I have, to provide "graphic-free zones" for those who prefer such pages, for whatever reasons they might have. ~ Kalki·· 04:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC) + tweaks

Perhaps a standard template with the suggested images could be developed, and If the idea is approved that would make it that much easier for the links between the pages to be created. ~ Kalki·· 04:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC) + tweaks

It has taken about a day for the new page to show up in the search box, but its now there, and unless anyone has strong objections, I will start creating at least a couple more text only versions of pages today. ~ Kalki·· 10:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Kalki, I appreciate your effort to search for a solution, but I doubt that this is an enduring option. Those double pages also doubles the effort in maintaining and expanding the articles. Also it offers a solution (for people with slow computers), but not for the main "imago" problem. I do have a strong objection to proceeding with making more double pages right now. -- Mdd (talk) 11:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
All right, I will cease. There were no comments yesterday so once the listing showed up on Lin Yutang and I knew the concept was a valid one I proceeded. I have thus far done only another four:
James Branch Cabell •‎
Giordano Bruno •‎‎
Booker T. Washington •‎‎
Albert Einstein •‎
I recognized that there would be need for more upkeep on more pages, but I had figured it might be worth the bother to accommodate those with slower connections. I am willing to make further efforts to do so, but am against rigorously constraining the options on the standard pages as some have been inclined to mandate in ways I believe violate many aspects of the founding principles of the wikimedia wikis. ~ Kalki·· 11:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Mdd. I don't think it's practical to create a duplicate page for each existing article — for one thing, it would take too much time (and space). Besides, why should the article with no pictures be the "secondary" page? I preferred your previous idea (to "suggest an option to the software developers of turning off images"), even though it ain't gonna happen... And one more thing: I don't think you should be "stripping out 144px specifications" in so many pages, not because it bothers me — it doesn't — but because it may (and I suspect it does) bother other editors, since there is no consensus to support it (and indeed, if there is any consensus at all, it would be against it). Yours, DanielTom (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC) (Good effort though.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I am just back here, and might be leaving again soon, but I can and do appreciate this idea involves complications and am thus quite ready to drop it if it proves unpopular. About the 144px specs I have been striping out, though — I believe that those who do not like having images as much as some of us do would actually like that — and it was actually suggested by one of them some time ago that that be done. I haven't tested it out lately myself, but what the 144px spec did was override any options in their preferences to reduce (or increase) the standard display of thumbnails. Thus by stripping them out, though the default size is now 180px, I believe, the OPTIONAL sizes for such displays could be as low as 120px. I know that even that will not make everyone happy — but I do believe it can help those who do wish to minimize the size of images displayed. I can agree with them though, being able to turn off the displays entirely in the local software would be a good option. I have in the past suggested that people use a second alternative browser to their normal one with settings not to display images if they truly are that bothersome to them, for any of various reasons, and believe that too is a good solution that could be immediately implemented by most. I used to have a browser set up in such a fashion, I believe it was usually "Camino", a mac-browser, which I set in such ways — but the speeds on the internet have usually been so good for me now that I haven't done that in years. As I said, I am quite willing to drop this particular idea if few people are all that eager to support it, and await a further indication of consensus. So it goes.... ~ Kalki·· 14:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC) + tweaks
I don't think creating duplicate pages is really practical because there is no way to automatically keep them synchronized. I am also concerned that forking unsynchronized versions with different markup could lead to forking separate "virtual wikis" with different editorial standards. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, if you don't like the idea, I probably will drop it at this point. I thought it a workable way to accommodate those with slower connections. I had a few previous ones that I didn't believe to be as workable. SO it goes... ~ Kalki·· 16:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
One way to do it is to create a gadget which hides all the thumbnails. Only needs one line of css. -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
.thumb {display:none;}

Wow. Thanks for that observation. That certainly would be convenient for some people with slow connections, and any full advice on how to set those up on their pages would be very welcome. You seem very familiar with aspects of the display codes, and adept at improving deficient or flawed situations regarding them, but many people (including myself) rarely deal with the variant display styles possible with css, and some might be extremely unfamiliar with how to set up alternative options here, and need clear instructions on how to use them, and develop such solutions. ~ Kalki·· 15:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't do a lot of work on gadgets but I think if an admin creates MediaWiki:Gadget-hideimages.css and adds the line of css code as above to it. Then edits MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition and in the interface section, adds
* hideimages[ResourceLoader]|hideimages.css


And finally creates MediaWiki:Gadget-hideimages and adds "Hide all thumbnail images." Then hopefully that will do it. -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

## Random Quote

There was a quote I vaguely recall reading many years ago, and I do not remember how it goes anymore. It's been driving me crazy and I've searched all over many sites and cannot find it. All I remember is bits and pieces of the ending, "...standing over the bleached white bones of your rivals....." At least I believe that's how it went. It was fairly long and had to do with victory. Does any one know this quote and/or where I can find it? Sorry I don't remember more of it than that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rw2racing (talkcontribs) 8 apr 2013 01:01‎ (UTC)

## Printing

When printing an article, currently any article notices, disambiguation hatnotes and stub notices are included in the printout. If the following was added to MediaWiki:Print.css then it would would stop them being included. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

/* Do not print:
1: When in mainspace: Article message boxes,
*/
display: none !important;
}


Hello, thank you WOSlinker, it seems neat to me. Is there anyone objects? --Aphaia (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The epic Aphaia is back :))) DanielTom (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

## Can Person-Event pages be created?

Can pages be created that relate to a specific event surrounding a person? In this case Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher. It would be like pre-emptively splitting the page. Having a page like this on Wikiquote would solve a problem on Wikipedia (in the article of the same name) but I really don't want to import a problem to this project and pretend it's a solution. Quotations are being added to and deleted from Wikipedia when they could reasonably be collected on Wikiquote. However, I think adding them directly to the Margaret Thatcher page would distabilise that page, weighting things too heavily towards recent events and away from contemporary quotations. I haven't found any policy that opposes doing this but I also haven't found anything to support it or any equivalent examples. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It has been done before (see, e.g., International reactions to the death of Boris Yeltsin and Execution of Saddam Hussein). ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

## Request for comment on inactive administrators

(Please consider translating this message for the benefit of your fellow Wikimedians. Please also consider translating the proposal.)

Read this message in English / Lleer esti mensaxe n'asturianu / বাংলায় এই বার্তাটি পড়ুন / Llegiu aquest missatge en català / Læs denne besked på dansk / Lies diese Nachricht auf Deutsch / Leś cal mesag' chè in Emiliàn / Leer este mensaje en español / Lue tämä viesti suomeksi / Lire ce message en français / Ler esta mensaxe en galego / हिन्दी / Pročitajte ovu poruku na hrvatskom / Baca pesan ini dalam Bahasa Indonesia / Leggi questo messaggio in italiano / ಈ ಸಂದೇಶವನ್ನು ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲಿ ಓದಿ / Aqra dan il-messaġġ bil-Malti / norsk (bokmål) / Lees dit bericht in het Nederlands / Przeczytaj tę wiadomość po polsku / Citiți acest mesaj în română / Прочитать это сообщение на русском / Farriintaan ku aqri Af-Soomaali / Pročitaj ovu poruku na srpskom (Прочитај ову поруку на српском) / อ่านข้อความนี้ในภาษาไทย / Прочитати це повідомлення українською мовою / Đọc thông báo bằng tiếng Việt / 使用中文阅读本信息。

Hello!

There is a new request for comment on Meta-Wiki concerning the removal of administrative rights from long-term inactive Wikimedians. Generally, this proposal from stewards would apply to wikis without an administrators' review process.

We are also compiling a list of projects with procedures for removing inactive administrators on the talk page of the request for comment. Feel free to add your project(s) to the list if you have a policy on administrator inactivity.

All input is appreciated. The discussion may close as soon as 21 May 2013 (2013-05-21), but this will be extended if needed.

Thanks, Billinghurst (thanks to all the translators!) 04:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Distributed via Global message delivery (Wrong page? You can fix it.)
Note: The majority of designated administrators here are inactive, but some do not meet the two year threshold under discussion. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Heh, if we got rid of the inactive admins, our number would possibly plummet to the single digits. EVula // talk // // 05:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

## Help test the new account creation and login

Hi all,

After many weeks of testing, We (the editor engagement experiments team) are is getting close to enabling redesigns of the account creation and login pages. (There's more background about how we got here and why ‎our blog post.)

Right now are trying to identify any final bugs before we enable new defaults. This is where we really need your help: for now, we don't want to disrupt these critical functions if there are outstanding bugs or mistranslated interface messages. So for about a week, the new designs are opt-in only for testing purposes, and it would be wonderful if you could give them a try. Here's how:

If you have questions about how to test this or why something might be the way it is, I'd definitely check out our step-by-step testing guide and the general documentation.

Many thanks, Steven (WMF) (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment:  On the Login screen, the password field appears to be pre-filled, but is not. This can be confusing. If a visual placeholder is desired, though I don't think it is necessary, consider using greyscale to distinguish it from live data (like the Search box in the Vector screen). ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• Problem:  After logging in with the above URL, the server has difficulty keeping track of whether I was logged in or not. Some screens showed that I was, and I could access my watchlist and some admin-only screens; but other screens showed that I was not.

In attempting to post my previous comment above, the preview screen showed that I was not logged in and my "~~~~" signature was not expanded. I tried logging out and in again, I tried refreshing my browser cache, I tried visiting another page and coming back, and I tried all these things repeatedly; but I was not able to post under my account name until I gave up and logged in the regular way. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hey Ningaulble: that is a caching and session data issue, not relate to the login styles (we didn't actually change how authentication works, just the visual styles). Steven (WMF) (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• On the Createaccount page, the "contributors this month" seems a bit large. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• I see that it has been fixed [8] but probably not live yet. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, that and some other fixes will be rolling out with the next MediaWiki release, next week at the latest. Steven (WMF) (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

## [en] Change to wiki account system and account renaming

Some accounts will soon be renamed due to a technical change that the developer team at Wikimedia are making. More details on Meta.

(Distributed via global message delivery 03:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC). Wrong page? Correct it here.)

Based on this change, I granted a usurpation request on an accelerated basis earlier today. Normally, this would requires a three week wait after the request is made, meaning that it could not have been fulfilled prior to May 28, 2013. However, in accordance with the new single user login protocols from Meta, the account for which usurpation was sought would automatically be usurped on May 27 anyway, regardless of the account owner's preferences on the matter, and regardless of this project's action or inaction. Since the account in question (which had no edits since its creation in 2006), was inevitably going to be moved before a usurpation request could be fulfilled in accordance with our procedures, I went ahead and made the requested moves.
Following the change being implemented at Meta, all accounts will be universal, and all renaming/usurpation will be done at Meta. At that point, our policy pages on these matters should be mothballed, as they will no longer reflect procedures available on this site. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice:  As mentioned in the Wikipedia Signpost and announced on Wikimedia-l, this change has been postponed until August or thereabout. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

## Kedar Joshi quote farming

Articles on this person were deleted as non-notable after discussions here in 1010 2010 and at Wikipedia in 2012. There has been industrious promotion of his works and quotes on numerous open hosting sites, wikis, quotation pages, etc. for several years, and his quotes have recently appeared in several Wikiquote theme articles:

I removed the first few that were posted, with the edit summary "remove quote of a person found non-notable", with links to the deletion discussion. They were restored with the edit summary "Notability of the author is not required for a quote to be included in an article on a theme",[9][10][11] which quotes and links to the Wikiquote:Quotability guideline.

The next sentence in the guideline qualifies this, saying "It is the quote itself that must be notable," and the following section addresses Fame of the quote as a criterion for inclusion. It is not clear that any of these are actually famous quotes. Therefore, I would like to put the question before the house:

Should Wikiquote Keep or Remove quotations of Kedar Joshi? ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Remove all.  Although the contributor has cited secondary sources, it does not appear that any of these quotes is even remotely famous. Rather, it appears that there are only a handful of people who picked up some quips that are spammed all over the internet using open hosting sites and quote aggregators. Wikiquote is better than that, and should not be used for promoting non-notable crackpots. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Remove all per nom. -- Mdd (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Google gives many hits for his quote "God is a philosophical black hole, the point where reason breaks down." But more importantly, I don't understand the need to call him a "crackpot"; very disappointing comment coming from Ningauble, again. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Wikiquote:Quotability says that ...The presence of a quote in a published collection of quotations is strong evidence of quotability, both as to the quote and as to the author of the quote. The quote by Kedar Joshi quoted above by DanielTom has appeared numerous times in The Times of India’s well-known Sacred Space column, which is a published collection of quotations. Wikiquote:Quotability also says that ...A famous quote that is generally accepted as originating from an otherwise little-known person may justify the existence of an article on that person. - 49.249.138.201 09:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• The Times of India is a periodical, not a compendium of quotations, and the column to which you refer is filler material. Although it is a significant newspaper of record, it includes a lot of filler material of a very undiscriminating nature. E.g. this unsigned piece from its op-ed section should not be taken at face value in placing Joshi on a par with Gandhi, Nehru, and the Upanishads. My opinion of the fame of the quote would be different if he appeared in multiple major periodicals and some of them were more discriminating than The Times of India. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• It is not a compendium but a collection of quotations, though The Times of India also publishes a compendium/book called Sacred Space, which is a compilation of thoughts published in the Sacred Space column of the Times of India over the years. The sacred space column is definitely not of the nature of a filler material of a very undiscriminating nature and indicates fame of the quote as it seems to include only notable quotations. This, for example, is one of the e-versions (a mobile version, in particular) of the sacred space column. Also, that the quotes from the Sacred Space column are eventually compiled into the Sacred Space book, which is a compendium of quotations, is a strong evidence of quotability, both as to the quote and as to the author of the quote. And he has indeed appeared in multiple major periodicals such as Lessons learned from the PICES/GLOBEC Climate Change and Carrying Capacity (CCCC) Program and Synthesis Symposium, Progress in Oceanography (May–June 2008) by Harold P. Batchelder, and Suam Kim, Progress in Oceanography, Volume 77, Issues 2–3, Pages 83–91, Section 1. Introduction and Assessment of Echocardiographic Left Atrial Size: How Accurate Do We Need to Be? (August 2012) by Brian D. Hoit, MD, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Volume 5, Issue 8. Also Pedro Oller of La Republica PREMIUM said this about him: “A Hindu philosopher, of just 28 years, but stunning lucidity, has ruled that the failure of previous philosophy is essentially the failure to see the self-evident.” (Fracaso by Pedro Oller, La Republica PREMIUM, 8 December 2009 (Spanish)) Several dialogues involving him are published in Philosophy Pathways and the editor has clearly mentioned in the editor’s note that "if you haven't seen Raam's (the author of the dialogues) previous works published in Philosophy Pathways, it might help to know that these are in fact constructed, or reconstructed, from actual dialogues, based as closely as consistency permits on what was actually said by the participants". - 49.249.122.97 16:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• Several points: (1) The compiled reprints from The Times of India does not appear to be a notable book. (2) As indicated in the above linked Wikipedia discussion, Philosophy Pathways is the newsletter[12] of an organization catering to undergraduates and amateurs[13]. The sense in which it can be described as a peer reviewed journal is relevant only in showing who his peers are.

(3) The link to Google Scholar results for Kedar Joshi (identified above as "Section 1. Introduction") is very illuminating. It lists a stupefying quantity of self-published musings, several pieces by Philosophy Pathways contributor R. P. Gokhale, and a mere handful of quips quoted independently (including those cited above by 49.249.122.97). Those few quotes are no more than is to be expected when someone is aggressively spammed all over the internet, and certainly are not an indication of famous quotations.

Note that I am not saying a pseudophilosopher can never be notable or widely quoted. Some have become very widely quoted bestselling authors. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• @DanielTom – Re. Google hits, mass quantities of quote aggregators count for nothing in my opinion: they mostly scrape everything on the web that is tagged as a quote. I do not see any significant sites in the search results. There is only one (1) hit for the quote at GoogleBooks: his own post at Goodreads.

Re. "crackpot", I have reviewed his pseudophilosophical treatise and its reception; and though my choice of terminology may be disappointing it reflects my considered opinion. Why is it relevant here? Because many people whose ideas have been found unsuitable for publication elsewhere resort to wikis and other open websites to seek attention – and when they do it aggressively they generate a lot of Google hits. Wikiquote has had plenty of experience with quote spamming by such people, and I labeled him as I did because I believe we need to be vigilant about this phenomenon. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

@Ningauble: you remind me of Hitchens at his worst. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Ningauble replies: it's not about me. (And with my limited bandwidth, I don't do YouTube.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
(What a pity.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• This thus is a significant site in the search results. - 49.249.122.97 16:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• And it seems doubtable that sites such as this, which clearly says Famous Quotes and Sayings, this, and perhaps this notable site too (though it quotes a different quote), are mass quantities of quote aggregators which would scrape everything on the web that is tagged as a quote. - 49.249.122.97 17:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep all The sources are indeed secondary and reliable. Wikiquote:Quotability also says that ...Thus, a particularly poignant or witty quote may be included even if the identity of the author is unknown. And also that ...A quote is more likely to be deemed quotable if it is about a notable subject. Certain subjects, such as Love and Birth, are universally known, and are the topic of frequent comment (Quotes on a less notable subject may still merit inclusion, but they must be shown to have a stronger case for inclusion based on factors such as the notability of the speaker and the quality of the quote itself.)... The quotes under discussion are however about subjects that are universally known, and are the topic of frequent comment. - 49.249.139.156 00:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep all quotes also because the author could be presumed to be "notable as a source of quotes" for any of the following two reasons. 1. The author is cited as a source of quotes in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the author. (For instance, an aphorist cited as a source of quotes in thousands of reliable sources that are intellectually independent of each other and independent of the aphorist can certainly be presumed to be highly notable as a source of quotes even though he or she may not be notable per Wikipedia for the possible lack of significant coverage on him or her in independent reliable sources.) Considering the number of such sources, the author may only be barely (or at the most moderately) notable as a source of quotes though. 2. The author’s quote “God is a philosophical black hole, the point where reason breaks down.” has appeared multiple times in The Times of India’s well-known Sacred Space column, which is a regular, small, published, thematic collection of quotations, and, as such, it is a tertiary source. Being cited as a source of a quote in a reliable tertiary source could be considered a strong evidence of notability as a source of quotes. [The author's quotes have appeared in multiple reliable journal articles. e.g. Progress in Oceanography, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Philosophy Pathways, The Times of India (The Times of India is not a journal but it is certainly a source that is considered reliable on en.wp and is widely cited there). Even Boloji.com, for example, is widely cited on en.wp. La Republica PREMIUM, WriteAPrisoner.com can be considered reliable/notable sources. So a main point is: If so many notable/reliable sources had articles on a person, with significant coverage, the person would be considered notable on Wikipedia. The same way, so many reliable sources citing a person as a source of quotes makes that person notable on Wikiquote, notable as a source of quotes. Note: per Wikiquote:Quotability, an individual's notability will be weighed more heavily if they are notable as a source of quotes.] - 49.249.97.214 18:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• Remove all, agree with comment by admin Ningauble (talk · contributions), above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment If I recall correctly in 1011 there was no Wikiquote (nor the Net) yet.
Fixed my typo above, that would be 2010. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Remove all per nominator. --Aphaia (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep notable quotes, and remove non-notable quotes: even if one thinks that the author is a "crackpot", the quote God is a philosophical black hole, the point where reason breaks down is objectively notable, and should be kept. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• ... Objectively, can you cite several notable works or notable persons that quote it? I would be surprised if any notables quote this sophomoric usage of a preexisting trope. (Note that Google's initial estimate of hits, in this case over 57k, can be wildly inaccurate. There are actually about 100 (excluding duplicates), which is not exactly indicative of a full-blown internet meme.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• The links that 49.249.139.156 provided are satisfactory to me. You do realize that many pages on Wikiquote have quotes that are far less cited, do you not? Does that quote bother you somehow? Compare it with a quote by Russell, for example: "The battle for economic democracy will be the next great struggle for justice in human affairs." Guess how many Google hits that produces... The answer? Just one (1). (Our very own Mortals and Others page.) My point is that quotes should also be judged on its own merits. I think many people may like that God/blackhole quote, it is not completely unknown, and so I gave my opinion: it should be kept. (Others may disagree, of course.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, I do realize that other stuff exists. What "bothers" me is that we are dealing with a non-notable quote spammer. Your edit summary suggesting there is a double standard is actually correct: notable and non-notable people are treated differently. Including lesser-known quotes of notable people, and especially notable works, has been discussed several times; and there is well established consensus for the practice. Comparison with someone as widely read and discussed as Bertrand Russell is painfully invalid. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• Ningauble, are you going to keep citing that essay every time I give an example? ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• Sorry to jump in, but I do consider the citing of this essay to be absolutely pertinent to the discussion - and support Ningauble's use of it. The point is that whether or not to keep the quotes (or a page for their author) under discussion should be considered on their own merit and not try to compare them or their author to other pages which may or may not also need work or pruning. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• You do realize that was my point exactly, right? Please see above, after giving that example, I wrote: My point is that quotes should also be judged on its own merits. See, this is why Ningauble should stop citing that same essay over and over again, it's very distracting. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, you wrote that, but you still prefaced it by a comparison to another page - and that is why that essay was cited. I don't see the "distraction." In any case, no need to belabor the point...let's return to the general discussion about these particular quotes and their author. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• @Ningauble - But the point is, although the author may be non-notable on Wikipedia, he may be notable (as a source of quotes) on Wikiquote for the reasons given earlier. And per Wikiquote:Quotability, an individual's notability will be weighed more heavily if they are notable as a source of quotes. - 49.200.242.250 06:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• Remove all, per above discussion and past VFD discussions on this person. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• NOTE:  There is an appeal to reinstate a standalone article for Kedar Joshi at Wikiquote:Deletion review. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• Remove all, for all the excellent reasons cited above, and for the good of the whole project. - Macspaunday (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep all. The author does seem notable as a source of quotes, for having been cited as a source of quotes in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable and independent; and therefore there should be a standalone article on him too. -- 115.109.10.160 05:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep all, the author of the quotes clearly appears notable as a source of quotes. ~ RogDel (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Since this is Wikiquote (a compendium of quotes), not Wikipedia, anyone notable as a source of quotes is certainly notable here. According to WQ:Quotability, a famous quote that is generally accepted as originating from an otherwise little-known person may justify the existence of an article on that person. Such person, for example, may be non-notable on Wikipedia and yet s/he is considered notable enough on Wikiquote to warrant an article on him/her. In the same way, a person objectively notable as a source of quotes is notable according to Wikiquote, though he may be non-notable according to Wikipedia. ~ RogDel (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete all. No superhyperbolic doubt given for non-notable Non-spatial Epistemological Theologies Kind Of Original Knowledge (NETKOOK) theories in our non-superultramodern deletion policy. Not widely known crackpot, despite considerable effort of self-aggrandizement, suggest adding quotes by Archimedes Plutonium instead. jni (talk) 08:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

## [en] Change to section edit links

The default position of the "edit" link in page section headers is going to change soon. The "edit" link will be positioned adjacent to the page header text rather than floating opposite it.

Section edit links will be to the immediate right of section titles, instead of on the far right. If you're an editor of one of the wikis which already implemented this change, nothing will substantially change for you; however, scripts and gadgets depending on the previous implementation of section edit links will have to be adjusted to continue working; however, nothing else should break even if they are not updated in time.

Detailed information and a timeline is available on meta.

Ideas to do this all the way to 2009 at least. It is often difficult to track which of several potential section edit links on the far right is associated with the correct section, and many readers and anonymous or new editors may even be failing to notice section edit links at all, since they read section titles, which are far away from the links.

(Distributed via global message delivery 18:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC). Wrong page? Correct it here.)

## Changes on the "Revision history" screen

I have revised the header of the "Revision history" screen (MediaWiki:Histlegend), primarily to add a link to the page view statistics tool, which has recently been enhanced to work better for "sister projects" like Wikiquote. I also took the opportunity to incorporate some other information and formatting, trying to keep it simple. I hope this will be helpful, but if I goofed please holler because it is a highly visible screen. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)