Wikiquote:Village pump archive 16

From Wikiquote

Jump to: navigation, search


Archive
Archives


[edit] Village pump archive 16

From August till November 2007, originally posted to Wikiquote:Village pump.

Contents



[edit] Images in PD in US

I propose we allow uploading of images that are in the public domain in the US by virtue of being published prior to 1923. This applies, for example, to Image:TSEliot.png. It was removed from Commons, which is multilingual for all projects, because it is not PD in all countries. However, it is valid for Wikipedia and there is no reason why it cannot be used on WQ for the same reason. Tyrenius 00:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I can think of a reason. Enforcing license issues is very challenging, as amply demonstrated by our backlog of copyvio-flagged articles and the fact it's taken us two years to finish reviewing a fairly small set of existing images. Wikipedia provides a trove of examples of how many people simply don't pay attention to licensing requirements when uploading, and we don't have the editor bandwidth or the automated tools in place to police this. I'd want to see a practical means for us to ensure we have proper licensing for any new images before I would support new uploads. But I can see the unfortunate need for it, given Commons' restrictions. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I have no strong reason currently, so just reference as thought food.
From Wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy
Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP)
a project-specific policy, in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed (if any), that recognizes the limitations of copyright law (including case law) as applicable to the project, and permits the upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the context of the project, regardless of their licensing status. Examples include: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content and http://pl.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Dozwolony_u%C5%BCytek.
I suppose it isn't enough for us to consider US laws only, since I suppose other English speaking countries should fall onto the category "countries where the project content is predominantly accessed". In the Wikipedia case, the edit submission by TDL in 2006 (taken from m:Edits by project and country of origin) was
enwiki (47.8%): US: 52.1%, GB: 15.9%, CA: 7.3%, AU: 4.4%, DE: 1.8%, NL: 1.6%, FR: 1.0%, all others: 15.8%
I'd love to see how English Wikipedia people conclude the necessity of consideration of other country law, specially UK law (15.9% could be ignored or not?)
For comparison, German Wikipedia regards US law as well as five countries' law where German is the official language regardless of user population.
dewiki (10.8%): DE: 76.2%, AT: 5.4%, US: 4.8%, CH: 4.4%, NL: 3.2%, all others: 6.0%
--Aphaia 08:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Just in case it's not clear, copyright in Britain is for 70 years from the death of the author so "prior to 1923" just won't work here.--Poetlister 16:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The servers are in the US, so, as I understand it, US law applies as the prime consideration legally. However, someone uploading from another country would need to ascertain they were acting legally within that country. This means a US-PD image would be legal to upload in the US, but not necessarily if the user were in the UK uploading it. The solution would seem to then be to get someone in the US to upload it! As far as checking such images, this could be done before it is permitted to be used in an article, maybe an equivalent to VfD, but IfU (Images for uploading) where the uploading would have to be approved. It could be done with a link to the source. In the case of US PD cited, the number of images would be limited, and some valuable ones (e.g. T.S. Eliot) could then be used. Tyrenius 23:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The servers are in the US, so the US laws applies without reservation. But it doesn't mean other countries' law aren't applied. For example, in the case of a British author, the copyright holder (the heir of a dead poet or photograher ... regarding the type of works) can sue those who violate their right in the British court. And T.S. Eliot was a British citizen as nationality. Also I would point Wikisource (before language division) delete the works Andre Gide which are considered PD under the US jurisdiction, but still copyrighted under the French jurisdiction. It is not the matter where the uploader is living, but which jurisdiction the right holder can claim their right. --Aphaia 15:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Very, very, well said. But my opinion, I am sorry Tyrenius, is to keep uploads restricted. Cbrown1023 talk 16:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
PD-US is admissible in Wikimedia Commons. If something PD-US has to be excluded because it is copyrighted in the UK, then Nazi logo could have to be removed for the sake of German people, or even worse, materials politically considered objectionable in Red China could have to be removed for the sake of the people there. Wikimedia server is based in Florida, USA, so the first laws to consider are the USA and Floridan ones. Whether to consider other national laws depends on specific Wiki sites, such as German Wikipedia forbidding fair use images. Ironically, American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term could mean that even non-American users cannot legally send materials PD in their home countries to Wiki sites without fair use, and this is too bad. After all, always consider the laws applying to Florida, USA, the laws of the originating places, and uploaders' physical locations.--Jusjih 17:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)(Commons and English Wikipedia admin)
I had a chance to chat with Mike Godwin, Foundation lawyer. His opinion is near to Jusjih, like "first consider US law, and if the copyright holders appear they are not consent, then consider the jurisdiction they reside". Also English Wikipedia has established their policy about this issue w:WP:NONFREE. It contains several things which are not directly relevant to us (for now), but it could be a good basis for our own development. It is obvious we need to justify our fairuse materials and need to establish the criteria what is allowed and no. --Aphaia 13:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Since you are concerned of non-American users, I would like to propose a new image use policy. "Images that are PD in the USA but copyrighted elsewhere may not be displayed here." I propose this as I consider claiming fair use on copyrighted images with quotes very undesirable even in the USA. If a PD-US image is copyrighted in the United Kingdom, I do not consider a British user likely able to remain "fair" when copying with quotes as Wikiquote is not en encyclopedia.--Jusjih 01:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Very cautious, but better safe than sorry I suppose.--Cato 21:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't believe in making any more rules about anything than are absolutely necessary, or with dealing with the often intricate complications of such rules as others have made any more than actually necessary. These are two strong reasons that I find it simplest to simply use what is available at the commons, frustrating as some deficiencies can sometimes be, and to let the copyright issues be sorted out there. I cannot see any immediate need for us to be more restrictive in any way with images that are usable here than the commons is, nor that there is any good reason to take on the burdens, frustrations and confusions of being less so. The status quo of simply using what is available on the Commons is the least troublesome of situations that can exist, and I see no strong reasons to change it. ~ Kalki 23:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, let's leave it to the experts on Commons. They can't be oblivious to the fact that there are places outside the US with different copyright laws. Poetlister 21:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability - some thoughts

Excuse some ramblings from a newbie. I enjoy Wikiquote a lot and find things of interest all the time. However some recent VfDs have made me think about the wider ramifications of "Notability" and I have some concerns.

Take for example politicians and the case of Steve Kagen. I think we might tend to agree that such people seek a high profile to promote their causes & careers. This is addressed to a degree by Jeff's comments that we need to be ruthless about politician's articles. I am certainly not suggesting that the quotations of genuinely famous statesmen and politicians should not be here but I am asking how widely they should be famous to be included? There are many forms of "local" government worldwide - I doubt we should accommodate the views of all such people.

I would suggest that Wrestlers for example may not be dissimilar. I am sure some of them may be genuinely "notable" on a relatively global scale, however I have some doubts about a number of them and their pronouncements.

Taking a slightly different tack there are Computer/video games. By their very nature these may well achieve a high internet profile with groups, discussion boards, promotional activity & the like. They are "notable" in some senses but with a relatively limited audience perhaps.

The problem I then have is that these categories (& I am sure others as well) may well achieve a higher "Notability" than say a relatively obscure Surrealist poet such as Nancy Joyce Peters. Does this make their contributions genuinely more notable?

I would welcome others views on this - thanks for your patience --Herby talk thyme 08:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Notability is an essay but not even a guideline. How about a guideline here?--Jusjih 13:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of politicians, I see another problem brewing at Ron Paul. Instead of pithy quotes, we have tons of tracts on all manner of subjects. Wikiquote should not be used to promote or to vilify politicians, or to record their opinions on everything under the sun. It should reflect the most powerful, concise statements they make, for good and ill. This is an occupational hazard with politician articles, and the main reason I believe we need to apply a ruthless scalpel to them. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that we need to diverge from Wikipedia standards of notability. By those standards, any congressman is notable by definition. That doesn't make them a worthwhile source of quotes. Ideally, we'd need a rigorous criterion for "worthwhile", but no doubt we'd never agree.--Poetlister 16:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
This issue of a notable subject without a place in Wikiquote came up recently in the "The Masterpiece" Christopher Masterpiece VFD. In that discussion, the idea of "quotability", in addition to notability, was raised. I don't know that we necessarily need to have our notability standards diverge from Wikipedia, but rather add a "quotability" standard.
Basically, this is a point at which we differ from Wikipedia. While Wikipedia articles collect primarily biographical data, which exists for all people, only a subset of those people will merit Wikiquote pages. (For example, low-profile professional athletes, who have Wikipedia pages but are unlikely to say or write anything that would end up in a quote compendium, dead-tree or otherwise.)
However, I'm not sure that there's any good way to put such an idea into a clear written policy or guideline. —LrdChaos (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Quotability is an unavoidably subjective guideline, but there are ways to objectively limit the scope of the selection. Reliable secondary sources (e.g., news articles, being quoted in another's book) can demonstrate that professional writers and publishers find the material quoteworthy. Another is the pithiness I'm constantly harping on. Succinct, powerful quotes are inherently more likely to be memorable enough to be used as quips in conversation, an excellent indicator of pithiness. Originality is also essential. Anyone who is "quoted" as saying stuff that many have already said, either in exactly the same way or more succinctly, is probably not being quoted because they're quoteworthy, but because someone is just a fan of the person.
There are many informal guidelines like these. Perhaps we should create a Wikiquote:Quotability essay with a concise list and examples to help editors make these judgment calls. It would also reinforce the idea that Wikiquote's purpose is not to be merely an archive of quoted material, but rather a selection of excellent quotes. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of a "Quotability" standard a lot (although I foresee some differences of opinion there!). However I still see a real issue with the fact that some subjects will be notable because of either the way the internet works (in the case of games for example) or because some subjects inherently seek publicity (politicians/wrestlers and the like). Possibly the other side of this is that there may be worthwhile quotes around from folk to whom notability is of no interest at all. --Herby talk thyme 08:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Still differences of opinion about each subject will still need to be dealt with locally on each article or at Afd if agreement can't be reached by other means. But I agree that something must be remarkable about the quote. I think it would be helpful if this idea is tightened up in our guidelines, policies, essays and examples. FloNight 14:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I almost failed this interesting discussion! I like the idea of Quotability standard and user essay. I'm looking forward to seeing it :) --Aphaia 08:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Probable GFDL problems with improper transwikis

I happened to looking through the Recent Changes, and I noticed another case where a page was created with quotes moved from Wikipedia (in this case, The Fly II, with an initial edit summary of "quotes from The Fly II, moved from the Wikipedia article"). I believe that it's actually fairly common for editors to simply move quotes out of Wikipedia articles and put them here, but I think this is a huge GFDL violation, as it's extraordinarily rare for edit histories to also be copied here.

While we haven't yet run into any problems with this, I think that we've reached a point where we should seriously consider stronger enforcement of the formal transwiki process to avoid further violations of the license and potential problems down the line. However, I'm not quite sure what form this enforcement should take. I'm tempted to treat this page, and others in the future, the same way that we currently handle copyright-violating pages: blank them with {{copyvio}} and nominate the page for deletion. On the one hand, I think this is a reasonable course of action, because the two situations (copying another webpage and GFDL violation by copying from Wikipedia) are substantially similar; on the other hand, the GFDL problem can be resolved fairly simply by copying the edit history from the Wikipedia article to here. I'm reluctant to just go ahead and do that, however, because I think it sets a bad precedent; namely, that editors moving material from Wikipedia to Wikiquote need not be concerned with doing it properly, because someone here will make the effort to sort it out.

Am I alone in these concerns, and if not, does anyone else have any suggestions for how to deal with this issue? —LrdChaos (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope you are not alone. En Wikibooks (despite its faults!) is very hot on this. The only acceptable option is to transwiki with the history. Any form of copy and paste is not permitted --Herby talk thyme 15:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
First, let me assure you that you are not alone in these concerns. I think you have laid out the issue quite well, but I do not really have a better solution. While it may seem a bit harsh, I would lean toward the {{copyvio}} approach, treating these transwikis in much the same way we treat pages where a user has merely copied the quotes page from IMDB. In such cases, we have blanked the page and nominated it for vfd, with the hope that someone will actually create a proper page - one that does not just copy the format of the IMDB page.
Of course, as you said, the solution is pretty easy, but I too would be reluctant to just fix it for someone (who does not really learn that what they did was wrong). I guess we should also take a look at the transwiki policy and perhaps provide some better instruction in properly performing the process so that this problem can be avoided (if the user so chooses), and outline the possibility that if the process is not followed, the page is likely to be blanked and nominated for vfd. ~ UDScott 15:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
m:Help:Transwiki says that unless importing function is active at any specific Wiki site, the only way is to, unfortunately, cut and paste WITH relevant edit hostory noted in a remote talk page. I would like to ask any admins here if page importing is enabled.--Jusjih 16:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The import extension is installed on all Wikimedia wikis, but there are not always import locations defined (that is our problem right now). If we wish to specify upload sources, we need to file a bug request after discussion here. Cbrown1023 talk 17:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I found at m:Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat saying: "Import is currently enabled only from foundation wiki and the English Wikipedia. From other wikis, you need copy & paste your materials by hand." In its talk page, I raised our concerns here. m:User:Cbrown1023 has suggested that copying the history of the page as well would not be a GFDL violation. The disadvantage is the inability of non-administrators to see how changes were made if the original pages have been deleted from another Wiki site, which is common after moving free-use images to Commons and deleting from other Wiki sites. Enabling importing will allow non-administrators to fully see how changes were made even if the original pages have been deleted from another Wiki site. For those serious in enabling importing here, I hope that someone will answer, but some Meta users are concerned of forging edit history while importing through one's own disk.--Jusjih 13:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

(Unindenting for readability) I see that most of the discussion here seems to concern the possible use of the Import feature. While I think the feature is interesting, and it's definitely something that we should look into, I don't believe that merely having it available is going to make much of a dent in the problem of editors simply copying (and them removing) content from Wikipedia articles and pasting into pages here. We already have a formal transwiki process documented, though it's more for cases where an entire page is being moved to or from Wikiquote, but even the informal yet non-GFDL-violating process of copying the content and then copying the edit history would OK to me. Even if we were to enable Import, I doubt that (m)any of the editors (or the type of editors) who currently do copy-paste transwikis w/o edit histories are going to do things any differently, because the issue is one of culture, not of technology. Most of the people moving stuff are probably fairly active Wikipedia editors who know little-to-nothing of Wikiquote, other than it exists and is sometimes mentioned as a place to move quotes from WP articles. Unless we (and/or Wikipedia) can make changes to the culture, we're still going to have this problem, Import or not. This is why I've suggested the possibility of taking a more hard-line stance to pages created/modified here via the incomplete copy/paste method. It would help to dispel the idea that Wikiquote is merely a dumping ground for unwanted Wikipedia content (as evident by the lack of effort used by such movers to make their additions conform to our style) and help us avoid GFDL violations. —LrdChaos (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with LrdChaos that this is more of a cultural problem than a technical one. I'd been mulling over where to initiate a discussion of this at Wikipedia, which is the culture that needs changing, and ran across (the rather obvious in retrospect) w:Wikipedia:Quotations, an old proposed policy/guideline that someone tagged as "historical" last year, apparently after discussion petered out. I am attempting to resurrect it now by restoring the "proposed" banner and announcing it at w:Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Wikipedia:Quotations. I invite the Wikiquote community to participate in this cross-project issue there and/or on the proposal's talk page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to submit a bug about import activation from enwiki to enwikiquote. Although we may newly have name conflict issues (currently there is no assurance of identification between user:A@enwiki and user:A@enwikiquote), history inheritance becomes much easier. I heard from BirgitteSB that English Wikiquote had abolished transwiki completely and only import materials from English Wikipedia. I asked her how they did so, and she replied to me that they just watched the WP's AFD and pick something neat, if they want. Therefore so-called traswikied articles from ENWP are speedied as c&p without history on English Wikisource, she said.--Aphaia 11:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a very great news for us. I just tested adding myself importing right here through Meta and importing would be enabled. There would be no more message saying: "No transwiki import sources have been defined and direct history uploads are disabled." Let us select a place to allow users, especially admins, to request importing rights here. Then requests approved here will be sent to Meta for activation. Thanks to those who supported my steward election with 73-1-4-99%.--Jusjih 04:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC) (admin here and new Meta steward)
Are there any standard places already in use elsewhere for making such requests? No need to innovate on this. ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I know of no standard places already in use elsewhere for making such requests. On Multilingual, English, and Chinese Wikisources, I would say their Scriptoriums, similar to our Village pump. On English Wiktionary, I would say wikt:Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#Transwiki_on_RFDO.3F. Since importing is a privilege but not a common right, should we vote on WQ:RFA or any other voting pages?--Jusjih 02:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
That makes sense. We vote for Bureaucrat and Checkuser on RfA.--Cato 11:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I have opened a new section at WQ:RFA#Requests_for_importing_right. My dear fellow admins, if you would like importing rights, please request there.--Jusjih 01:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposals for year page placeholders

As our year page placeholders are not really used, I would like to propose some actions to make them potentially useful:

  1. As simple English Wikipedia has simplified lists of births and deaths, should we make the same things here for people with articles here? We now have deaths categorized by centuries and since the 20th century by decades.
  2. Should we use year page placeholders to list works created or published in specific years? Some works are now categorized by decades or years.

For now, these may make year page placeholders somewhat useful, but I would like to request any consensus before going any further. So many shortest pages are these year page placeholders.--Jusjih 16:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see these pages given some useful information, but I'm concerned we don't yet have enough community activity to establish and maintain the content. I can speak from experience — having created most of our month-date pages (e.g., July 31) and adding much of the relevant anniversary data to our "Quote of the Day" suggestion lists — that the Wikipedia lists have a number of errors, some of which (at the time, at least) could not be corrected by anyone but WP admins because they were transcluded from protected templates. The sheer amount of work to research the conflicts within Wikipedia, get someone to fix them, and then use them to populate our own pages, or just to do our own research, made me despair that we could accomplish this without many active editors working on this problem. But it would be great if we could get a bunch of folks to tackle this (hopefully without taking them from all the other backlogged work we have). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Given the scale of Wikiquote, there's no need to maintain articles (which is laborious and error-prone). All we need is to have a placeholder that says "To see articles that link to this year, click here" and provides a link to Special:Whatlinkshere.--Poetlister 16:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping to find under 2002 a list of quotes from that year, perhaps broken down by topic or month. It seems logical to me. --rag47 8 October 2007

The trouble is that most quotes have no year, still less a month, attached to them. Of course, if you can find dates and would like to start doing what you suggest, we can see what it looks like.--Cato 21:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deep and shallow categories in the same article

Do we really need deep and shallow categories in the same article? For example, Image:Directed graph with back edge.svg suggests that John F. Kennedy should be categorized United States Presidents under Political leaders under Politicians, but using all of these three in the same article seems excessive. I would like to listen to comments before removing excessive shallow categories.--Jusjih 15:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I support this. There is no need for someone to be in say English people, poets and English poets.--Poetlister 16:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikiquote doesn't have much in the way of formal policy on categories, so as usual we fall back on Wikipedia conventions. Our practice, per Wikipedia:Categorization#Some general guidelines, to treat parent categories as superfluous, but "cousin" categories as reasonable and expected. For instance, North by Northwest is a member of:
but it is not directly a member of Category:Films, which collects all of these. Each type of categorization, like Films by year and Films by director, collects all these specific categories, and is in turn collected under "Films". (Come to think of it, it looks like we need a Category:Films by genre to collect the genres.)
The Kennedy example shows an old problem with our political categories. Jusjih has appropriately removed the superfluous "Political leaders" category because "United States Presidents" is a subset of "Political leaders" and "Heads of state", the latter of which is a subset of "Politicians". But the reasons for these groupings are not obvious. We've had some discussion and questions about this in the past:
But I don't believe we've come to any consensus. The absence of any descriptive text in the categories themselves means editors can't be sure whether to add the category or not. I guess we need to try to get a community decision on how to define these categories and add some text to each to make it clear. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DVD commentaries

Hi. New here. Not even sure if this should go here. I’ve been looking for an answer to this and maybe it’s a new thing. But if a quote comes from a DVD commentary where should it go? On the movie or TV page or the person who actually said it? At which point it would be a bit out of context. And a lot of those people probably aren’t big enough to have their own pages. I’m thinking of the 48 hours of Lord of the Rings commentaries with lots of good stuff. Would it be possible to create some sort of sub category for commentaries linked to the film or TV show?—This unsigned comment is by Lady Gray (talk • contribs) .

We do not prohibit the same quote from appearing in more than one article, so in response to your question, quote comes from a DVD commentary could go to the movie page, TV page, and/or the person page, depending on the nature of the quote. However, as recent DVDs are copyrighted, only quote in very limited amount to avoid competing against the original works.--Jusjih 17:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Mark Aaron A. Corrales"?

Oh, this is probably in the wrong section, or I'm doing something terribly wrong, or something, but...who is Mark Aaron A. Corrales? I see his quotes peppered here and there about Wikiquote, but he has no page and I can't pick up anything in Google--though maybe I'm not using the right words searching, or something... --24.221.176.159 07:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hum - interesting - I'm short of time but googling the name gives me Wikiquote and little else. Contributions appear to be the work of this user. I'd be interested in other opinions before we take them out and should we ask on the user's page? --Herby talk thyme 16:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability and quotability

Following some points on VfD, I have been searching for WQ guidelines on criteria for people to be quoted and criteria for quotes to be used, as well as the relationship between them (e.g. good quotes, but rather obscure person, or notable person but mundane quotes). I recall reading something a while ago, but I've been searching for half an hour, and, though I've found all sorts of wonderful things, I've not found what I've been looking for. As these criteria are fundamental ones, they should be very easy to find for newcomers. Do they exist somewhere glaringly obvious that I've missed? Tyrenius 00:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I get the impression that there's a rather circular rule on "good quotes, but rather obscure person". If a quote is in a reputable dictionary of quotations, that makes the person notable. I'd agree with that, but we ought to say so explicitly.--Cato 07:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, there's at least some value to requiring a person to be at least somewhat notable, and that's in the likelihood of being able to get sources for quotes, as well as eliminating personal quotes and quotes from some editor's friends. I think that we have two different standards for notability anyway; one is a person notable enough to merit their own page, and the other is someone who isn't that notable, but whose quotes appear in some theme pages. (The recent Erasmus Smums VFD, where the result was to delete the page but move the quote to a theme, comes to mind as an example of this.) I think that perhaps we could do a better job of codifying this into a policy (or at least a guideline), but it is, to a certain extent, the way we already treat things. Wikiquote:Notability already reflects the two standards, though the phrasing could probably use some tweaking and it might benefit from a very direct "separate page vs. quotes in theme page" statement or section to make it unambiguous (to the extent that such is possible, anyway). However, it's listed as an "essay" and not a policy or guideline.
As for quotability, Wikiquote:Notability briefly addresses that toward the end of the Theme articles section, but then the "Notability of individual quotes" (i.e, quotability) section is empty. —LrdChaos (talk) 13:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that most quotes in Wiktionary should actually appear on at least two different pages - once under the name of the speaker/author (presuming they are notable), and (since most notable quotes are about something) once on a theme page. A quote comparing things, such as love and war, should be on a theme page for each subject of comparison. I realize this will lead to a lot of redundancy, but unless a major change to the Wiki software allows automated internal compilation of quotes, there's no other way to make this source comprehensive. BD2412 T 15:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds logical. I am not a tech-savvy, so not sure if Semantic MediaWiki would be a solution, but BD2412 proposing system (one quotes appeared on both speaker/author and theme articles) would fit more a semantic content management system than a normal wiki. Just a thought. --Aphaia 09:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Single User Login

I myself didn't attend the presentation, but on August 5 in Taipei Brion Vibber gave a talk about technical update as Hacking Days (August 2) report. I heard from a friend of mine that Brion had announced we would transit very soon to the single user login mode until the end of this year. It was suggested, according to my friend, the issue of name conflict (like w:no:user:Nina and w:de:user:Nina are different people) wouldn't be solved in its earliest stage. The detailed information will come from Brion himself, soon hopefully. Just for your information. --Aphaia 09:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: There is a beta/demo version up at the Developer-Test Wikipedia. Create an account there with the same name as your other account and test it out. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 21:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright warning upon article creation

At MediaWiki talk:Newarticletext#Copyright violation warning?, I've brought up a possible way to reduce the frequent creation of articles that are merely copied from other websites (most notably IMDb.com). It would basically add a bold, red warning not to just copy another website's material when creating a new article. I'd appreciate everyone's thoughts on this approach. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I would support using such a notice, as wholesale copying of such unorganized and often unreliable quotes are some of the more frequent occurrences of potential copyright violation and dubious reliability of sources that occurs here. ~ Kalki 01:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I concur with you guys. If I recall correctly, some of our sister projects - perhaps Wikipedia in some languages - use even a huge sized font for the part of this message. --Aphaia 11:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I also support this (and have left a note of support on the talk page). ~ UDScott 13:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Nothing will stop the really determined copyvio merchant, but this should deter some people.--Poetlister 20:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It seemed that everyone was in support of it, and there had been no discussion for a few days, so I added it. Cbrown1023 talk 21:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quote of the day on my Wikipedia talk page?

Hi, I'm interested in getting the quote of the day on my Wikipedia talk page. The closest so far is the Wikipedia motto of the day which is nice but not as illuminating as I had hoped for, is this possible or at least being considered? Benjiboi 12:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it is rather a matter of Wikipedia editor, regardless which Wikipedia you are come from. Wikimedia setting don't enable us to make inter-project inclusion. As "picture of the day" of Commons,
  1. Someone set a bot on your Wikipedia.
  2. Copy and paste the Wikiquote QotD to a dedicated page or template periodically.
  3. You can include it into your page.
You may ask for help on your Wikipedia's discussion page. Good luck. --Aphaia 12:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. Benjiboi 04:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
You could also consider subscribing to an e-mail copy of it at daily-article-l. Cbrown1023 talk 21:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to move a page?

Hi, I'm trying to interested in the TV series Primeval and just created a page for it, but have hit a snag. The Wikipedia page is called Primeval (TV Series) and the Wikiquote page I created is just called Primeval (like an idiot I did not look first). So I need to rename the wikiqoutes page I just made in order for the pages to link to one another but an at a loss as how to accomplish this. Any help with this matter will be welcome. Nubula 01:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Renaming a page can be done with the tab near the top of the window that says "move" — I have already moved the page you mentioned. ~ Kalki 02:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Nubula 19:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have the same problem, but I can't find this "move" tab. Where exactly is it? Curator2000 09:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Newly created accounts don't get access to the 'move' function until their accounts are four days' old; this is to stop page move vandalism. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stubs

I have come across many TV and Film pages that are listed as stubs. At some point along the line many of these have been expanded and cleaned up but there seems to be hesitation to remove the stub listing because most have been put up by scary admins.

Perhaps as a point of manners if you mark an artical as a stub check on it once in a while and remove the stub listing once the page has been cleaned. 203.97.94.126

You are invited to be bold and remove stub templates if you think appropriate. I am a non-scary admin.--Poetlister 17:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Haha. But to the original poster, you have nothing to worry about. In cases such as that (editorial content), administrators are no different from people like you in terms of how much their opinion matters. :-) The only reason that most are put up by scary admins is because those are normally the most active users. Cbrown1023 talk 01:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keyword and author

Shouldn't quotes be arranged by keyword and author? I find this frustrating. —This unsigned comment is by 24.59.160.55 (talk • contribs) .

What do you mean exactly? I have no idea what you would like. --Aphaia 17:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War

We repeat "we accept only pithy quotes, particularly from copyrighted works", if I recall correctly. And pithiness is definitely of significance for copyrighted works, because we should have a good reason to quote them as well as should attribute them to its source properly. I think it nutshell for our future policy, WQ:EDP or WQ:NONFREE. Otherwise we should cast away all fairuse materials, as far as I understand on the Board resolution in this March.

On the other hand, not every Wikiquote contributor agree with us. There might be many editors who have never visit WQ:VP - specially among the editors who concerns only their interests, in some cases, one or two favorite articles. But as a project, we should have them understand our basic ideas and policies, for having them keep editing within the requirements we should follow.

Statistics] says we have many articles mainly edited by unregistered users, in other words, who are not sure to share the concerns on the above. One example is Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War, only 5% of the whole editors of this articles are registered. I heard from a friend who is also a player of this game that they issue periodical support materials and that would be partly why this article is frequently expanded. There is a concern about proper sourcing, but another concern might be more serious. Many of those quotes found on the article don't look like pithy. For example, I have no clue why "Yes!" can be a pithy quote. And this is quoted without any remark, without its context.

So a question - how can we handle it and make it a legitimate article of Wikiquote? Does anyone have an idea? --Aphaia 19:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete it. Long time ago I put a copyvio-notice at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Modernizing_Ghanaian_Fisheries:_The_Need_for_Social_Carriers_of_Technology - it was no reaction. These quotes are excerpts from a copyrighted book. I think there are hundreds or thousands similar copyvio articles. The board sleeps but one cannot give the guarantee that it will never wake up concerning WQ --Histo 22:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It it still content based problem, and the subject itself is notable enough. I trimmed some - eh many unpithy quotes, though there are still massive quotes. Let' see what happens next. --Aphaia 05:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiquote:Proposed deletion trial

I propose three month trial of Wikiquote:Proposed deletion. Precedent discussions are found at Wikiquote talk:Proposed deletion. I thank all feedbacks until today and have tried to include them. If I miss your suggestion, it isn't intended and I'm happy to consider your idea again with you.

This trial includes those relevant trials:

All new additions (templates, categories) are listed at user:Aphaia/Prod.

As the beginning date of trial, I propose September 10. I am open to opinions, and if the community thinks it is not the time yet, I'd like to work for elaboration further.

Thank you for your feedback in advance! --Aphaia 09:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I second that. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 01:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Seems unexceptionable - go for it.--Cato 21:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Go for it.--Jusjih 11:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VfD

Just a thought - "To ensure an extra pair of eyes, an article should not be deleted by the same person who placed the tag on it." Should we apply that to VfD? That's no problem if there's 100% consensus on VfD, but if there's the slightest dissent then someone else ought to close.--Cato 20:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Some projects make it rule: the nominator is strongly discouraged to delete the page. I know a project more rigid where even voters are discouraged to perform the deletion. I think the idea behind such a convention as good. The question is: are our team large enough introduce this restriction? How do you think, folks? --Aphaia 05:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
We can't possibly have a rule that if you vote you can't delete, as most admins vote on most VfDs. I think we could cope with "openers don't close".--Cato 06:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. We rather would like to see anyone vote or give an opinion. The rule or recommendation "openers don't close" is sensible. We can just try to follow it on an individual basis? Even from now? --Aphaia 10:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea but I'm not sure it needs to be a strict rule. When a VDF vote is 100% consensus with several editors commenting, run its full time, and the opener is already closing a batch of overdue VFD, I do not think they need to skip an obvious deletion vote for formalities sake. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with FloNight on this one; when there's some contention in the VFD, I think it makes sense for the person who opened it not to be involved in closing it, since the act of nominating connotes an interest in seeing the page deleted. However, since we're only supposed to delete pages where there's a "rough consensus" (WQ:DP states that there's no hard-and-fast rule about what constitutes consensus, but lists 2/3 as one indicator while noting some people prefer a stronger leaning), I don't think there's any harm in having the person who nominated the page close the vote when the consensus is clear (e.g., numerous votes cast, all favoring deletion). I think that the philosophy that "openers don't close" should apply more to the proposed "prod", where having someone else do the actual deletion ensures that at least other person has seen the page and made their own judgment about it's deletion-worthiness. —LrdChaos (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
If it's 100% in favour of deletion there can be no objection to the opener closing it. Once it isn't unanimous, it's difficult to know where to draw the line.--Cato 21:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Eh, then what is the difference between the opener and voters? Each of them has a certain interest or not? --Aphaia 06:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a good point. I don't really see the difference between the nominator and the rest of the participants, except that the nominator had the idea first. I would point out that it is not uncommon for nominators to avoid making specific recommendations, or even simply ask if the article can be improved rather than deleted. The real issue is whether the admin who closes the discussion does so in a way that supports his/her position. (I always feel comfortable closing discussions where the consensus does not follow my opinion, as it's clear that I'm following procedure and not my feelings.) The only potential problem is when the closer declares a consensus that happens to agree with their opinion, and then only if the decision is a close call.
Perhaps all we need to do is recommend that any admin can close a discussion with an overwhelming consensus (which is nearly always true anyway — we still get a lot of "delete-bait" articles), but only a non-participating admin should close discussions that are near a two-thirds boundary or have many complicated positions whose consensus is hard to judge. (We'd still want an exception in case all the admins participated, as someone has to close it.) We may have enough active admins now that, if we're all watching WQ:VfD, a non-participant will notice when a discussion is past due for closing and could use a disinterested closer. If not, one of the participants (admin or not) can always ask an non-participating admin to close it (or they can post a request to WQ:AN). In the exceptionally rare cases where even the disinterested party might be accused of bias, anyone could file a request at our draft Wikiquote:Deletion review, under "Candidates", or again at WQ:AN if they don't feel comfortable using the draft policy page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah sounds logical :) So let me summarize the discussion until today,
  • Admins are expected to close VfD discussions along the consensus, not their own feelings (and until today we feel no problem about that, hopefully).
  • We are okay to see anyone including the nominator close a VfD discussion which reached an unanimous consensus.
  • It could be said too on discussions which reached rough consensus.
  • However if a VfD discussion is in a dispute, and the rough consensus (conventionally over 2/3 of participants) can be challenged, all the participants are strongly encouraged to wait for a non-participant admin to close it.
  • As corollary, everyone who has an opinion are expected to give their opinion, not saving it or keeping it in thier cupboard.
I feel the above is almost an unwritten but established convention, even we are not fully aware, rather than brand-new proposal, except "however..." part . I haven't remembered any dispute about "biased closing". And I like to see a good convention written down. Thoughts? --Aphaia 09:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with all of this. My example above intended to show that often the opener and the closer could be the same editor. It was not intended to be the only situation where the opener and closer could be the same person. Even if not stated, the closer is likely to have an opinion about whether the entry should be deleted or not. More often than not, it is going to be the same as the vote as most often there is near consensus between editors by the time the vote closes. In the rare instances when there are significant differences of opinion, a non-involved admin is the best person to close since they are in a better position to read all the discussion comments and come up with an unbiased decision about whether there is consensus to delete. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to close the discussion I started then! Yes, Aphaia's proposals are eminently sensible and ought to be codified somewhere.--Cato 21:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for comments, it is mostly your own input and Jeff's, I just summarized the discussion on the above :) Kudos to you two, rather than me in my opinion. Anyway where would we like to write it down? On WQ:VFD? WQ:DP? Or in a wider scope, on Wikiquote:Voting (ancient draft)? --Aphaia 11:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd say Wikiquote:Deletion policy, since we don't have a specific guide for admins. The top section of WQ:VFD is more for all VfD participants and so should be kept short and to the point (since it's hard enough to get folks to read it anyway). But we expect admins to be thoroughly versed in WQ:DP, and can refer others who question why someone did or didn't close a discussion to WQ:DP. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
And now we have also "how to close a discussion" (technical side) written by you on WQ:AN, Jeff! Maybe it is the time to update our old WQ:DP, adding our oral tradition and accepted wisdom :) --Aphaia 17:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mobile/PDA Browsers

What's the best way to bring in one or more WikiQuote pages into a PDA browser or offline viewer such as iSilo?

I'm afraid that the Monobook style, which I prefer for online usage, would go past the 320x320 Palm screen. I just want the list of quotes, not all the navigation.

--Joe Sewell 01:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Songs within Movies

I'm sorry if this is covered somewhere, but I couldn't find it.

If we are working on a regular movie, not a musical or something, and a character sings a song, should we put the lyrics under the character's name, or as their own little section, like dialogue is?

{Not the whole lyrics, but certain parts)


--Chokolattejedi 04:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah good question. I don't feel inappropriate, rather it could be a remark "xx sings [song]]", unless the tune is created for that movie". But it is my personal impression. --Aphaia 13:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] welcome template

What's the welcome template for welcoming IP adresses? --C (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It is {{Welcomeip}}. Other welcoming templates are found at Wikiquote:Template messages/User talk. --Aphaia 17:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requests?

Theirs an area that shows a bunch of Books Movies ex that people requested to be made into quote pages How do you request a page on a certain Book Movie Video game ex? LadyBonBon 02:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for review: Wikiquote:Blocking policy revision draft

I ask you for review of Wikiquote:Blocking policy/Draft. Both new additions and replacements are colored in red. Removed part is strike. The current version is Wikiquote:Blocking policy.

I appreciate Cbrown1023 and Herby for their feedbacks, and will very appreciate your opinion also :)

Please review the proposed revision and give your opinion on its talk. Thanks! --Aphaia 02:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Insert" buttons under the edit window

Hi, I recently edited English Wiktionary, and found their "Insert" buttons classified by script, like "Template", "Latin" "IPA" "roma-ji" ...(go and see). It makes me easy to find the letter I would like to use (in other words: the current unclassified table makes me difficult to find them). How about importing 'tionarians' way into our project? Thoughts? --Aphaia 10:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If you find it helpful, then others likely will also. I can't see any reason not to try it. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem is, I cannot figure how they got it sorted out. A mere copy of MediaWiki:Edittools doesn't work. Could anyone please figure it out? --Aphaia 11:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Try copying http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Edittools. My main interest is {{DEFAULTSORT:}}.--Inesculent 12:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, but enwiki doesn't sort them out with the selector (better than us, though). Having DEFAULTSORT: is a nice idea. I'll take care of it asap. --Aphaia 13:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The code on English Wiktionary requires supporting JavaScript to create the selector box that can be found at wikt:MediaWiki:Monobook.js. Particularly, it needs getCookie, setCookie, addCharSubsetMenu, and chooseCharSubset. You'll also need to call addCharSubsetMenu using addOnloadHook. Mike Dillon 15:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Note also that you probably want the dynamic version from bs:MediaWiki:Monobook.js instead. See wikt:WT:GP#Edittools. --Connel MacKenzie 17:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LiquidThread demo website

via wikinews-l: you may find it interest: LiquidThread demo --Aphaia 11:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends

Another "whole copy syndrome" article. As far as I know, 2/3 sections were the whole copy of a certain episode, when I noticed. I removed many sections, and trimmed some, but there are still many sections with the whole copy. Most of those whole copies were added by anon(s), who I suspect are identical to their common feature of weird punctutation "word+one space+one punctuation mark+no space+the next word". Please help it trim. And let us give opinions what do you think the best as our next step, thanks! --Aphaia 12:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Welcome improvment

My suggestion:

  • To add an encouragement/recommendation to customize their signatures, if their username is in non-latin scripts.
    • If we are afraid it is too complicated for newcomers, we could recommend them to add latin transcription to their user page instead.

I guess you may have your own recommendation. Please let us know to each other :) --Aphaia 02:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Password hacked....Email not yet said....Pissed user....

I...I...I dont know what happened beu my paaswords dont work! I ONLY use one and that password is ******! I need someone to help me Asap! --Akemi 15:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This user, who claims to be identical with User:Saikano, banned editor from English Wikipedia, is blocked indefinitely due to his disruptions (and no productive editings). Please note this user had been always informed it couldn't happen technically. All sysops are invited to review his contribs and think it inappropriate, to lift it up. --Aphaia 15:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templates for sourcing quotes ?

Hey guys!

I plan on adding quotes I put on fr.wikiquote (where I come from so sorry for my English ;-)) on this wikiquote. As you may or not know, the French wikiquote is extremely strict regarding to the sources of quotes, and thus we have created templates to standardize the sources and tell us when they are not enough detailed. So I am wondering whether there are some templates to source different kinds of quotes (songs, books, speeches,...) to have some kind of uniform rendering ?

Thanks for your help :-) chtit dracotalk 19:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm... not that I know of... :-( There are Wikiquote:Templates that outline the formatting of pages and where sources should go. But none of the magical things in the Template: namespace. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 23:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
There are a few "magic" templates, imported from WP:en, in this category. You'll find the documentation for those ({{cite book}}, {{cite news}}…) in their talk page. It's used in only 142 articles, though, and in most cases only for one quote in this article, so you can't say it gives uniform rendering, but at least it does some rendering. Manuel Menal 07:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
mhm ok I'll try using those then :-) Thanks for your answers! chtit dracotalk 08:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Football players, Category:Soccer players, Category:Football (soccer) players,...?

Hey all

Today a new user replaced Category:Soccer players by Category:Football players (see Special:Contributions/The_Daddy) without any prior discussion. However having a category named Football players is quite ambiguous, due to the number of different footballs in the world and the different uses of the word in different countries. On en.wikipedia, this problem has been resolved by the use of a category named Football (soccer) players. So Mmenal and me agreed (on IRC #wikiquote) that this was probably the best solution. We both have a bot on this project, so we can replace the categories easily. Any comments ?

chtit dracotalk 12:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Using the same category designation as Wikipedia in this regard is probably a good idea. ~ Kalki 13:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Done using DragonBot. I blanked Category:Football players and Category:Soccer players, could a sysop delete them ? Thanks. chtit dracotalk 09:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it too late to comment? Soccer players seems entirely clear and Football (soccer) players is unnecessarily cumbersome. Surely we don't have to emulate Wikipedia in everything.--Poetlister 10:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Soccer players seems like a strange name, considering most of the countries where soccer is popular say football or something like that (Football in UK & France, Fútbol in Spain, Futebol in Portugal/Brazil, Fußball in Germany). I'd guess many, many non-native speakers like myself don't even know the word soccer.
Thus, I think Football (soccer) players is a good name, because it's unambiguous and clear for everybody. Manuel Menal 21:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Short category names are admirable, but not when the violate the expectations of most of the audience. I have to go with Wikipedia on this one. Perhaps we should have a category redirect for Category:Soccer players to Category:Football (soccer) players, since, as Poetlister points out, the former is unambiguous, and because it is likely (as much as any category name is) to be typed in by U.S. fans. I'm not sure what to do about Category:Football players, except perhaps to make the two variations subcategories of it. As can be seen right now in Category:Football players, whatever we do, we aren't preventing editors from placing people erroneously in these categories anew, and that wouldn't change even if we deleted them (as they'd just show up as redlink categories, without descriptions or parents). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Just for your consideration, another voice from non native from a country there is no professional league of American Football, but Soccer's.
  • "Football" doesn't sound as definition - it sounds undefined for Japanese. But under influence of world "soccer" scene with which Japanese soccer fans interact, it may be used in the meaning of soccer. Very few people think it "American Football".
  • "Soccer" is without ambiguity. "Associated Football" might work too, it sounds a bit formal though.
  • American Football is always "American Football" - in most common usage, it is referred abbreviated, as "Amefuto" (that is partly why football couldn't be considered as American one - morphologically they are called in different names).
I suppose Americans and British may have their own opinions and feelings, but we would like to take into an account that this project is international and many non-native participate? From this point, unless we keep it as disambig, I am hesitate to keep ambiguous category "Football players" - it may mean different things for different people. In the same reason I am not so much a fan if "Soccer Players"; for Europeans it might not work well. --Aphaia 02:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that using Wikipedia's category Category:Football (soccer) players is the best possible solution for an English speaking wiki where both terms are used. Redirecting Category:Soccer players to Category:Football (soccer) players is user friendly. Also think that the best approach is to make Category:Football players be a parent cat with both cats, Category:American Football players and Category:Football (soccer) players, as subcategories. Doing it this way will lead to the least confusion and is acceptable to most fans. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I endorse FloNight's proposal. It's a little cumbersome, but error-proof.--Cato 21:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I endorse FloNight's proposal too. As sidenote, we have already Category:American football players. --Aphaia 03:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
+1 (and sorry for my absence, I blame the 1st week of university and all the work it entails...) chtit dracotalk 19:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for endorsements: Wikiquote:Blocking policy/Draft

Since I think the draft Wikiquote:Blocking policy/Draft frozen enough to ask for community approval, I'm requesting for endorsement from English Wikiquote community. This request opens at least one week, and three endorsements with no objection will be considered as a communal support.

If you think this draft is okay to be a new replacement with the current [1], please put your endorsement on its talk page. Thanks for your attention! --Aphaia 17:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Update: Since it has been reviewed more than one week, I think we can close it very soon (even now, perhaps). However I am not sure if every active user take a look to it, I would like to keep it open for one more day. If you haven't, but regularly used blocking tool, please give a look to Wikiquote:Blocking policy/Draft. Thanks! --Aphaia 01:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Wikipedia

Does anyone else think it confusing to see the word "Wikipedia" twice in a row on the Wikipedia link template, as seen here?:

Wikipedia
Wikipedia has an article about:





Shouldn't the "Wikipedia" on the left be an emblem and not merely a word?- InvisibleSun 22:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a bug or just something wrong ... it is a link to the image, as you suggested ... I don't know why it has happened (or why it continues so long: I found it first just a half day ago, and it was on another project). It should be a logo, when it works. --Aphaia 23:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I've notice similar glitches on Wikipedia and on some of the images on pages here in the last day or so, so I assume there is some kind of software or server problem occurring. ~ Kalki 00:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I noticed it yesterday but thought it was a local problem. Seems OK now.--Cato 21:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Avatar: The Last Airbender: or the original research on Wikiquote in gereral

Another article edited mainly by anons. I gave a look to it and impressed with its volumn: 148,622 byte for 40 episodes (2 seasons). Also some sections (quotes from episodes particular) seem to me quite long ... I don't know this work so I am not sure, but for some of them I wonder if they are rather extracts copied the half of the targetting episodes or over. I wonder if those "quotes" are really quoted frequently by the ordinary Americans (view of quotability). Otherwise it could turn easily int a fansub or so - or "the original research" which our sister project Wikipedia tries to avoid. "I like it" is not a sufficient reason to cite a part of words as quote in my opinion: Recently I wonder if we could bring "quotability" as a explicit criteria and consider if the quoted part is referred in somewhere else than on this project. --Aphaia 07:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This show was created basically to move product (there is an associated LEGO toy line). I believe the episodes are 22 minutes or so each plus commercials (half hour episodes) so it could well be that these are large chunks of the screenplays. Personally, I'm not sure there's anything "pithy" from any of it, I've never quoted anything from it! but that's just me, and I'm 35+ years beyond the target demographic. ++Lar: t/c 10:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mickie James

A VfD was started by an account that Kalki rightly blocked. However, this article should be deleted. Is it OK if I start a VfD?--Cato 21:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can nominate an article for deletion, even anonymous editors. Admins rarely ever remove nominations, and almost always because they are clearly bad-faith nominations. (There have been a few procedural removals that were worked out in other ways.) As far as I can recall, the Wikiquote editors in each case had clearly demonstrated vandalism, impersonation, or prank editing, making a bad-faith assessment fairly uncontroversial. Such a nomination removal should not be interpreted by anyone as a comment on the nominated page itself, either good or bad. Anyone is welcome to renominate a page in this situation based on their own argument for its deletion (or even just to focus community attention on improving it). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor glitch

I noticed a small problem with Special:Logs. In the drop box, the very first option says: <renameuserlogpage> I was wondering if this could be fixed. --Virana 21:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It could be fixed, both locally and globally (it means, it happens elsewhere for now). I prefer to keep it here for a while and find someone who can fix the MediaWiki CVS repository for the next version. So .. is it better to go to bugzilla? (Hopefully someone reported it already..) --Aphaia 01:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems to be gone now. --Virana 21:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright question

Hello, I'm new here (not nearly so new