Wikiquote:Village pump archive 37

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive
Archives



Bolding Quotes[edit]

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

The consensus seems to be that we leave it to case-by-case editor discretion. Some users are quite restrained in applying boldface, some have gone totally overboard by bolding every quote on a page, and there is a broad range in between. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
If you don't like how the quotes are bolded on a specific page, you can always change it and see if anyone disagrees. --Tryst (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest that boldface is useful in only a few cases, where it really is useful to call attention to a particular quotation or segment thereof. For example, if in the course of documenting a well-known quotation an editor adds two or three sentences of the surrounding context, bolding the better-known part will help the reader visually locate the particular quotation they are looking for. However, this should still be done sparingly, lest readers be overwhelmed by the excessive use of emphasis. (This is reasonable because changing font weight is traditionally used very infrequently when typesetting running text, so most written sources will not use boldface at all.) 121a0012 (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I would agree that emphasizing well known phrases within larger quotes would be acceptable. Another use I would agree with would be boldfacing a part of a quote that the original author was known to emphasize in the original source. These are the only two cases that I would consider appropriate. Dburton (talk) 05:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I think we should bold particularly well known quotes even if they do not appear in context on the page. --Tryst (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Dburton on both cases. Re first case: however I think we don't use it excessively, nor avoid misleading our reader those emphasis is find in the original source, I think it is useful though. Sometimes we find a well known quote is a part of less frequently referred quote. We would like not to confuse readers as if they are separated ones but actually in a whole. Or sometimes we find the well known quote meant different things originally and it is clear when we see the known quote in the original context. Highlight is useful in those cases. We may want to add a note such emphases are given by us, not by the original author, for avoiding any confusion.
Re second case (original emphasis). I think we should keep original emphasis as possible as we can: for this purpose we need to source a well criticized text. --Aphaia (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

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

As Cirt says: if the original author didn't use emphasis, then adding emphasis violates WQ:NPOV. - Macspaunday (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
If a deviation from how the author originally presented material is a violation of NPOV, would the subjective criteria we use to select quotes from works be problematic as well with regards to that policy ? I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of using neutral style, but I'm more concerned with the inconsistency I've seen in the use of boldface than the principle. --Tryst (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, a strict interpretation of WQ:NPOV would lead to the barring of all bolding, but I think this goes a bit far. As Tryst asks, isn't the mere selection of which quotes appear on pages also providing a POV? I think this is a case where we need to step back a bit and not have a knee-jerk reaction to have an unnecessarily stringent application of rules. While I realize that often the bolding can push a certain POV, I find that more often than not, it is because a certain quote is either very well known or is one that a user finds particularly pithy. What is the harm in allowing this to be highlighted? If pushing a POV becomes evident on a page (especially for a divisive topic, such as abortion) I can see where this would have to be monitored and removed. But for the majority of the pages here, I do not see a problem with having certain quotes highlighted with bolded text. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it is an NPOV violation at all to bold the most well-known portion of a lesser known longer quote. In so doing, we are not indicating that we personally feel that the bolded portion is more important or praiseworthy, but merely indicating that it is generally more widely used. Of course, there should be some way to indicate that this is the case beyond bolding the quote. For example, in Knute Rockne, All American, I bolded the short portion of a longer quote where just the short portion was on the American Film Institute's list of the top 100 movie quotations in American cinema. BD2412 T 02:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
It's certainly true to say that the simple act of extracting text from a larger work in order to present a quotation is in some sense a violation of NPOV, but since the whole WQ enterprise depends on it, it's clear that we're all willing to live with it. I suppose it's worth asking how restrained we should feel from adding more non-NPOV elements to a page. Everyone seems to have a different limit - some of us are willing to accept bolding but not irrelevant illustrations, some are willing to accept both, some neither. My guess is that the consensus here is that bolding is OK, even though some of us would be slightly happier without it. But I think this discussion is worth having, because it's always easy to forget that what sounds perfectly reasonable to one person looks like a violation of NPOV to someone else. - Macspaunday (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Do you think that my bolding of the AFI-selected portion of the quote in Knute Rockne, All American is NPOV? If quote citations generally indicated the particular importance of the bolded portions, would that prevent it from being NPOV? BD2412 T 17:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest so: if the bolded portion is commonly quoted by itself, then it would be NPOV to bold it. --Tryst (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Film quotes are a problem because very often they are not original, but come from the book on which the film was based. In the Knute Rockne case, it is based on real-life people and may be something that the real George Gipp said, so giving it such prominence in that article may be misleading.--Collingwood (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
In the Knute Rockne case, I think it is entirely appropriate to use boldface for something that became the tagline of a POTUS and is listed in the AFI top 100 quotes list. Whether Knute Rockne actually said that George Gipp said it, or whether George Gipp himself said it, might be an interesting research project for a footnote; but there can be no doubt that it is the most famous line from the film, and that it is from the film that it entered the national consciousness. This is not an undue appearance of prominence: it actually is prominent. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────────┘
This is an interesting philosophical question. Gone with the Wind (film) contains three of the top 100 quotes, but I think all come from the book. Do we do our users a disservice by not saying so, thus suggesting that they are original to the film?--Collingwood (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather keep the status quo here. In my opinion, it would detract from the average user's experience to indicate the source of quotations from screenplays derivative from novels. Omitting them would also be strange. --User:Tryst (talk to me!) 16:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
How does it detract from the average user's experience to avoid giving them misleading information?--Collingwood (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
It's not misleading information, because the quotation is a line from the film. --User:Tryst (talk to me!) 12:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
It is misleading because it implies that the scriptwriters invented it. It is easy to find lines from say Shakespeare used in modern writing, but I hope that if such a quote appeared in an article about that modern writer it would be removed. By all means have it in the film article if it became famous because of the film, but indicate that it is not original.--Collingwood (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps the best option would just to have a hatnote indicating that the script is derivative from the novel. I would not want to exclude quotations which are better known from their presentation in a film than in a novel from the pages of the film. --User:Tryst (talk to me!) 12:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, this is a place where WQ can be very useful (and convey accurate information) by specifying which quotations in the film match quotations in the novel, which ones are different, and which ones occur in the film only. For example, "Frankly, my dear..." is different in the film and novel, and it's worth making clear that they differ and how they differ, so it's clear that the film, not the novel, is the source of the best-known version. WP explains the difference between the two versions of the quotation; surely WQ ought to do the same? - Macspaunday (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, in that case it should, in the interlinear citation. But if the quotation is identical and it is common knowledge that the film is based on the novel, I feel it should not be necessary to indicate the origin. --User:Tryst (talk to me!) 14:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
(We digress rather far afield in this thread: bolding does not really affect attribution.) For films based on books, I think it is appropriate and sufficient to include a notation like "based on the novel by..." in the introduction or credit line, as is done in the case of Gone with the Wind. This gives credit where credit is due, and gives the reader fair notice that the quotes may or may not be taken more or less directly from the book. This should be adequate when the derivative work is at least a famous as the original and the author or copyright holder of the original has authorized the derivative work.

I agree about Shakespeare quotes: If a quote was already famous before the film then it does not belong in the film article except, as noted at Wikiquote:Quotability#Originality of the quote, "where the quote has become so widely associated with ... a work that it merits inclusion for the very purpose of explaining that its actual origination lies elsewhere." Consider also a couple cases where entire articles were deleted because all the good bits were taken directly from famous public domain works. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that bolding is very problematic and I've always been puzzled by it. NPOV should forbid it explicitly, as it does in other stricter editions of Wikiquote, see m:Neutral_point_of_view_on_Wikiquote. The exception proposed by Tryst is ok, but the question is whether it's original research to quote broader passages; on this wiki – I confess – I sometimes find myself quoting bigger portions of text than perhaps needed, because I'm allowed to bold the really important parts. --Nemo 11:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no "question of whether it's original research" on Wikiquote. Wikiquote encourages original research. 121a0012 (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, the Italian Wikiquote doesn't, I suppose I need to translate our policy to explain what I mean with this. --Nemo 19:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a software button developed for the general reader (as opposed to editors) to neutralize bolded text, other than headers, and to reveal an unbolded alternative view of the original article? This would leave both versions intact and available to readers with either preference. ELApro (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Linking style[edit]

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

This is an issue I have gradually changed my own position on, unlike the use of bolding which had been promoted as a relatively neutral device for editors to use for emphasis of notable quotes or portions of quotes from the very earliest days of this project, no more innately objectionable to people with even the shallowest sense of what Neutral Point of View policies imply than the process of selecting of the quotes themselves — and which I still strongly support. Originally there were so few pages on this wiki as to subjects or "theme" pages that links to them were mostly useless, and I supported only wiki links to persons or to various unusual words or words with diverse usage. Gradually more people added other links, and gradually I came to agree that now there are enough theme pages of various sorts that I believe we should provide links to them, as a way to encourage introductions to diverse thoughts, opinions and expressions, and promote greater numbers of contributions from whatever readers might be inspired enough by the available examples to be interested in doing so. I now strongly encourage the addition of diverse active wiki-links, as well as bolding for emphasis, as a proper tool for encouraging participation — although I remain reluctant to accept and generally oppose the addition of dead-links that show up as red links — which would likely invite a massive amount of page creation by people who lack awareness of long promoted formatting standards here. ~ Kalki·· 12:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC) + tweaks
I wouldn't link to very common words, simply because if there's too much blue in the text it becomes more difficult to read. This again I think is an issue which can be dealt with case-by-case. --Tryst (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Hypertext makes a virtue out of lack of organization, allowing ideas and thoughts to be juxtaposed at will. [...] The advent of hypertext is apt to make writing much more difficult, not easier. Good writing, that is.
Donald Norman, The Design of Everyday Things
This issue is mentioned at Wikiquote:Manual of style#Free link style, which says "This guideline has yet to be discussed for Wikiquote — some feel that it may not be appropriate in the middle of quotations." It is doubtless a Good Thing™ to link people and works, and the appearance is hardly more emphatic than capitalizing proper names.

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

Those wikilinks transform the quotation into a mashup of disconnected ideas. I hope there can be consensus that this kind of linking is wildly inappropriate. In effect, the editors have taken charge of the meaning, and the poor author has been reduced to a platform from which editors can impose their own interpretations. This is far worse than bolding. - Macspaunday (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC) 17:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
In response to the statement that "wikilinks transform the quotation into a mashup of disconnected ideas" — the quotation itself remains what it is — to be interpreted in various ways by various people, according to their levels of intellectual perceptions and imagination — and in response to wikilinks meaning that "the editors have taken charge of the meaning, and the poor author has been reduced to a platform from which editors can impose their own interpretations" — this is the actual OPPOSITE of what hypertext links are inclined to permit and promote. Hypertext is a wonderful tool which can often be used to prevent the chanelling of people's minds into very narrow "reality tunnels" by ANYONE. It can also, of course be misused and overused when people actually interested in constraining the ideas available to people permit channeling ONLY to such ranges of interpretations as are admirable to their perspectives — but there is relatively little danger of this where many people of diverse opinions are free to edit both links and the pages linked to, and people who are inclined to constrain others, their thoughts and expressions improperly can be actively opposed by conscientious dissidents of various sorts. I believe any truly vital and competent society, group or project of human beings does not seek absolute calm, comfort and conformity to concretely comprehended controls or commands— but true cooperation and collaboration in opening up an keeping open channels to great diversity and growth beyond the absolute control of anyone with very limited and partisan agenda. ~ Kalki·· 19:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC) + tweaks
I suppose I thought that WQ was designed to present quotations by other people, not the "thoughts and expressions" of the editors, but perhaps I was mistaken. - Macspaunday (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I disagree to an extent. Although I do not think that editors should use quotes as a vehicle to express their own politics or other views, I do think that if a quote references roses, for example, we should link to our page on Roses, because people who find one quote on the subject to be interesting might enjoy reading others. BD2412 T 00:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

New admin nomination[edit]

Collingwood (talk · contributions), who has been very active here since late last year, has applied for adminship privileges here at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Collingwood‎‎. ~ Kalki·· 18:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Archive bot[edit]

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

Could be useful, especially for this page, although things are rather quiet over here. --Tryst (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to know if people would be interested though, because I'm almost certain that whoever reviews a possible request for approval might want to be aware. Hazard-SJ (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Please do. 121a0012 (talk) 02:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Approval requested. Hazard-SJ (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Starting there, it should say something like this:

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

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

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

This makes sense, although it should be remembered that other wikis also contain copyright material used under fair use. Wikipedia often has quotes, and also photos, which we don't have. I don't know how easy it would be to change this wiki without changing others.--Collingwood (talk) 06:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd suggest changing the MediaWiki text per ViperSnake151 - could be confusing to users who are clued-up on copyright, seeing as a large proportion of the quotations on Wikiquote ARE copyrighted. --Tryst (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
There are a couple different notices involved here:
See Meta:Licensing update/Implementation#Terms for edit screen for policy requirements for these messages. I have a few thoughts about revising these:
  1. I do not think the first message needs to be changed. I understand the idea of alluding to presentation copyright, but "your contribution" is sufficiently all-encompassing and does not need to be particularized as "your original content, and the compilation of non-original content contained in this page." You agree to release everything you post here, period.
  2. In the second message, I don't like the bold-all-caps line either. I would prefer to replace it with the following:
    • Quotations from copyrighted material that exceed the bounds of Fair Use will be deleted.
  3. The part of the second message that has always bugged me is "Please cite your sources so others can check your work." That is fine for Wikipedia, where one needs to verify information upon which original writing is based; but we are talking about quotations here and, as I often say, "If it ain't cited, it ain't a quote." (You can quote me on that.) I would prefer to replace it with the following:
    • Please cite your sources. Un-sourced attributions will be deleted. If it ain't cited, it ain't a quote.
That is just my 3¢ on these system messages. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I would do this for the lower area
  • You are encouraged to follow the layout guide and manual of style.
  • In order to be considered fair use, excessive quotations from copyrighted works may be removed.
  • Do not simply copy and paste lists of quotes from other websites; there may be legal issues, or not be in the correct formatting used by Wikiquote.
  • For testing, please use a sandbox
This summarizes everything neatly. ViperSnake151 (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I like it, but I would suggest working a link to WQ:LOQ. BD2412 T 04:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Why not pipe "excessive quotations" to WQ:LOQ ? Also agree with Ningauble that there should be a message which explicitly encourages sourcing. --Tryst (talk) 12:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

And also[edit]

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

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

I absolutely agree that we need to decide which of these drafts should be policy and mark them as such. BD2412 T 21:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I've created Wikiquote:Requests for comments, based on the system over at Commons, which I think might be good way to decided which ones can be accepted etc. Would we need to confirm that page as a policy before opening an RFC on our policies ? --Tryst (talk) 09:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I also agree that we need to formalize these things, because common sense seems inadequate to the need. I am not sure which ones, or portions thereof, might better be called "guidelines" rather than "policies" due to the amount of subjectivity involved. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a policy called BRD - be bold, revert, discuss; the basic idea is that if you think something should be done, do it; if yo think something shouldn't have been done, revert it; and once a bold action has been reverted, discuss it to come to a resolution. That is a good policy for us to adopt when we are dealing with such subjective things as what makes a quotable quote. However, I do think we need to adopt WQ:Q as policy so that we can at least say that this is not a free-for-all, and that we have reasons grounded in policy (which is itself backed up by common sense explained on the policy page) for allowing or deleting quotes. BD2412 T 04:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The Human and the MIND! by Jevwegaga Helen[edit]

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events: Small minds discuss people.

Everything about someone's success or failure originates from the MIND! —This unsigned comment is by Jevwegaga.Helen (talkcontribs) 08:38, 28 May 2012.

Microscopic minds just plagiarize.
... as if that quote originates from your own mind. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Dr. Ningauble!41.84.163.4 14:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events: Small minds discuss people....Eleanor Roosevelt also, Microscopic minds just plagiarize....Ninguable 41.84.163.4 15:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Be careful about quoting people out of context. My remark was not a response to Eleanor Roosevelt, but to "Jevwegaga.Helen". ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Links to external hosts of complete works[edit]

I frequently see quotes from poems and essays with citations including external links to websites hosting the complete work. I think that we should try, to the extent that we are able, to link to Wikisource if the complete work is hosted there (and if it is not, but is in the public domain, to add it there). Cheers! BD2412 T 20:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Perhaps this should be added to the templates, with some accompanying guidance as you have suggested above.. ~ UDScott (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Certainly we should encourage any links available to Wikisource, but there are also many advantages to providing links to other sites as well, which often have formatting and file-format options beyond those at Wikisource. Links to non-commercial sites like the Internet Archive, Project Gutenberg, PBS-related web pages and various scholarly project-pages at many universities should definitely also regularly be provided — and I believe it best not to create absolutist rules excluding sources, though generally non-commercial ones should be preferred and most prominent, save in the rather rare exception when there is definite value in some particular sections of a site which are focused on the subject of the Wikiquote page. ~ Kalki·· 02:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
To be clear, I am not referring to the "External links" section of the page, but to links in the citations themselves. For example, at Samuel Taylor Coleridge#Sourced, many of the names of the poems themselves are linked to external sites, when all of these poems should be on Wikisource. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Links to high quality online public domain editions are indeed good. It is also good to support our sister project, but their version is not always the best choice. I have sometimes chosen Project Gutenberg because they are much more consistent about identifying the actual edition on which their version is based. I have also noticed some cases where the translations available at Wikisource are recognized by scholars to be of poor quality. (E.g. "interpretive translations" such as Jowett's Republic of Plato are often filled with so much material reflecting the translator's milieu that they are misleading as resources for quoting what the original author said.)

So, yes, do link to free online editions; but don't let fraternal partiality unduly influence choices. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

My answer to deficiencies in Wikisource pages will always be, fix what is in Wikisource. If Gutenberg has more complete information, copy it to Wikisource, as it is all in the public domain. BD2412 T 18:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I can't very well "fix" information about the source edition when I can't figure out what the heck edition they were working from.

The translation problem is a bigger one. For Plato's Republic, my preferred translation is not in the public domain, and the most widely used public domain edition is a very poor source for quoting Plato. I ran into a similar problem working on the Jules Verne article. Early editions are in the public domain, but are very poor quality translations rushed out for the American audience while Verne was a current hot item in Europe. Recent scholarship has produced much better translations; but they are not yet in the public domain.

Call me lazy but, even when good editions are in the public domain, I would rather just cite them than reproduce them. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Voting on guideline status for Wikiquote:Fictional characters‎[edit]

I have suggested that this draft be promoted to guideline status. Please see the talk page for a !vote. --Tryst (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

In light of the clear consensus in support of this proposition, and the fact that the conversation has not drawn any additional comment in a long time, I have promoted the page to guideline status. BD2412 T 20:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Why was I banished?[edit]

Who is handling the "Giordano Bruno" page? All I did was go in and update the External Link to an article I wrote. It was used in the write up, praised and a link to my article was given at the end of the entry. The link is no longer valid but the article exists on several other websites and is also an essay on Kindle. I changed the link so it would be good and the next day... voila, it was gone and ALL REFERENCES to what I'd said about Bruno were also expunged from the entry.

I'd like to know why, who is handling this page, and discuss it with them. My contribution was valid and interesting. If I'm not allowed to link to a Kindle book just tell me. I can change it to a posting on the Shakespeare Authorship page. And why would the author go further and remove any contributions I made in addition to removing the link?

Thank you for your help.

Julia —This pseudo-signed comment is by Lightgraphs (talkcontribs) 20:31, 4 June 2012.

Hi Julia. The reason why the link was removed is that it was, intentional or not, advertising, because the site you linked to does not contain a copy of the text, but offers it for sale. If you can link to a freely available copy of the text, that might be appropriate. I can't see where any user has removed "all references" to what you'd said about Bruno, please link the page diff. This may or may not be appropriate, depending on the nature of your other contributions. Thank you. --Tryst (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
It was I who removed it, because it was a link to a retail sales page.[1] I did not remove any other contributions from this user, and the user is not bannished. Since the user signing "Julia" may be the author of the book offered for sale, I should also point out that Wikiquote is NOT to be used for for advertising. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Ningauble[edit]

Thanks for getting back to me. I should never have liked to a commercial version of my article and realize that now. I must have dreamed there was mention of me in the entry :) I'm very new to this and don't even know how to reply to your reply to me. The Bruno page is excellent, by the way. I will redo the link to the page of the Shakespeare Authorship Roundtable where the essay, under another name, can be downloaded as a free pdf file. Again, thank you. - Julia

Wikiquote:Sourcing[edit]

This proposed policy has been stable for 18 months now. I propose that it should now be formally made a policy.--Collingwood (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Yep, I support this. --Tryst (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support bringing this solid and well written document in out of the cold. BD2412 T 15:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Process comment: This proposal is posted in duplicate (with minor variation) here and at Wikiquote talk:Sourcing. I think it would be best to record the official vote at the proposed policy's talk page, where the record of official adoption will be easier to find in the future. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, my intention here was just to draw attention to the real discussion.--Collingwood (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Revision deletion[edit]

Do Wikiquote sysops have the ability to delete revisions ? If so, should there be a policy concerning the use of this tool ? I was specifically wondering whether it would be worth rev-deleting personal attacks which are visible (through edit summaries) in page history. Thanks. --Tryst (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

  • I haven't tried it yet, but I seem to have the ability to hide revisions and edit summaries.--Collingwood (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, it works here, and has been used occasionally for extreme cases. I don't see much value in trying to scrub every bit of garden variety #&$%@ that %$&@#'s post, and we have been leaving it to administrator discretion to decide when the tool is warranted. Wikipedia has developed a detailed policy for this, which admins here should review, but its primary purpose is to limit use of the tool. Over-use has not been a problem at Wikiquote. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Ok, thanks for your reply. --Tryst (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Popups[edit]

Is the popups gadget available on this wiki? This previous request is all I could find, and suggests that the answer is no. --ColinFine (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Year pages (e.g. 629, 2001 etc)[edit]

I propose that we delete most of these placeholder pages, because there is little which is highly quotable about individual years. Any attempt to catalogue quotations from works published in the year on these pages would be mammoth task. We can redirect years which are the names of other things to their respective pages: i.e. 1984 to Nineteen Eighty-Four. The problem with keeping the placeholder pages is that they impoverish user experience, because there are a lot of them and therefore frequently encountered through Special:Random. Thanks. --Claritas (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe they should be retained, for though it would be a mammoth project to develop these pages further, that does not mean it could not eventually be undertaken, and meanwhile, they are somewhat useful in the introductory section formatting. ~ Kalki·· 00:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree that they could be of use some day and I believe the inconvenience of having them show up when a random link is used is worth it versus the pain of having to first delete them and later perhaps recreate them. Additionally, most pages already link to them through birth and death dates, so the deletion of them could lead to additional red links on pages. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I find them interesting if you click on "What links here".--Collingwood (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Maybe we could add a note to the pages suggesting browsers to click "What links here", per Collingwood's point. BD2412 T 04:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd also rather keep these, the what links here information is interesting, whether we present it to our end users or not. --User:Tryst (talk to me!) 10:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm new, so I'm pretty unfamiliar with the whole process and all, but I'm learning and hope to learn more in the future. Wikiquote has been a great resource for me over the last few years, but particularly now as I start a new project for my classroom (I'm a teacher). Anyway, I like the year pages. Indeed, I've often thought of editing them and placing quotes in the page that come from that particular year - regardless of content/context. I think such a project would be somewhat beneficial for students (secondary or post-secondary education) who are looking for quotes from particular years to somewhat summarize the time period. Just kind of thinking out loud here. --Ebt66 (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd support that proposal, provided you know for certain the exact year of the quote. That can be tricky.--Collingwood (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I suppose a possible issue would be the formatting of the quotes within the year: Do we break up quotes within the year chronologically or geographically. I think both have merits. As a historian, I would like to say geographically and then chronologically. A lot of times, anecdotal quotes can give you a feel (culturally, sociologically) for the era and collecting them like this would permit such study as a positive unintended consequence. Ebt66 (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that these pagesare very confusing for one who doesn't know the wiki extremely well (and I don't mean Wikimedia projects in general or even Wikiqote but en.quote, for few Wikiquotes have similar pages). --Nemo 11:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Video games and online games?[edit]

I don't know why there isn't a section for quotes from games, both video and online (such as an MMORPG). Will there ever be one? If not, is it against a "rule"? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm new here, but I already found a bunch of video game related articles and quotes, namely Halo, video games, Warcraft III, Psychonauts, and now League of Legends (although the last one is my own addition :P ) Drew R. Smith (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
We have pages for individual (notable and quotable) games. --User:Tryst (talk to me!) 18:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Working draft for revising Wikiquote:Image use policy[edit]

There is now a working draft at Wikiquote talk:Image use policy/Draft1 available for discussion. There was extensive discussion earlier this year and no new ideas have been suggested for the past couple months, so I assembled a draft to give it concrete expression. Please help to improve the draft by editing it directly or by commenting at Wikiquote talk:Image use policy#Working draft. Thanks. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Ningauble has done really splendid work here, and I hope all interested editors will visit the discussion page (Wikiquote talk:Image use policy#Working draft) and express their views. This proposed policy, if implemented, will produce a major and thoroughgoing improvement to WQ. Macspaunday (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I have moved the draft to the policy page and marked it as policy, as there is a fairly clear consensus in support of it, and has been no further discussion on the proposal for the past week. BD2412 T 18:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Censorship discussion[edit]

I have started a proposal to modify WQ:NOT at Wikiquote talk:What Wikiquote is not. Thank you. --User:Tryst (talk to me!) 13:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to have a link to download the quotes page in .fortune format[edit]

Hi all!

I have found that Wikipedia has now a link that allows users to download the page in .pdf format.

I would like to propose a similar link that would allow any user to download the quotes in .fortune format. A little bit outdated format. But there is a big group of users that would fancy the idea of visiting this site if they are able to download new fortune cookies for their fortune program (used to be a Linux program)

The link should be a .cgi script that would format the page's quotes like this...
__________________________
quote1
%%
quote2
%%
...
quoten
__________________________

The program that would make the random selection of all the .fortune files in the user's directory could be something as simple as the following script:

cat *.fortune | perl -e"my @lis; map{push(@lis,$_) if ($_!~/^%% *$/)}(<>);my $r=rand(1+$#lis); print($lis[$r],$/)"
Ne'er take a wife till thou hast a house (& a fire) to put her in.


I could have proposed the final perl.cgi script if I had known the way of identifying a quote from the rest of the page in order to first filter the content that would become the .fortune file...

I find the idea simple, cheap and user friendly as a way of promoting the site. I hope you also fancy the idea!
Good luck! Alberto

This is a nice idea, but one issue it would face is that not all quotations are properly formatted, so any perl script using regexpres to search for quotations would end up adding some non-quotation strings to the database, which would rather ruin it. --User:Tryst (talk to me!) 06:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Mobile view as default view coming soon[edit]

Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg

The mobile view of this project and others will soon become the default view on mobile devices (except tablets). Some language versions of these projects currently show no content on the mobile home page, and it is a good time to do a little formatting so users get a mobile-friendly view, or to add to existing mobile content if some already exists.

If you are an administrator, please consider helping with this change. There are instructions which are being translated. The proposed date of switching the default view is June 21.

To contact the mobile team, email mobile-feedback-lAt sign.svglists.wikimedia.org.


Note: The above message has been sent out recently to all non-Wikipedia projects on behalf of Phil Inje Chang (Product Manager, Mobile for the Wikimedia Foundation), using Global message delivery. Hoewever, this Wikimedia project is one of the very few where the Global message delivery bot delivering this and many other notices of global interest (examples) is currently blocked. This time, I'm posting the message here manually since I happened to notice that http://en.m.wikiquote.org/ is indeed one of those mobile main pages which are showing no content at the moment and should be updated before next week. However, it is not feasible to do this every time a global message goes out, and without trying to tell anyone how the bot policy should be interpreted in this case, I would like to highlight the fact that this project has currently opted out of these global messages, and as long as this is the case, the English Wikiquote community should seek other ways to keep itself informed about anything one may deem relevant in those notices. (If you are active on Meta, one possibility to do so is to watch m:Wikimedia Forum, where most of the global messages are posted as well.) Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 05:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding communications breakdown:
  1. It may be noted that when the abovementioned bot was blocked it was not, and had never been, used to send "notices of global interest" to the project's Village Pump. It was used to broadcast mass mailings to user talk pages in a manner thought by some to be inappropriate.
  2. I monitor Meta's Wikimedia Forum at least once per week (usually more often) and I do not recall seeing a notice like this there. (I may have missed it because I generally disregard request from developers for assistance.)
It might behoove the Foundation's Community & Reader Relations department(oops, it's defunct) or the Sister Projects Committee(oops, it hasn't been formed) or <SOMEBODY> to find a better way to distribute official Foundation communications to the communities it serves. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Regarding implementation of the mobile interface:

Curiously, other pages do render content (after a fashion) at the mobile URL. It is not clear whether non-display of the Main Page is due to some quirk of incompatibility that only happens on that page, or whether it is deliberately disabled in order to "encourage" the project to begin reformatting its pages for small screens.

<rant> If the mobile interface is incompatible with standard Wiki markup then the developers need to fix it. If volunteer contributors are expected to manually mark up pages to generate separate editions of the wiki for different devices then, well, that is asking a lot. If it is simply the case that the Main page has been manually turned off, has anybody tried turning it on? </rant>

There are serious problems with the utility of the mobile pages, e.g. the search tool is nonfunctional and essential navigation links from the skin are missing. Without search or navigation the whole thing seems completely unusable to me. Maybe I am just missing something that does not render on a PC, because I am not a mobile user. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Request for Comment[edit]

You may be aware of the English Wikipedia's blackout to protest the proposed U.S. legislation Stop Online Piracy Act and PROTECT IP Act and the Italian Wikipedia's protest of the proposed Italian legislation DDL intercettazioni. The Wikimedia Foundation wants to know whether the Wikimedia community is willing for it to join an organization called the Internet Defense League, which has the professed aim of coördinating more such protests. Unfortunately, the Foundation representatives only directly notified that part of the community that is on the English Wikipedia. ☺ The RFC, on Meta, is hyperlinked above.

Uncle G (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Image removal[edit]

I have entered a comment on Talk:Carl_Sagan#Removal_of_images on which I am sure some will wish to comment. I am not arguing for a reversal of the well-discussed policy. Rather I am questioning its application in a specific instance (not for all such pages). ~ UDScott (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit that UDScott questioned, and I hope there can be further discussion about the question he raises. I've noted at least one issue at Talk:Carl_Sagan#Removal_of_images that I hope might be worth considering. Macspaunday (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Although the changes at Carl Sagan are now being discussed, I continue to see that many pages are having images removed that I believe do not need to be, based on the new policy. It seems that the only images being left are those that depict the person that is the subject of the page. While I agree that these are the most relevant, there are many others that should meet the criteria for inclusion according to the policy, but are being removed. Just to provide two small examples: an image of a rose, with the accompanying quote "Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose." was removed from the Gertrude Stein page. Also, an image of birch trees, with the accompanying quote "One could do worse than be a swinger of birches." was removed from the Robert Frost page. To me, the policy does not explicitly forbid these kinds of images. Just as I wondered about the removal of images from the Carl Sagan page, I am again wondering if the removal effort is going a bit far. I am all for eliminating unrelated and POV images, but I believe we are perhaps going a little too far and may be throwing out the baby with the bath water. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I certainly would not argue against reverting those images that you mention. Likewise I wouldn't try to argue for the following point (because I know it's inevitably a matter of opinion), but I suppose I tend to think that nothing is added by adding a picture of a rose to the Gertrude Stein quotation (for example); she was a poet who was interested in words; a picture of a rose in some sense reinterprets what is (like most of her work) verbal playing into a statement that points toward a physical reality rather than existing in the realm of words. Of course I'm interpreting her also, but it seems to me far more likely that we're going to impose a POV by adding illustrations to a poet or novelists's work. Macspaunday (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
To change the subject slightly: my heart sinks when I see how pervasive the problem of irrelevant images is on WQ. Look at the list of pages that contain '"File:Herz_aus_Feuer.jpg" [[2]]. I don't think the image is even remotely relevant on any of the forty quotation pages listed. This policy is going to take a very long time to implement.... Macspaunday (talk) 13:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
File:Herz_aus_Feuer.jpg ? Yes check.svgY Done. I've made a userspace listing of some other files which are overused. --User:Tryst (talk to me!) 17:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Having looked over that list, it seems that they are a very generic lot. I can't see very many pages in which any of them would legitimately conform to the policy as amended, and would support their blanket removal from all pages. BD2412 T 23:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Some more for the list?
File:Fire_dancing_in_the_water_20060623_TVR.jpg
File:Whirpool_Galaxy.jpg
File:Bbrot225x225x24.PNG
File:Fogbow_glory_spectre_bridge.JPG
File:M51_whirlpool_galaxy_black_hole.jpg
- Macspaunday (talk) 01:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Generally, in accordance with our revised policy, images of galaxies should only be found on pages relating to space, or in connection with quotes about galaxies, perhaps on pages for astronomers and astrophysicists. BD2412 T 03:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Your last point raises an interesting question: File:Whirpool_Galaxy.jpg is an illustration on the Fred Hoyle page, but it illustrates a quotation about evolution, one that has nothing to do with astronomy, physics, galaxies, etc. It appears that the new policy suggests that the fact that an author is an astrophysicist does not imply that astronomical images are suitable as illustrations to quotations from that author about subjects that aren't related to astrophysics at all. Does that sound right? It might be worth spelling out the policy on these matters, or maybe a discussion is enough? Macspaunday (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's one for Tryst's excellent list, which may be the most overused, and most irrelevantly overused, image in the entire project: File:LuMaxArt Golden Family With World Religions .jpg. Only the first hundred pages that use it are listed on the image page. By the way, if anyone is looking for a single page that's saturated with overused, irrelevant images, Albert Einstein is a good place to start. Macspaunday (talk) 11:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

File:LuMaxArt Golden Family With World Religions .jpg is bad, although I've found some appropriate usages of it. File:Arco iris circular.JPG, on the other hand, is inappropriate on every page which it is used in, because we don't have any quotation pages about glories and rings. --User:Tryst (talk to me!) 12:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Here's another one, used irrelevantly on 30+ quotation pages: File:A_Young_Pulsar_Shows_its_Hand.jpg Macspaunday (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Good way to find these is Special:MostLinkedFiles. --User:Tryst (talk to me!) 15:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah! Didn't know that! Thanks! - Macspaunday (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay "kiddies". You seem to be having a lot of fun in your massive rampage of what I consider massive and relatively thoughtless vandalism sanctioned by what I consider to be the EXTREMELY ill informed "official policy" a VERY few people recently created. I will attempt to make some response to this myself in the next day or so — but I expect to be VERY busy, and out of contact with the internet for at least a few days soon — so I will not have time to make as much response and engage in as much dialogue as I would obviously like to. Have your fun, while you can, I will be busy considering the options available to a rational absurdist, and hope to have a far more thorough presentation of my impressions by early next month. I truly expect to be FAR too busy to do very much prior to that. ~ Kalki·· 17:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Just so that we're clear -- and I've tried to make this point for several years now -- Wikiquote is not "Kalki's personal art project". The new policy is correct and appropriate for Wikiquote's mission, which is presenting authentic quotations, not random assemblages of images that happen to remind someone of something that might be vaguely related to something the author of the quotation might once have seen in high-school physics class. 121a0012 (talk) 03:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Kalki should not have any more influence over the choice of images than any other active editor. However, it is important to remember that phe has done a very large amount of work illustrating our pages, and phe might not appreciate the removal of such a large number of images without suitable replacements.--User:Tryst (talk to me!) 09:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps the central question here is whether many of these quotations should be illustrated at all. The authors used words to convey their meaning, not images. An illustration changes the mood and meaning of a quotation, just as background music would change its mood and meaning. (Some of us remember the bad old days when many web pages started playing background music when you opened them.) WQ doesn't have links to sound clips in which a hundred violins play romantic music while you read a quotation about love (and I hope no one decides that this might be a good idea). In the same way, it shouldn't have pictures of galaxies or nineteenth-century academic paintings or heart-shaped stones providing "background images" that work like background music. The point of WQ is to provide accurate quotations; I don't think it serves the project to add images that guide a reader into a specific mood for interpreting them. - Macspaunday (talk) 11:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Such is The Treachery of Images:  The word and the image are not the same thing, nor is either one the thing to which it refers. Still, it would be Solipsism to deny that they can refer to anything. Genuine relevance can exist when they refer to the same thing.

The analogy with elevator music is apt, and I cringe when I see serious thinkers reduced, by banal stream of consciousness imagery, to the level of New Age sentimentality (or as some spell it, "newage" – rhymes with "sewage"). But though page illustration can be done badly, as has happened at times, the new policy reflects a consensus that it can be done well. The policy should not be applied too mechanically, but by considering the relevance in each case. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

One thing I often notice is that pages on Western thinkers are illustrated with incongruent Eastern images, such as File:Taijitu polarity.PNG (which occurs on the pages of Kierkegaard and many others), while the pages of Eastern thinkers tend to be illustrated appropriately. --User:Tryst (talk to me!) 16:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Amen to every word of Ningauble's and Tryst's remarks. Far too much of WQ suffers from the visual counterpart of elevator music; and every policy, including this one, needs to be applied intelligently and sensitively. - Macspaunday (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Following Tryst's reference to File:Taijitu polarity.PNG, I visited Erich Fromm, which is one of the linked pages. Question: are any of the images on that page relevant to the quotations? (Most of them are equally irrelevant on the dozens of other pages on which they also used.) - Macspaunday (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
File:Washington Before Yorktown.jpg is pretty relevant to the captioned quotation, as it shows a successful revolutionary who is widely considered to have been a great statesman. The rest, not so much. --User:Tryst (talk to me!) 17:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
But the point of the quotation is surely that the revolutionary who succeeds therefore (because he succeeded) gets labeled by history as a statesman, while the one who fails therefore gets labeled by history as a criminal. (More or less the same idea as "history gets written by the victors.") By putting a picture of Washington in this context, the picture implies that Washington was a statesman because he succeeded, while he would have been a criminal if the American Revolutionary War had failed. Perhaps that isn't what anyone really wants to say about Washington himself, because Washington presumably would have been statesmanlike even if he had failed. The quotation is not an idealistic assertion that a statesmanlike revolutionary will achieve success; it says something cynical instead: that a revolutionary who succeeds will have the status of a statesman, while one who fails has the status of a crook. I'm not really sure the quotation can be illustrated at all, but of course this is a matter that reasonable people can disagree about. - Macspaunday (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I interpret the quotation differently, I think what it is implying is that the qualities needed to be a truly successful revolutionary will make that revolutionary a great statesman. --User:Tryst (talk to me!) 18:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Hmm... In its original context, it can actually be interpreted both ways. It's in a paragraph about spontaneity, and how spontaneous people become known as artists. That suggests that there's a character difference, as in your interpretation. But at the the end of the paragraph, it says that the artist who is unable to "sell" his work - whatever its merits - becomes known as a crank, and that supports the interpretation I offered earlier. Here is the relevant context:
"The position of the artist is vulnerable, though, for it is really only the successful artist whose individuality or spontaneity is respected; if he does not succeed in selling the art, he remains to his contemporaries a crank, a 'neurotic.' The artist in this matter is in a similar position to that of the revolutionary throughout history. The successful revolutionary is a statesman, the unsuccessful one a criminal."
So the end of the paragraph, which is where the quotation comes from, refers to the position of the revolutionary - whether he has the position of a statesman or that of a criminal. But the beginning of the paragraph (easy to find on Google Books [[3]]) implies that spontaneity - character - determines success. Both interpretations seem to me plausible, depending on which part of the paragraph you focus on, but the illustration interprets the quotation only in one way and excludes an at least equally plausible interpretation. In other words, the illustration provides a POV, and perhaps that isn't something that WQ should do. - Macspaunday (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
We should try to avoid inserting POV. However, I'd rather have a set of thought-provoking images to accompany the quotations here rather than virtually none on the grounds that we don't want to add a nuanced POV to our pages. --User:Tryst (talk to me!) 18:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I notice that Erich Fromm and over a dozen other pages use the United Nations flag as an image for quotes relating to peace. This is hardly a noncontroversial connection. Many people do not consider the UN to be a peacemaking organization, or at least not an effective one. BD2412 T 21:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is a particularly obvious and problematic POV. --User:Tryst (talk to me!) 10:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
As I have been far too busy to join in addressing the various shallow or profound conceits which are apparently perceived or unperceived by various people, as they deliver their commentary, I simply will remark that I had hoped to give a more extensive critique of recent activities here than I have thus far been able to do, but have simply been too busy to devote sufficient time to that. As I anticipated, many concerns delayed my departure on a trip, but also prevented me from attending to things here — I am about to shutdown my computer, as I prepare to leave home, for at least a couple weeks; I wish everyone well, and now intend to be at the Wikimania events by the 11th, if possible, or the 12th at the latest, probably leaving DC on the 15th. I still do not expect to have time to do attend to mamy things here thoroughly until next month. Blessings to all, whatever levels and styles of conceits you embrace. So it goes... ~ Kalki·· 08:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Here is another image of the United Nations which is used on many pages as an image of peace and harmony: File:UN_General_Assembly.jpg. It adds POV exactly in the same way that the UN flag does (as noted in some posts above). - Macspaunday (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • A policy was very much needed, of course implementation needs work and this is an interesting discussion. I've asked a qestion on the policy talk, and I also strongly suggest to update mediawiki:sitenotice so that all users, not only village pump regulars, know about the new policy and help with it. Thanks, Nemo 11:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

"When man forgets how to live, he makes laws"[edit]

To whom is this quote attributable? Possibly a Native American chief.

No google hits.--User:Tryst (talk to me!) 10:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking for a good example[edit]

Is there a good example entry at Wikiquote. I'm trying to find an entry that is completely formatted, fully referenced, blah blah blah, so I can learn how to do it properly. Thanks. 64.40.57.18 18:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Just find articles written by any of the administrators here. See for example those listed on User:BD2412 or my user page.--Collingwood (talk) 08:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, Collingwood. I ended up looking at transclusions of {{cite news}} and {{cite book}} and found the articles; Albert Einstein and Winston Churchill. In these articles, it looks like each quote has the reference right below it. I ask because I'm used to Wikipedia where all the references are gathered at the end of the article in a References section. Would these be considered some of the best articles on Wikiquote? Thanks in advance. 64.40.54.3 10:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Those are both quite good articles, but very long so maybe not ideal as a model for a short one. We do have the cite templates, and some people find them helpful, but they are not essential. Try looking at Candles.--Collingwood (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, most of the entries at Candles are missing the date. Compare Roses, or, for a person, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.. BD2412 T 17:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
The "selected pages" listed on the Main Page are generally held in high regard, and exemplify a variety of article types; though some may not still have the same quality as when they were first listed and, as Collingwood notes, some are unusually lengthy and, as BD2412 notes, the precision of citations is sometimes uneven. Citation templates are ok, but their format is really designed for the layout of footnotes and bibliographies.

Yes, the citations go with the quotes, as is standard practice in printed compendia of quotations, rather than in footnotes. 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.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Lots of good info here. Thanks for the help everybody. 64.40.54.155 07:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Accessibility[edit]

I'm a long-established Wikipedian, but a novice here. Please could someone point me to Wikiquote's policy and discussion on accessibility? I can't find anything on the community portal, or by searching). Pigsonthewing (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

If you mean something on the lines of w:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility we don't seem to have such a policy. However, we have a fairly fixed format so "Headings should be descriptive and in a consistent order" and "Headings should be nested sequentially" are already effectively policy. Also, much of the WP policy would not really apply here; for example, we tend not to go for flashy templates, still less tables. Have a look at some of the articles mentioned above as examples of good formatting, and then let us know what else in the WP policy might be useful here.--Collingwood (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I asked after seeing Tim Berners-Lee, where there are two obvious problems; lack of <blockquote> (or <q>; or a templated equivalent of either) for the quotes, and line breaks between (asterisked) list items (for which w:Wikipedia:LISTGAP refers). I'd be happy to help formulate a document which covers such issues, and work on templates. Pigsonthewing (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikiquote does not use block quotes (except in a few articles that do not conform to the standard layout and need to be cleaned up). The purpose of a block quote is to separate a long quote embedded in a body of prose. Wikiquote does not embed quotations in prose, it uses a bulleted list of quotations. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. No block quotes here, that's precisely why we have the bullets. BD2412 T 02:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I wrote "<blockquote> (or <q>)". As to the purpose of <blockquote> (not "a block quote"), its purpose is semantic, not presentational - please refer to the relevant HTML specification. Pigsonthewing (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The purpose of quotation marks is also semantic (browsers variously render <q> with quotation marks or italics) but, like most compendia of quotations, Wikiquote does not use quotation marks because they are superfluous in this context: the list items are understood to be quotations. From the standpoint of accessibility, are you seriously finding it difficult to discern which portions of Wikiquote's pages are quotations and which are not? ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Your comment about quotation marks is a red herring; and my personal requirements are not the issue here. Pigsonthewing (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
No, it is not a red herring. It was a policy decision years ago not to use quotation marks, and considerable effort has been expended removing them. Personal requirements aside, can you provide any specific rationale and supporting evidence for the proposition that these tags would materially improve the accessibility of Wikiquote pages? I note that Wikipedia's WP:ACCESSIBILITY guideline makes no mention of these tags.

I also note that Wikipedia's WP:MOS:QUOTE and MOS:QUOTEMARKS guidelines make no mention of the <q> tag, and it is not commonly used at that project. The latter guideline only recommends block quotes for multi-paragraph quotations, where the visual cue is semantically useful in running text but is not necessary for Wikiquote's bulleted list of quotations style. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

"It was a policy decision years ago not to use quotation marks" As I haven't suggested that Wikiquote should use quotation marks, that's a red herring. Or, if you prefer, a strawman. Pigsonthewing (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Quote marks are very much at issue with the tag: The HTML 4.01 specification 9.2.2 requires browsers to render tagged content with quotation marks, so this is no red herring.

Many but not all widely used browsers do this, so many websites avoid browser dependency by simply not using the tag. This is probably a contributing reason reason why the tag is not well supported by assistive technologies, as noted in W3C Working Group Note H49. The complexity of supporting HTML features that major browsers handle inconsistently is also a likely reason why MediaWiki markup does not recognize or allow the tag: it is parsed as plain text like an unknown tag.

Quote marks are not a strawman unrelated to your proposal, they are the crux of problems with the tag you propose to use. Rather than just making unfounded disparaging remarks about red herrings and straw men, would you care to answer the question of how your proposal would actually improve the accessibility of Wikiquote pages? ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, I have not suggested that Wikiquote use quote marks. The W3C hatnote to which your refer specifically provides "CSS rules to suppress automatic generation of quotes". Wikiquote does not use HTML 4.01. Also again, I wrote "<blockquote> (or <q>)". The importance of using the correct, semantic markup is in another part of the accessibility guidelines whose hatnote you cite, G115: Using semantic elements to mark up structure. Indeed, it even uses quotes as an example. Pigsonthewing (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I would agree that, when text is indented to indicate a block quote, then the <blockquote> tag is useful for people who cannot see the semantic information indicated by indentation. The benefit of the <q> tag, even if it worked and assistive technologies recognized it, is much less when quotation marks are used because assistive technologies can read the punctuation.

I do not agree that semantic tags to identify quotations are necessary in a context where it is readily apparent that these are quotations. As I said above, "The purpose of quotation marks is also semantic ... Wikiquote does not use quotation marks because they are superfluous in this context." In my opinion, a context that does not need block indentation or quote marks for the sighted, does not need corresponding semantic tags for the sightless. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

[outdent] While instances of <blockquote> are commonly indented by browsers' default styles, they need not be, and in any case that can be overridden by Wikiquote's stylesheets; you continue to confuse stylistic presentation and semantic meaning. The correct process is to use the proper semantic markup, then style it to give the desire presentation; not to choose HTML elements based on their default presentation in visual browsers. Also, you say of <q> "if it worked", which falsely implies that it does not work (MediaWiki limitations notwithtanding). Punctuation marks convey no semantic meaning to assistive technology tools or other software(you;re welcome to quote the relevant HTML specification or WCAG guideline to the contrary, if you dispute this). Whether or not it is your opinion that semantic markup for quotations is necessary or beneficial is not the issue, the HTML specifications and W3C's accessibility guidelines say we should use them. Pigsonthewing (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Some clarifications —
  1. Minor details: (a) You might prefer that I say "if it worked on our platform", but the non-functionality is broader than that: major browsers treat it inconsistently and assistive technologies generally do not recognize it, so I would say that it generally does not work. (b) Any assistive reader that fails to signal the presence of quotation marks would be a piss-poor product; but I don't personally know whether any of them do better than that. (c) Wikiquote uses XHTML 1.0 Transitional, which is a reformulation of HTML 4 as XML 1.0, and the semantics of the elements are defined by HTML 4.
  2. More importantly: You are missing my point, and reading something into the specifications and guidelines that is not there. What they do say is that semantic tags should not be used for typographic effect if the semantics would be wrong. This is 100% correct. They do not say that semantic tags must be used anywhere that the semantics would be valid.
    I am not confusing stylistic presentation and semantic meaning: Notwithstanding the issue of hacking the CSS to avoid wrecking the style, I am saying that Wikiquote does not need these tags for the same reason that Bartlett's Familiar Quotations does not need quote marks – where the semantics are clear from context, neither typographic effects nor HTML tags are needed.
You continue to say that these tags ought to be used because they just ought to be used, and you have not responded to the question of how this would actually improve the accessibility of Wikiquote pages, much less identified specific benefits that can be weighed against the tradeoffs. Wikiquote is a small community with much bigger problems to worry about, such a blind links, missing citations, unclear guidelines, etc. etc. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Since I'm not suggesting (and nor has anyone else) that "semantic tags should be used for typographic effect", that's another straw man. Pigsonthewing (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
You are the one who brought up the issue of choosing HTML elements based on their visual presentation. I was rebutting your allegation that I do not comprehend the difference, and pointing out what the documents you refer to actually say. I can hardly believe that someone who has been granted special editing privileges at Wikipedia would show up here and behave so trollishly; but I now see that there is no purpose to be served by continuing this dialogue. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC) revised Ningauble (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's calm down, shall we? I'm also from the Wikipedia accessibility project. We're not going to improve anything by barging in suddenly. There are several things to improve, but we have to do a systematic and rigorous evaluation before suggesting improvements. And we should also take into account the habits of editors here, and then suggest compromises.

Ningauble's remark about the absence of quotations in our guidelines is true. I did not have the time to address this issue yet, like about 10-15 other issues. I suggest to discuss our approach as members of the accessibility project first. And later come back at Wikisource in a more delicate and comprehensive manner. Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Another start[edit]

Thanks for your interest Ningauble. I'll provide the explanations you requested. :-)

Wikiquote seems to be fairly accessible to those with disabilities, at a first glance. The type of contents used are simple, and does not bear lots of risks to impair accessibility. Headings are usually correctly nested. Images have a caption and does not contain essential information, thus the accessibility issue with images will be fixed trough a MediaWiki software improvement later on.

The only issue lies with the quotations, and it's not a big problem. A blind user would still be able to use the quotations marked as list, it's not an issue that is preventing someone to use quotations. However, it can be a little annoying. As explained in w:Wikipedia:Accessibility#Lists, making line breaks in a list breaks the list into smaller lists. For example, in Douglas Adams, there are 11 quotations under the "Quotes" heading. These are 11 lists of one item. They will all be read aloud by a screen reader as "List of 1 item: [quotation...] list end". Same for the sources in the sub-list. This is unhelpful and can be annoying, but it's not a blocking problem as I said before. A good example would be the section "Douglas Adams#The Meaning of Liff (1983)", the list will be read aloud correctly as a list of seven items.

Using the "blockquote" tag have other advantages. It will enable the content to be reused more easily on the web. And I believe it will improve search engine results. Usually, when we provide a more semantic identification of the contents, search engine are able to identify it more easily. It enables them to reuse the database, or to provide more accurate results.

Now, I'm not saying you need to convert lists to using blockquote at all costs. I'm saying it might be an improvement to consider. It seems that you did not like the layout created by the blockquote tag. I've made a layout draft on my userpage. Would such a layout seem acceptable? Are there other issues to consider when using blockquote? Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your goal, but to begin such a reformatting task would be an enormous undertaking. We must balance accessibility concerns with insuring ease of editing, particularly with respect to the large number of IP editors and other individually infrequent editors who stop by to add a favorite quote to an article or two. It is very easy and intuitive for such editors to use bullet points. More involved formatting is not so inviting. BD2412 T 19:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
This concern is important to consider, indeed. I can make templates that are fairly easy to use, so that we don't need to write all the code shown at my sandbox page. But it will never be as easy as bullets. It doesn't make sense to improve accessibility at the cost of reducing participation. If you decide to wait for the new visual editor coming next year, which might help make correct quotations in an intuitive fashion, I can only approve. Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I say the suggestion that improving accessibility will reduce participation is a straw man. where is the evidence to support this remarkable assertion? Pigsonthewing (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
It is not the goal of accessibility itself which poses a problem, it is the proposed means of achieving it. Simplicity of markup is essential for the success of a project that "anyone can edit". Manual HTML tagging and/or intricate templates are flashing red stop signs for the uninitiated. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I say it depends on the case. I generally prefer to suggest accessibility improvements that don't make the wikisyntax more complicated, or at least not in a significant way. Using blockquote would require using a template with at least two and preferably three parameters. Something like {{quote| ... |source= ... |url= ... }}. That is way more complicated than bullets! Studies demonstrated that complex syntax in Wikipedia is one of the main reasons for the editor decline. I'm not going to quote studies, it's supposed to be a widely understood fact by now. I perceive Wikiquote like the early Wikipedia, where it was all about writing content - without a care in the world for advanced layout and the like. I feel it's a good choice, and I would feel guilty if I told them to take the same direction as Wikipedia. In this case, I belive it's not worth making it more comfortable for blind users at the cost of making it less comfortable to edit for everyone. Dodoïste (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

So is there any way that we could tweak the presentation through skinning in a way that would make it more accessible to speech interfaces without changing the markup? Could we provide special CSS that overrides the default presentation of these readers to make it more appropriate? We ought to make whatever effort we can that doesn't involve completely rototilling the site. 121a0012 (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be great if it was the case. Unfortunately, the accessibility issue is not about the layout, it's about semantics. Personally, I consider this case closed. We're not going to rewrite the whole site with complicated markup, and the accessibility issue is not a high priority. I suggest to wait for Wikidata or the visual editor to find better solutions. Dodoïste (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Structure of Wikiquote[edit]

Frankly, I have thought for a long time that Wikiquote is structured entirely wrong, and that there should be some way to reduce information to the individual quote, and to call up collections of quotes by various criteria. However, that would require new software, and I doubt that such a system can be implemented from our current content. BD2412 T 12:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean, make each quotation a separate item (either a separate file or a separate item in a database), and build pages on the fly when a user asks for quotations by Shakespeare or on love or or from 1604? Very intriguing idea! - Macspaunday (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I have long felt the same as BD2412 (talk · contributions), but the result would be something very unlike a wiki in structure, at least as MediaWiki knows it. You could build such a thing as a plugin for MediaWiki with a moderate amount of development effort, but it would share very little of the user interface and editing mechanism. It might be interesting to start a conversation with the MediaWiki developers to see if they see it the same way. It would also make it much more difficult for editors to get a more global view of the quotations in a particular grouping. But it's almost certainly the right way to deal with the duplication of quotations between author and theme pages, for example, and to ensure that every quotation has some sort of citation. It would also eliminate some of these presentation issues by making it much easier for individual users (or anons) to select the presentation that is comfortable for them. But the result is that instead of working on a collective document, editors are working on a collective database, and no longer share a common view of the structure of the site. 121a0012 (talk) 04:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I would not say the current structure is "entirely wrong", but I too have occasionally thought about the advantages of a more database oriented approach. It would certainly have some benefits. However, I am skeptical about whether the design and implementation of such a system is within MediaWiki developers' scope of interest and competence. (Consider what happened when a seemingly simple idea for making talk pages work like ordinary threaded discussions, as seen everywhere on the web, turned into a complete failure with the "LiquidThreads" project.)

I am also dubious about its impact on contributor usability. The collection and layout of page views would depend on individual items having complete and consistent tagging with citations and keywords. Many users are not up to the challenge of maintaining referential integrity in a database: Consider how often we see incomplete or inconsistently spelled citations. Consider also how the current use of category tags is so minimalist and perfunctory, and what would happen if page views depended crucially on good tagging. I have thought about ways to make this work, but I have not thought of anything that is sufficiently user-friendly and scalable for a project that "anyone can edit".

In defense of the current Wikimarkup system: Although it is much maligned for not being user friendly, and the Foundation is making a major investment in replacing it with a WYSIWYG editor, it is hard to think of another collaborative authoring tool that is used so successfully by so many millions of people. Even annoying little children find it, well, child's play. I doubt Wikiquote would have achieved its prominent success[1] without this extraordinary usability (of course, association with our big sister project doesn't hurt).

[1] Prominent success: Wikiquote ranks third in traffic among quotation sites according to Alexa,[4] but the traffic leaders, BrainlessQuoteBrainyQuote and ThoughtItWasThinkExist, are citation-free zones and Wikiquote's reputation score[2] is higher than both of them.
[2] Reputation score: More sites link to us than to any other quotation site.

~ Ningauble (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

w:Wikidata will be perfect for this, once it is ready (many months away). It's already mentioned as a future use case (meta:Wikidata/Notes/Future#Wikiquote). Quiddity (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Something I would like to see is a way of intersecting categories, so that rather than having to have "Category:American actors" as a subcategory of Americans and Actors, you could just take the two categories and ask for a list of pages in both.--Collingwood (talk) 11:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

w:Wikipedia:Category intersection is a long (long) standing mediawiki feature request.
There are 2 externals tools (w:Wikipedia:CatScan), but they don't seem to support Wikiquote currently (or my overly-secure browser just isn't agreeing with them). Perhaps if you ask daniel or magnus, they might help fix the functionality for Wikiquote? HTH. Quiddity (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Dubious Lincoln quotation[edit]

There's a very dubious quotation in the first section of the Abraham Lincoln page. I've detailed the problem here: [[5]]. Is there any chance that someone who has worked on that page could consider making a change to the page? - Macspaunday (talk) 12:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hindi quotes?[edit]

I want to create a new page for Hindi comics related quotes. Should I just translate the Hindi quotes into English and post them or should I post both the original Hindi quote and it's English translation? Skagrawal4k (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Very often the original is given in articles as well as the translation.--Collingwood (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
By 'original', do you mean in original Devnagiri script or the original quote transliterated in Hindi? Skagrawal4k (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Whichever is easier.--Collingwood (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Oops, I apologise. I meant to say transliterated in English not Hindi as Hindi itself is written in Devanagiri script. Sorry to bother, but I'm new to wikiquote. Please just choose from the below options to make it easier for me.
  • Devanagiri script- मैं जा रहा हूँ।
  • Transliteration - Main ja raha hun.
  • Translation - I am going.

Now, Translation is obviously going to be a part of the article. But apart from it, should I use Devanagiri version, transliterated version, both or none? Obviously it would be easier for me to use none and just post the translation. I want to know what is the general pattern here on wikiquote. Skagrawal4k (talk) 07:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Best practice is to give the original language first, and then the English translation. The original source and the source of translation should both be cited. It is acceptable, when quoting from a translation, to omit the original if it is unavailable. (If a published English translation cannot be found then there may be some question about its "quotability" in an English compendium of quotations.) Transliterations are not necessary, and I don't think they are particularly useful because this is not WikiPronunciationGuide. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Requested entries[edit]

An editor has proposed archiving the content of Wikiquote:Requested entries. It is pretty long, but I'd like everyone here to go through it and see if there are requested entries they would like to make or requested quotes they would like to add before I do anything with it. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Susan B. Anthony and abortion quotes[edit]

I have been defending the Abortion page against IP editors who seem determined to establish an artificial equivalence between popular attribution and scholarly attribution; the two are in contradiction. I could use some help.

The issue is an anonymous 1869 essay signed "A" which was printed in Susan B. Anthony's newspaper, The Revolution. Pro-life activists have put the essay forward as being attributed to Susan B. Anthony, but all of the scholars who have studied Anthony's writings agree that it is not hers. The world's top scholar on the subject, Ann D. Gordon, says there is no proof to support the pro-life activist attributions, and that the style of the essay is not anything like Anthony's style. Other scholars agree; none oppose.

I feel it is important to tell the reader what the scholars say, so that the reader takes away the message that popular pro-life attribution is not correct. I understand that the consensus of scholarly research outweighs assertions made by political activists.

Can the article be semi-protected from IP editors? Binksternet (talk) 05:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

For a start, there's no need to say the same thing twice, so I have trimmed the reference to the second quote from the same article.--Collingwood (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
If there is reasonably a dispute as to authorship, then the quote should be listed as disputed, with the positions of the various claimants summarized in its attribution. However, it amuses me to no end that partisans of various issues use Wikiquote as a battleground for their views, as if some person will come to visit our pages and make decisions about which religion to join, which social views to adopt, and which political candidates to support, based on the collection of quotes set forth in Wikiquote. BD2412 T 15:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Any dispute about attribution would be between neutral scholars and non-neutral political activists who are not scholars. The "dispute" is unevenly weighted—skewed heavily in favor of those who have researched the matter for decades. Pro-life activists created their stance out of conjecture. I would not call it a reasonable dispute. Binksternet (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
It is a good thing to point out on the Village Pump that there is an edit war going on, but discussion of the editorial decision should place on the article talk page to keep it together. I don't think the requested page protection is needed when it is a dispute between two editors, because the IP appears to be a static address. Page protection is useful for disruption from a flood of accounts or addresses.

(I am less amused than BD. I try not to think about that kind of folly because it saddens me to consider that people who think so little of the intellect of those they seek to persuade may sometimes be right, if only with respect to persuading themselves.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me as if the IP editor is using several IPs. Binksternet (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"Man of the West" , 1958 Anthony Mann's western[edit]

Hello quoters ! I can't find any quotation out of this famous film. Or am I erring ? Thanks beforehand for your answer Arapaima (talk) 09:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

No so far we do not have a page for this film. Feel free to add it - or I might get around to it at some point. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Scott. signé Arapaima
Yes check.svgY Done - a page has been created for this film. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)