Talk:Donkey Punch (novel)/Archive 1

See also section

1. See also section should remain.
2. All links are directly relevant to the article.
3. They are helpful for visiting readers to find other interesting quotes.
4. There is simply no reason to remove this other than some odd desire to make this page as short as possible.

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Isn't your reverting of the changes that Ningauble made to this page precisely the behavior you complained about regarding actions taken by Collingwood? By your own arguments, why didn't you discuss them first? In any case, I agree with Ningauble that although the subject of the book might be about these topics, I fail to see how including them in a See also section is necessary. To me a See also section should only be used when the referred pages have a direct relationship (not just because they are about a similar subject) to the current page (e.g. referring to Superman II from Superman: The Movie). By your rationale, just about every page for a book or film or theme could be linked to many others (e.g. should we put a See also reference to War on the page for War and Peace?) ~ UDScott (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Because we are already in a discussion here, right now. -- Cirt (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this discussion did not begin until after you had reverted the changes. Oh well. I guess my sarcasm was not understood. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

At least I started an attempt at discussion, where as in the other case, there was zero attempts. -- Cirt (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

And yes, I strongly believe we should put a See also reference to War on the page for War and Peace. Maybe if we did so, it would encourage readers and users to contribute more broadly to more pages, more often! How wonderful that would be! :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

And I was not seriously suggesting this - to me that seems a bit much to have a See also section used in this way. I think a better way would be to link key words in the description of a work to relevant pages, but not to use such a section. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Different styles for different contributors on different quotes pages. A different contributor likes to randomly bold various quotes on a page as per his personal opinions of what to emphasize. I don't like that and think it's silly and unprofessional, but I don't go around removing bolding from all pages he's contributed towards. -- Cirt (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

That's another argument for another day. :-) But in this case, I think the topic at hand is a bit more than just formatting. The use of the See also section in this way, to me, could lead to ever growing lists of pages that people deem 'relevant'. It is entirely subjective. As I said earlier, I believe a better use is to refer users to pages that have a direct link to the page, rather than just because they share subject matter (which can just as easily be handled by linking keywords). The example I provided above for the Superman films is a better use of this section IMHO. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, I disagree. And you could use your time improving other pages and adding information to the Internet, instead of trying so darned hard to remove information. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

That's funny - do you really believe that's where I spend most of my time, trying to remove information? You obviously haven't seen my user page or tracked my edit history. As my work suggests, I would much rather add to this project, and I believe my contributions in that direction have been substantial. But I tire of this discussion and I don't feel that I need to further justify my opinions to you. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging it is indeed only your opinion, that is to repeatedly advocate the removal of information on multiple pages recently. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Everything on this site is opinion. That is what a wiki is all about. It is by gathering consensus (of opinons) that the project's rules and guidelines come into existence. And it's not just any information I am advocating be removed, but information that specifically does not fit into the accepted practices and guidelines established through consensus. If that concept somehow escapes you, I cannot help you. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

And yet you somehow see no need to go around removing extremely odd bolding by a different user that violates WQ:NPOV, and spend inordinately more time advocating removal of information, such as here. Double standards much. -- Cirt (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

OTHERSTUFF is a specious argument. Please focus on the merits of the question under consideration, and refrain from personalizing the dispute. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a deletion debate, but a discussion on a talk page, where we can discuss what we wish to that is relevant, and I do feel the comparison is certainly relevant. -- Cirt (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the point still holds: you are bringing up topics outside the scope of this discussion, which is what Ningauble was stating. Also, you have shown a tendency to depart from discussing the point at hand and instead go to making personal statements. But since you've brought it up, I think it's amusing that in an earlier comment, you implore me to spend more time adding to the project, and now you wish me to remove formatting on pages. First, I don't really find the bolding to be all that objectionable (isn't the selection of what quotes are put on a page indicative of a POV as well?). But assuming you do, why don't you do something about it instead of expecting others to do it? There's only so much time in my day that I can devote to this site and I have plenty of other tasks that are either more important or interest me more. I stand by my record as one who has added much content and tried to always improve the site. With so few regular editors, there's more than enough work to go around - if you feel so strongly about something, feel free to make changes. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I would do something about it, but without your support to fix violations of WQ:NPOV using bolding by a particular user, he'd instantly revert me most likely. :( And removing bolding is most certainly not the same as advocating removing entire subsections of sourced content. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Why do you need me or anyone else to provide any support to fix something? I'm confused as to why you feel so powerless. Any user (but especially a fellow admin) has the ability to make such changes - that's the beauty of a wiki. And once again, I don't think you are properly characterizing what I am advocating removing - just because content is sourced does not mean that it should remain. You don't seem to get the point that this is a site for quotable quotes, not excerpts of book reviews. And if removing bolding is so trivial, then why is it so important to remove? I'm really at a loss as to what it is you expect of me and other users or admins, but as I said before, there's so much to be worked on here and not enough hours in the day to do it all. If you feel there is a problem open a discussion about it or just be bold and make changes yourself. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Bolding is not trivial. It is important to remove. It violates WQ:NPOV. It is more important to remove than spending all this time advocating removal of sourced content. -- Cirt (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

This discussion of bolding is off-topic for this page, the purpose of which is to discuss improvements to the Donkey Punch (novel) article. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Attempt at compromise

Attempt at compromise:

1. Use local link for crime in lede, then removed it from See also. diff.
2. Used local link for boxing in lede, then removed it from See also. diff.
3. Removed See also section, now only one link. diff.

Above is good faith attempt at compromise. Hopefully it will be seen as satisfactory. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so no one's acknowledged my good faith attempt at compromise, oh well. :( -- Cirt (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You might wait a day or two before impatiently proclaiming your need for acknowledgement. Some people occasionally take breaks for such things as, e.g., sleeping or eating or, as also occurred in my case, calling on a family member in hospital. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for acceding to the consensus, even if you disagree with it, and removing the "See also" section that you had restored to the article. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome! Thank you for thanking me! I appreciate that! Very much! Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of speech

I invite all those commenting above to help me expand the page Freedom of speech. I've recently cleaned it up and re-ordered the quotes in chronological order. :) It's an extremely important topic to have a resource on for reference here on the Internet. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Update:

• Freedom of speech (cleanup after tagged for cleanup).

Phew, that was a fun little project. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

This section is off-topic for this page, the purpose of which is to discuss improvements to the Donkey Punch (novel) article. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Duly noted, thanks. However, I would hope most netizens are interested in researching Freedom of speech. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Note

Created, with text from lede at en.wikipedia intro. -- Cirt (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Quotability and promotional aspects

I don't think the quotes in the About section display any quotability. These are unremarkably ordinary book review remarks. The links to book reviews in the Further reading section seem superfluous to Wikiquote's purpose and, together with the extent of the article introduction, give the page an appearance of promotional tone. I recommend deleting these sections and trimming the introduction. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleting all of them? Why don't we just delete all About sections on this website? That seems silly. C'mon. Let's discuss which specific ones you are so worried about, and why, please. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, actually I would agree that all of the quotes in the About section on this page be deleted. As Ningauble stated, none rise to the level of quotability and are merely book review fluff - which is not really the aim of this project. Only when About quotes rise to a higher level would I recommend keeping them (for pages other than people pages). For example, on the Atlas Shrugged page (by the way, an eminently more important piece of literature than Donkey Punch), you will find the following:

• From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: "To a gas chamber — go!"
  • Whittaker Chambers, "Big Sister is Watching You" in National Review (28 December 1957)

• There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
  • John Rogers, in one of his "Ephemera" posts.
  • Quoted in "I'm Ellsworth Toohey!" by Paul Krugman.

To me, these reflect what is worth keeping in About sections, but not what is here on this page. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

1. Respectfully disagree. These are quotes from secondary sources.
2. They are not quotes from the book's publisher or publicist or public relations person.
3. They are from book reviews.
4. Their primary purpose is to analyze the book itself, not to "promote" it.
5. It is helpful to give the reader interesting quotes on analysis of the literary work.
6. It doesn't harm anything to leave the quotes in place.
7. Let us trend towards inclusion of more information as opposed to removal of an entire subsection.

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I still don't see the purpose. Regardless of whether or not the sources are secondary or are promotional in nature, our aim is to provide quotable quotes, not to provide a compendium of what reviewers think about a work, especially if said quotes are not pithy or quotable on their own. Perhaps such review quotes might make more sense on WP, but I don't see their value here. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

They are quotable. -- Cirt (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean "quotable" on the sense of the Wikiquote:Quotability guideline, or "quotable" in the sense of being suitable for dust jacket copy?

To be clear, I did not say the quoted sources are themselves promotional, but that they are unremarkably ordinary. What I did say is that linking to bunches of reviews gives the page an appearance of promotional tone. On your 7th point, it is not Wikiquote's purpose to collect information about things, it is a collection of notable quotations. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, the quotes satisfy Wikiquote:Quotability. -- Cirt (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

2nd attempt at compromise

2nd attempt at compromise

I've gone ahead and trimmed down the size of the lede intro significantly, please see diff and diff. Hopefully this will be seen as satisfactory. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Attempt at compromise

I've tried an attempt at good faith measure of compromise, I added some back to the further reading sect, and trimmed the total size of the sect itself down by half. -- Cirt (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

My opinion, as previously remarked here (before it was conveniently removed to an archive when the content was re-added), is that "the Further reading section seem[s] superfluous to Wikiquote's purpose and [...] give[s] the page an appearance of promotional tone. I recommend deleting these sections". I think this is a matter of the type of content, not the quantity thereof. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that I also feel such sections are not appropriate for our site and fully endorse their removal. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if we could come to a compromise solution to this. -- Cirt (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)