Talk:Main Page/Archives/003

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Walden for the Literary works section[edit]

I think Thoreau's Walden is large and pithy enough that it deserves to be listed on this main page under "Literary Works". Does anyone else agree? Maybe Thoreau should himself be listed under the "People" section?

Just a suggestion.... --Teabeard 11:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Where can I find the Meta place? 15:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main page of the Meta-wiki is linked here, as well as at the bottom of the the main page for WIkiquote. ~ Kalki 16:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page Design[edit]

Why is the wikiquote main page such a disappointment when compared to the wikipedia main page and can it be fixed? —This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) .

Hi, what do you mean closely? --Aphaia 00:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Lets have some good one's out here

i was just wondering what is going on with some of these quotes. I was going through some of the articles and there are whole conversations. Thats not a quote. Do whole conversations count as a quote or should we get ride of them?

Hello. Which page do you mean, for example? --Aphaia 21:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian Wikiquote[edit]

I wonder why is not included on the left list. 09:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's c if this works...Ragz

Thanks, fixed. --Aphaia 14:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I was just going through all of the wikis and I noticed that the symbol for wikiversity on this wiki is different from all the rest of the wikis and is not the one used on wikiversity, I believe this is the correct one.--Kyle(talk) 04:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for poking us. Right, the current one was a bit old ... though it is still used for Wikiversity beta. I'm going to replace it. --Aphaia 05:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People section[edit]

Let's exchange Charles Darwin for Samuel Johnson. Johnson's page has more quotes, a higher percentage of sourced quotes, and (quite honestly) better quotes. I don't have anything against Darwin as a person or a scientist... just think we should be showcasing the best quotes of the English language. Next to Johnson's wit, Darwin's quotes seem dull and clumsy. Dbergan 14:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Dr. Johnson's page is well organized, even better, but it is also a showcase "people by occupation" ... perhaps for wit, we have Douglas Adams already ... and if we remove Darwin, we will have no biologist. So your proposal is a hard choice for me which I don't oppose nor support strongly. --Aphaia 15:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two alternatives could be to substitute a well-sourced article of another scientist, or (my favorite) improve the sources of the Darwin quotes. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're showcasing people by occupation? Ok. Strange. In that case, the list is vastly unbalanced. We don't have any professional actors, war heroes or baseball players, but we have a plethora of poets, scientists, and religious leaders.
Anyway, my thing is that even if we get more sources for Darwin, his quotes aren't going to out-shine Johnson's. Darwin was a master of biology, sure, but Johnson was a master of the English language. If the occupation thing really does matter, perhaps we can sub Johnson in for Voltaire (a native-English wit for a French wit) and Blaise Pascal for Darwin (French profound polymath scientist-philosopher-mathematician-mystic-literary great for the less verbally inclined English scientist). Dbergan 16:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have Shakespeare for English language. And your proposal, substantially substitution of Voltaire with Blaise Pascal seems to me a matter of preference. --Aphaia 04:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what exactly are the criteria for placing people on the main page? As it stands, it seems like you guys are just picking your favorite people and shutting out pages that I think have better quotes and are better researched. I guess since I'm not a sysop, I don't really get a say in the matter, do I? Dbergan 15:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is welcome to voice their opinion on most matters here, and if enough people find their opinions worth acting on some changes are usually made. A problem here is that you seem to be a relative newcomer who has made a few edits since January and is incensed that his preferences aren't immediately deferred to, in suggestions to alter the main page of the project to his liking. On your user page have commented "G. K. Chesterton has more quotes than Voltaire. Sweet. Long live GK." and here have indicated that you would like to have Voltaire and Darwin removed and Johnson placed on it in their stead. Johnson is certainly notable and I also have a great admiration for Chesterton, but in the few alterations of the main page "Persons" list that we have made they have not yet been added, and I personally would prefer Chesterton to Johnson. Voltaire and Darwin are also certainly notable, and have often been quoted and misquoted in various significant ways, and I see no reason to remove them. Most of us have seldom felt inclined to alter the listing, and the original selections remained untouched for quite some time after heavy vandalism finally prompted the locking of its editing to all but admins. I believe that I last did a major revision of the list in response to the suggestion that Jesus be added, by including him as well as a few other religious figures. There is no "perfect balance" that can be struck, but I believe the sampling is probably for the most part fair. Glancing at the list, the one alteration I would most be inclined to make might be a substitution of Robert Anton Wilson for Timothy Leary, as a more extensive writer in the "anti-authoritarian" genre, but I've never been in any hurry to push for such a change. ~ Kalki 18:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am extremely grateful for you, Kalki, and the other tireless workers for your contributions to wikiquote. However, I can't help feeling insulted that I'm considered a newbie just on the basis of my edits. I may not add a ton of quotes, but I can assure you that I read/lookup/use the content of wikiquote just about every week. (But unfortunately, my grazing, as such, doesn't get logged.) I would add quotes, except that so far nearly every page I've been interested in had just about every quote that I would have added myself. I stand by the edits I have made on wikiquote (and much more extensively on wikipedia under the same username) and if you care to examine them you will see that I have only made positive contributions... never disruption or vandalism. I don't expect to be granted administrator privileges, but it would be nice to be taken seriously given that my account has no demerits.
All that I'm asking is that we define a set of criteria for what goes in the people section (and the other sections of the main page for that matter), and then find the best articles that fit those criteria. Obviously we all bring our biases, but I think that objectively some masters of the English language are being overlooked in favor of lower quality pages. (And I have nothing against Voltaire or Darwin... I think Darwin was an outstanding biologist, and Voltaire is certainly one of my favorite French authors. My userpage comment was written as a surprise, because I had expected Voltaire to out-do Chesterton by at least 2-to-1.)
The "criteria" that others have informally mentioned above (balancing occupations, etc.) don't fit the current list at all. I'm gathering that it was mentioned just as a half-baked excuse for not changing anything because if they took the issue of balanced occupations seriously they would see that our list gives lots of weight to certain occupations, and leaves out other notable ones altogether.
Maybe no one else really cares about improving the list (that's the impression I'm getting), which is too bad because I do, and have no access to it. Is it better if I just go away? Kind regards, Dbergan 21:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to throw my two cents into the discussion: I actually agree with many of the points made on both sides of the issue. I do think that a set of criteria should probably be created for this and the other sections on the Main page (other than New pages, which already has it). I've never had much of an issue with this, but always assumed the lists that appear in each section were set by someone in the past and reflected their own personal biases. This didn't really bother me too much, but I can see the point.
As to the feeling of being insulted, this is not meant by me or any of my fellow admins. We are often faced with issues/questions/suggestions and it seems the best way to assign weight to them is based on the attention that a given user gives to the site - reflected in their edit history. Perhaps this is unfair, as you suggest, but there don't seem to be any better alternatives.
Bottom line, I think it is a good idea to try to create a set of criteria for what gets included in the sections on the Main page. ~ UDScott 22:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People criteria[edit]

Well, let's get a discussion started on what the criteria should be for the people section. I'll start with an obvious one: Forget everything else, how about we pick the 20 best people article and feature them? (Where "best" is calculated by some combination of (A) most quotes (B) highest percentage of sourced quotes and (C) most memorable quotes.) The obvious con to this plan is that our list will probably end up lopsided in terms of career, gender, and ideology... but are those really important considerations? In the first place, why should we enact some kind of affirmative action? Second, wouldn't all attempts to balance by ideology be prone to bias? Third, if users really want a certain person to be on the main page, they could get serious consideration simply by improving the page with more quotes and researching sources for the unsourced quotes... thus improving wikiquote on the whole. Kind regards, Dbergan 16:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, Hear, People! Let's get on this. Any other ideas, or does an impartial criteria not matter at wikiquote? Dbergan 04:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have a page of "TV shows" and don't have Karl Marx in the Section "People"? Please!

My own quote[edit]

My name is Mark Clive Young

This is a quote I came up with years ago while still in school which helped me endure all the verbal abuse and ridicule of peers and co-learners "People may say or think whatever they like about you! That doesn't mean it's true!"

I don't get it. Is this vandalism or what? --Karras 14:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Folks often use the term "vandalism" far too loosely, which can certainly make discerning it unclear. Vandalism is deliberate, unambiguous defacing of an article by adding patent nonsense or grafitti-like remarks, or by deleting large swaths of material without reasonable justification. Many other forms of unsuitable content are not vandalism, just a simple misunderstanding of what belongs in Wikiquote. The above post appears to be an editor's implicit request to have a personal quote cited. I would have to tell Mark that we don't record personal quotes of our editors in Wikiquote articles. Such quotes (as well as other kinds of quotes not suitable for general article inclusion) may be placed in one's own user page, if one has registered a user name, and are subject only to a few restrictions against misuse of user pages. (See Wikiquote:User page for more information.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's still more random than most cases of vandalism I've seen. --Karras 21:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow that assessment, Karras. "Random" is writing ")474(QV%#&V^%)" on a page, which we would typically call "patent nonsense". The original post was quite coherent and clearly quote-related, even though the intended purpose wasn't evident. While it is always possible that an editor is hiding less innocent intent, we should try to assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. We should strive to make Wikiquote a friendly place for editors whenever possible, and "vandalism" is a very unfriendly, loaded term in Wikimedia. I recommend that you review the first two paragraphs of Wikiquote:Vandalism if you are still unsure why this isn't vandalism. Let me know on my talk page if you have further questions. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Song Lyrics[edit]

Why doesn't this site have song lyrics?

Some pages has parts of them (The Beatles), but since lyrics are more often than not copyrighted, it would be completely illegal to have song lyrics here. Extend your search otherwise perchance? --Karras 14:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be legal to post song lyrics, but still cite them? If the original author gets credit, then it's legal, right? (I'm not sure how copyright laws work)
Citing an author of a lyric or poem is not sufficient to comply with copyright laws. Under fair use provisions, we permit some quotes from song lyrics and poems still under copyright protection, but not their full text, and generally discourage use of the full text of poems or lyrics even in the public domain. Songs and poems which are public domain or licensed under the GFDL can be posted in their entirety at Wikisource. ~ Kalki 22:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think this is the reason noone likes this website i think they need proper information and they need to make things more interesting to read because it is very useless

Something's wrong[edit]

Visit the help page or experiment in the sandbox to learn how you can edit nearly any page right now; :or go to the Log in page to create a user page.

You don't go to the log in page to create a userpage...can an admin fix this by saying instead "to create an account", or something similar? It is not a pressing matter, however I believe it should be done. --Virana 00:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Audio link for Quote of the Day[edit]

I propose a recorded audio link for Quote of the Day, thoughts? Davumaya 15:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have created one for today's Quote, and uploaded it to the commons:

This could be used as a start, and I can upload a file for whatever is chosen today within a few hours. ~ BooKKeeper 18:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to play right from the media player, but the file isn't corrupted, because it plays okay from the download. BooKKeeper 18:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be playing okay now, so I guess that was just a temporary malfunction. BooKKeeper 19:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Front page[edit]

I don't know where to put it, so I tried this discussion.
On the slovak language is among those displayed around the wikiquote logo (listed as Slovenčina), but has incorrect description:
It should be "Zbierka citátov" instead of "Zbierka čitátov".
quote = citát (you can see this dictionary as a reference).
I have no idea who edits the front page, so if this isn't the right place to discuss this issue, please point me to the right one. -- 23:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting… I have no idea who can edit the Wikiquote global portal page. But you might try asking the folks at Slovenian Wikiquote (at sk:Wikicitáty:Krčma, their version of our village pump, which I gather translates loosely to "Wikiquote pub"). A request for the change would have more authority coming from the native-language Wikiquote. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I followed your advice and posted a request on the slovak discussion page, but seeing their usual response time, it might take a while before anything happens. But once again thanks for your quick response.. -- 13:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for your interest. Hopefully it is now fixed ... The source file of global portal is on meta as portal, and it is protected. There is also m:www.wikiquote org template. You can test your version of the latter at template/temp. After your version is ready, you can ask the meta admins for updating at m:WM:RFH. Hope to see you soon again on meta! --Aphaia 14:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Principia Discordia[edit]

What in hell is "principia discordia" and why is it on the front page? Is there any justification for keeping this? Otherwise, let's please nix it. Okay, I created an account intending to delete it since it is rather obvious gibberish and apparently published by a games company that has the same name in it as the author, "Steve Jackson", a typical sign of low worth:

...evidentally, the front page is uneditable, which is a shame, since it prevents spam from getting deleted. Maybe an admin would like to make the change and replace the offending entry with one of the hundreds of thousands of literay works containing valuable text?

—This unsigned comment is by Jpj (talkcontribs) .
In the several years that it has been on the front page, among other assorted works, I believe this is the first complaint about it specifically. Many people do consider it an amusing and valuable text. And it isn't spam of any commercial work, as if you'd checked more carefully at it's Wikipedia article you'd find that it is a largely public domain publication which "Steve Jackson", among many others, has published. ~ Kalki 08:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me either. I have no good reason to remove that. The community seems to be content with that. And for me you are the first person to complain. One sole opposition is not enough to turn over a year long settled condition in my humble opinion. --Aphaia 05:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still, if it has been on the front page for a long time, shouldn't we be varying the list? It's not as if this is some literary masterpiece.--Cato 08:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me to be something stolen from Uncyclopedia, so why the hell delete it I say? --Karras 01:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a place for Transformers quotes[edit]

Such as "One shall stand, one shall fall."(Optimus Prime) "Why throw away your life so recklessly?"(Megs) "That's a question you should ask yourself, Megatron."(Prime again) and "Till all are one!" (just about all of the Autobots)

All of these are from The Transformers the Movie (1986).

The place for them is here: The Transformers: The Movie. If they are not already there, feel free to add them. ~ UDScott 15:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone...[edit]

Could some one rename User:Oysterguitarist to something like User:Oysterguitarist impersonator? I'd like to finish unifying my accounts, thanks 14:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post on WQ:AN please.--Cato 21:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't the right place to ask, but this has now been done. ~ Kalki 21:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, sorry about not asking in the right place I'm not familiar with wikiquote. Oysterguitarist 21:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pages that need cleanup[edit]

Why are pages that need to be cleaned up on the front page? It seems like front page status should be reserved for properly formatted pages with adequate length. ~ Kingdok 05:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good proposal. On the other hand, we like to have very recent pages listed, so there is a dilemma.--Cato 22:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I meant the lists of quote pages for films and books and whatnot. ~ Kingdok 03:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Main Page[edit]

The Main Page design has not changed since mid 2003 when User:Nanobug introduced the first design. What I'd like to see is the Selected pages to be replaced with Navigation of the main categories. Also the new design should in my opinion be designed to be easily transfered to future portals. Some decoration with images would be nice. --Steinninn 15:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also it would be nice to have something that transfers easily into different languages. Any more comments before designing a new homepage? --Steinninn 21:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Shouldn't the Main page be in Category:Main page? Otherwise it gets put in Special:UncategorizedPages. PatPeter 02:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't regard that as a very serious issue, but others may differ.--Cato 21:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add a New page? Scott Niedecken Scott Niedecken 06:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[edit]

I can not figure this thing out, could they make it more complicated??? Scott Niedecken Scott Niedecken 06:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go here: Help:Starting a new page. Whenever you need something like this, try starting by clicking on 'Help' on the left-side menu. ~ UDScott 18:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested amendment to Main Page[edit]

Is the Main Page encouraging unsourced quotations? I ask because it begins by describing Wikiquote as "a free online compendium of quotations from notable people and creative works in every language, including sources (where known)". Would it be a good idea to amend that last phrase, now that our policies are turning against unsourced quotations? --Antiquary 12:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. I should read as "quotations citing sources" not "including sourced quotations". Could you please recommend a nice alternative, Antiquary? --Aphaia 12:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One answer would be to simply remove "(where known)", but I would prefer to make our new policy clearer by changing the description to "a free online compendium of sourced quotations from notable people and creative works in every language." --Antiquary 12:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both sounds reasonable, but I would prefer the latter for its clearness. --Aphaia 12:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good, we're in agreement. I would have made the change myself, but since the page is protected and I'm not an admin I'm obliged to be timid. Would you, or another admin, like to alter it? --Antiquary 20:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. And I obviously agreed with the proposed change, as it supports the ongoing efforts to have sourced quotes here. ~ UDScott 20:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional Characters[edit]

It's interesting that so few pages exist for characters from fictional works/TV shows etc... (eg there's plenty from the Simpsons, but none for Futurama - although the latter has extensive scripts...) Is this anything to do with copyright, ar is it simply because no-one has got round to them yet...? Thanx BigSteve 15:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US Copyright law allows us to quote copyrighted works within the limit of fair use. In other words, extensive quotations are not considered good and acceptable. If you are interested in this issue, please give a look to Wikiquote:Copyright, Wikiquote:Quotability and the recent discussions around quotes from copyrighted works on WQ:VP, and input your ideas. Cheers, --Aphaia 20:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the links, thay provided me with pretty useful info. The statement that "generally, it is suggested that only short quotations and their references be used" in the first one is a good guideline - and, if followed, would actually make many wikiquote articles much more readable! BigSteve 12:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creating account[edit]

It is extremely difficult to create an account on this wiki. Almost everything is blacklisted.

Main Page: Browse bar[edit]

I would like to suggest removing the Electronic games category link from the main page browse bar, at least until such time as the category may eventually be decrudified. As noted here by BD2412, "It is very rare that quoteworthy material will be derived from a video game." I have never known anyone to quote a game outside the context of gamming except as an inside joke. (E.g. when someone leaves a party early: "Please don't go. The drones need you. They look up to you."Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri ).
The present articles in this category have almost uniformly poor quality. I think it imprudent at the front door to direct visitors' attention to a closetful of junk, especially as it encourages contributing more of the same. It's not as if I don't enjoy a good game myself: in due time, as the body of works with literary aspirations increases, we can dust off the toys and reintroduce the link as a showcase to be proud of. ~ Ningauble 20:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page: QOTD[edit]

I would like to suggest including more complete citations in presenting the Quote of the Day on the main page. While it is true that visitors can click through to find citations in the linked article, I think the main public portal should illustrate best practice by citing the source with the quotation. Let the main page exemplify what a real quotation looks like, and set Wikiquote apart from the plethora of factoid sites.
Publication data, and usually chapter-and-verse, can be relegated to the link, as with a footnote, but I think we ought to name the work and year with the author. Too often epigraphs only identify an author, which I find just frustrating. I think Wikiquote's frontispiece should do better. ~ Ningauble 20:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I emphatically agree. The proper sourcing of quotations is crucially important, yet at present we are setting a bad example on sourcing in the very first quotation that many newcomers see here. --Antiquary 22:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So long as the quote is actually sourced on the targeted page, I don't consider this a major issue, and actually don't agree, primarily out relatively minor aesthetic complications that could result there and elsewhere. In terms of the QOTD, and the various pages devoted to them, I much prefer to stick with a greater simplicity of style. ~ Kalki 00:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually did try out the suggestion, briefly, on today's quote of the day, but feel the clutter of information on the opening page somewhat detracts from the simple observations of the statement in the quote. ~ Kalki 00:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that aesthetics are important for showcasing the quote. Adding some white space would help, as in these mock-ups. (I favor the third version with vertical separation.)
I also tend to agree that the related pages for feeding and logging the QotD should be kept compact and uncluttered. My concern is with the Main Page itself. However, if citations are not posted with suggestions then it creates additional work to fetch them (and clean them up) when pasting up the main page presentation. I am not sure how best to minimize the impact, but I hope we can devise something practical. ~ Ningauble 15:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that having the QOTD properly sourced is a good thing and I like your proposals Ningauble, particularly the third option. ~ UDScott 15:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to disagree with Ningauble's observations. What does Kalki think of the third option (aesthetically)? ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redlink alert[edit]

We have a redlink in the New Pages section. Does anyone feel like replacing it? --Antiquary 19:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done Thanks for pointing that out. I replaced it with a new page you created. ~ Ningauble 20:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons Link[edit]

Could an admin please change the link of "Simpsons" to "The Simpsons" so people won't have to go through the redirect?- JustPhil 18:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but how about linking to The Simpsons (disambiguation) instead? That would also be indirect, but the main article is so long that with a dial-up modem there is time for a trip to Moe's while the page loads. ~ Ningauble 18:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just converted the link to The Simpsons. ~ Kalki 18:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting and design of the Main Page[edit]

While looking at the Main Page, I noticed only the "In other languages" section uses endashes (–), while the other sections uses hyphens (-). Why is that? All pages, especially the Main Page, should be even. I think either they should all be endashes, or they should all be changed to bullets (•).

Honestly, I'm not very fond of the current look and design of the Main Page. Looks rather drab and boring. A revamp of it would be nice. It would probably attract more readers to visit our project more often and more contributers appearing. The Main Page is probably the most important page of the project. Shouldn't it look more attractive, yet, still contain important and useful information of Wikiquote?

Thoughts would be appreciated. — RyanCross (talk) 07:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we do decide we need a new Main Page design, I quickly gathered up this as a start. We can work our way from there. — RyanCross (talk) 08:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Main page image[edit]

I realize that the quote of the day is talking about the "real superman." Why, then, if our goal is neutrality and not advocacy, does the main page feature a picture of Barack Obama standing next to a statue of Superman? ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 16:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point - I hadn't even looked at it very closely, but you are right that this is a pretty blatant point of view that is being shown. Supporter of Obama or not, I would think that most would agree that we should instead have an image just of Superman in this case. ~ UDScott 17:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the image to one of the few Free Use images we have of the character. EVula // talk // // 17:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New pages[edit]

I think the Main Page should have a box/subsection for newly created pages, similar to wikisource:Template:New texts at Wikisource or w:Template:Did you know at Wikipedia. Thoughts? Cirt (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New pages is currently the first subsection under Selected Pages, but it does not get updated very frequently. Do you think it should be displayed more prominently or handled differently? ~ Ningauble 17:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I had not spotted that. I think it should have its own box, on the same prominence as Selected Pages. Cirt (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In other languages[edit]

I think this subsection on the Main Page is a duplicate to the sidebar at bottom left, and should be removed. Cirt (talk) 03:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I see en.wikipedia has a similar section on its w:Main Page - but it's at the bottom there, not squished off to the side. Cirt (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it down to {{Wikiquotelang}}, which is full-protected. Cirt (talk) 04:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Main page header[edit]

I moved the header stuff into {{Main page header}} (full protected), and did some reformatting. Feel free to tweak it. :) Cirt (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Main Page Selected pages[edit]

{{Main Page Selected pages}} (full protected), reformatted a tad with bullet-points instead of dashes, left-aligned. Cirt (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Did some reformatting [1] of the Main Page, makes the coding simpler and much easier to adjust things in the future. Cirt (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New pages[edit]

Added {{New pages}} Cirt (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Main categories[edit]

Added {{Main categories}}, and now it looks like the various boxes balance perfectly on the Main Page. :) Cirt (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do like the work being done on the main page. I had played around with some ideas months ago, which I might dig up, but one thing I think might be an improvement would be to use shades of blue, such as are in the logo for the page sections. I will try to find my old work on my own ideas within the next day or two. Thanks for finally attending to this subject — I never really was very much inclined to bother with it myself, though I knew it needed improvement. ~ Kalki 22:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. A few sections above this, I asked what people thought of User:RyanCross/Sandbox, but nobody responded. Cirt, maybe the sandbox can give you several ideas. What do you guys think? — RyanCross (talk) 06:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The work going on now is far more advanced than anything I attempted to develop, but I did find some files with last year's work, largely based on User:Phaedriel's design, and posted it at User:Kalki/MainPageTest just to exhibit some color schemes I was trying to develop. It obviously needed much more work, but I was thinking of using all blues to match the WQ logo, with the QOTD in white or light blue upon some sort of darker blue background. ~ Kalki 09:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC) — I think the image in the corner was just a vestige of Phaedriel's original design, which I had begun working from, as are some of the other sections. I don't think I actually intended to keep that section as a place for an image. I only spent a very little time on the matter, and knew it would be tedious for me to do all the work I had in mind — and thus found many other things to do, and ended up never getting back to it. ~ Kalki 09:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I actually did incorporate a bit from User:RyanCross/Sandbox when doing the tweaking - basically I tried to keep the overall color scheme pretty much the same so as not to rock the boat too much. Cirt (talk) 11:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One concern: It says, "Or go to the Log in page to create a user page." It sounds like we're hosting some kind of myspace website as the line encourages others to only create a userpage... well, we are not supposed to do that. Maybe changing it to, "Or go to the Log in page to start contributing to Wikiquote," or something like that. Thoughts? — RyanCross (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was actually the prior text that was already there - I had not changed that at all. Your suggested change sounds good to me. Cirt (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I never really read the Main Page in a while. :-) I'll change it now. — RyanCross (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'd now have to make the changes to the text portion at {{Main page header}}, not the Main Page itself. :P Cirt (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I realized that when I couldn't find the text on the actual Main Page. Figured it would be on that template. — RyanCross (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Cirt (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reworked {{Main categories}}. I wanted to take out Category:Media as useless (I nominated it for deletion), but that left the box too light so I added more stuff. It is still mostly redundant with {{Categorybrowsebar}} in the header. Somebody holler if the three column layout doesn't work with common browsers or displays!
I also have some ideas for {{Main page header}} that I will offer for discussion when I finish fleshing out some samples. ~ Ningauble 18:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The changes to {{Main categories}} look good. Cirt (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fight Club link[edit]

The link under "Films" should go to Fight Club (film). I can't change it myself because I'm not an admin.-- 22:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link has now been corrected. ~ Kalki 23:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quote of the Day[edit]

Though there are many online collections of quotations, Wikiquote is distinguished by being among the few that provide an opportunity for visitors to contribute.

I would like my qoute to be Qoute of the Day.

Plesure is root of the Highest Good. From this root Love can grow. Plesure, apon plesaure, apon plesure, for me and for all others.

-User:Gjeremy Wikipedia

Selected Pages[edit]

I think Carl Sagan should be added in the people section - he's quoted as often as the other people mentioned. 12:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


it looks boring —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)

Got any suggestions for making it more appealing? ~ Ningauble 18:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quote of the Day[edit]

There is no quote of the day...? Renaissancee 00:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has now been updated. ~ Kalki 00:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]



You might want to enquire at meta:Requests for new languages/Wikiquote Bengali. ~ Ningauble 17:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

quote from indian saints[edit]

"Expension is life,contraction is death."

                       Swami Vivekanand

Quote of the Day suggestions[edit]

Where can I make quote of the day suggestions...or is it no longer updated?

I'd like to suggest this quote:

  • People always have been the foolish victims of deception and self-deception in politics, and they always will be, until they have learned to seek out the interests of some class or other behind all moral, religious, political and social phrases, declarations and promises. ~ Vladimir Lenin

Smallman12q 03:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The most appropriate page to make that suggestion would be the one for the suggestions for April 22th, which was Lenin's birthday, by the modern calendar. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 12:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is the quote of the day still updated?Smallman12q 16:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is still updated. I once used to update things daily, and wait, often to the last possible moments before making QOTD selections, but recently have begun making upcoming selections days or even weeks in advance, and not updating the records of past selections until I have the time to do so; I have only thus far had time to check on things briefly a few times today, and must be leaving now — but will probably be updating more things within a few days. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 18:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]