Talk:Millennium '73

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Cleanup tag added with no explanation[edit]

Removed the "cleanup" tag, as it was added with zero explanation whatsoever as to why - either on this talk page, or via edit summary. Please elaborate on the talk page, and the issues will be swiftly addressed. Thanks! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

To me it was obvious why cleanup was needed - and I don't understand why the tag was removed since it points to the templates that should be used. In any case, the problems I see on this page include the use of quote marks, the use of subsections in the sourced area, and the formatting in the Press conference area needs to be cleaned up. I would also recommend some trimming of the intro, but that's just me. ~ UDScott 14:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for being more specific. I will get on those changes now. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I shortened the size of the lede sect. I made some formatting in the Press conference sect. I removed use of quote marks. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
It looks better, but I would actually recommend some more changes - the references would be better shown below the quotes, rather than in shortened version, referring to a separate References section. ~ UDScott 17:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, this is better, but it still deviates from formatting guidelines in several respects such as the use of subsections and footnoting. I share the concern about the introduction, which still goes quite a bit beyond identifying the subject. ~ Ningauble 17:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I've reduced the number of sections and eliminated the reference section.   Will Beback  talk  03:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Great job by Will Beback, thanks very much! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge[edit]

I propose that quotes of Maharj Ji, along with quotes about this event centered around him, be merged to the Prem Rawat article. It has never been Wikiquote's practice to fork articles about individual events in the history of notable persons or organizations. By way of comparison, I would not object to an article on Woodstock because it is an iconic theme: very many people have written and spoken about it from a wide variety of perspectives over a period of many decades as being emblematic of a social phenomenon that is much broader than the career of any individual person or organization.

In the course of merging, the quotes from both articles could stand to be trimmed for quotability. A lot of this appears to be spillover of source material from Wikipedia (see Will Beback's remarks on my talk page), but not everything that is relevant to news coverage, or useful background for an encyclopedic article, is appropriate for a compendium of quotations. Wikiquote's purpose is not to cover topics in a documentary manner, it is to collect notable quotations. ~ Ningauble 17:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that input. If you read the article at Wikipedia, this now-forgotten festival was considered a major event at the time, one journalist including it among the most important events of the decade! I think that events, such as debates, conventions, trials, festivals, etc, can be just as important as films, TV shows, and plays, and should be handled the same way. How many people have written about The Wild Thornberrys Movie? Far fewer than have written about this event, I'm sure. I don't see a good reason why Wikiquote would not include pages on noteworthy events just because they were not scripted or filmed.   Will Beback  talk  23:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Don't get me started about articles on forgettable films. As they say at Wikipedia, "other stuff exists," and it is not the same sort of stuff. It is one thing to quote from the narrative or exposition of a literary [sic?] work, for much of the content of notable literary works can be presumed to be quotable. But it is something else to use quotes to build a narrative or exposition about something notable, for the same presumption does not hold, and it is not Wikiquote's purpose to tell narratives or expositions. A fork like this is highly prone to including quotes that are "relevant to telling the story" but not "quotable" in and of themselves. To the extent that some of these items are quotable, I really think they should be merged. ~ Ningauble 17:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
We already have pages on other events. September 11 attacks, for example. I don't know that that page builds a narrative, but it does include relevant quotes made by involved people prior to and during the attacks, and quotable comments made after the attack. As for merging to the Rawat article, I don't think that's beneficial. A significant portion of these quotes are neither by nor about Rawat, but are interesting and relevant to a page on the festival.   Will Beback  talk  22:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose merge idea, the article is an extremely noteworthy topic. It is a Featured Article at English Wikipedia. It was even featured on the Main Page of English Wikipedia for an entire day as "Today's Featured Article" [1]. It deserves to stand independently as a separate page in its own right. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
    And a fine article it is, at Wikipedia, but that is a different story. ~ Ningauble 18:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I guess the point might be that this is a notable topic in and of itself.   Will Beback  talk  00:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)