From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Some indication should be provided on this page as to whether these quotes are from the movie, or the graphic novel. ~ Kalki 16:55, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, there's no movie (as of yet). DragonflySixtyseven, 20.30, 2 Apr 2005.

The movie project appears to have been put on hold indefinitely. Most sources doubt it will ever be made. --RPickman 02:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I put a spoiler warning (the last quotes explains a lot), maybe it could be placed later though. -- 19:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. Only maybe one of the good quotes from Watchmen is in here. What exactly are quotes selected by on here? 23:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you think there are better quotes, then add them, it's that simple.

Cleanup tag[edit]

The needed cleanup includes a sorting of quotes in the order they appear, not sorted by character. The quotes should also be sourced - e.g. define which of the 12 issues it appears in. ~ UDScott 14:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page is currently organized like it was a film page, however unlike with time code, which is often omitted as a requirement in many of the citation guidelines I've seen (presumably do to the prior technical hurdles involved in screen capturing), knowing the page numbers (and issues) would really be helpful considering this is a work increasingly found in university classrooms with the expectation that students correctly cite it as a source. Other superhero characters spanning multiple publications have their own pages organizing their quotes, but until recently this was a limited series so doing that here seems excessive. Having quotes organized by character is neither how it is done with other comics or with other English novels. Including sections for fictional publications raises some issues as well, is there another example of a page where that is done? CensoredScribe (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


There are a large amount of seemingly random words in this page that have been piped to Wikiquote articles. For example, Comedian's "Once you realize what a joke everything is..." quote has the word "joke" piped. Or Jon's "I am tired of Earth, these people. I'm tired of being caught in the tangle of their lives." has "Earth" and "People" piped, and " Time is simultaneous, an intricately structured jewel that humans insist on viewing one edge at a time" has "Time" and "Jewel" piped.

Basically what I want to know is if there's a reason for most of these or if someone just came along someday and started giving a bunch of random words links to their definition pages?

I removed them, but Kalki doesn't seem to agree. Respectfully requesting discussion to take place here before readding the links. Please keep in mind WP:OWN and WP:OVERLINK when discussing. Coreycubed (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Such discussion has taken place quite a few times, and always the consensus seems to be that, for the most part, adding links to pages for various themes to various quotes is a good idea, which permits and promotes greater exposure to the many diverse ideas on subjects, and could prompt more involvement in our project of acquiring further quotes on ALL of these diverse ideas. ~ Kalki·· 19:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I will also point out once again that Wikiquote is NOT Wikipedia — and many of the aims and objectives of the projects, and the ways links can be used can be quite different. That policy is probably a good one for an encyclopedia of facts, where links are often confined to relatively narrow ranges relating to some specific classes of information, but our project is one which is a compendium of quotations about ideas of far more general application — and the more links between diverse ideas, the better. ~ Kalki·· 19:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been on an editing break for quite a while, can you provide links to an example of some of those discussions? Especially ones involving editors other than yourself. Looking at your edit history, it seems this article has been watched by you like a hawk for at least two years, and your user page says all I need to know about your feelings on wikilinking. Coreycubed (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(as an aside, if we discuss this topic and consensus hasn't changed or I drop off of the conversation after a while, you're welcome to edit it however you see fit and I apologize for intruding!) Coreycubed (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not watch merely this article, but continue to watch the project as a whole, to the extent I have the time. As I have always been one of the most active editors on this project, and usually do address the issue when it arises, discussions "involving editors other than" myself might be indeed be hard to come by — but there are such discussions involving me and others who are new or who have long edited here, which have occurred, usually months apart, and despite a very few people who are prone to seek to narrow the options available for the linking of ideas, the consensus in nearly any case of wider discussion is to permit and promote such links as means of further exposure to ideas and options for involvement here. ~ Kalki·· 19:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As the state of this article, which is probably a fairly well visited and observed one here, had retained all these links since March 2013 with YOUR edits being the FIRST in all that time of ANY attempt at removing them, I believe that the implicit accusation that they have been retained only because I watch this article "like a hawk", is somewhat lame, and your insistence that I accede to your will to remove them and reduce the links available to others for further explorations is even more lame. Thus I am restoring them. ~ Kalki·· 19:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one brief discussion in which Kalki did not participate. This sort of linking has greatly increased since that time, and there was a somewhat wider discussion at the Village Pump (in which Kalki participated) that did not arrive at a consensus. Some users are quite restrained in adding these links and some, in my opinion, have gone totally overboard. There is no official guideline for this so, as tends to happen when the issue can be considered a matter of degree or quantity, outcomes are typically determined by whoever is most determined and persistent. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thermodynamic Miracles possible misquote?[edit]

"...seen from the another's vantage point..." [[1]]

There appears to be an extra "the" here, but it seems like this is quoted in several places this way. Is there something I'm misunderstanding about "the" in this use case?