User talk:Allixpeeke

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Allixpeeke, and welcome to English Wikiquote.

Enjoy! ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

I thank you for all your recent contributions to pages with various quotes on the themes and principles of Liberty. It is good to see someone else with apparently strong libertarian impulses active here. As a person with great appreciation of many diverse forms of genuinely social, individualist and libertarian impulses, I do not expect to always agree with others with their own peculiar and worthy views on many or any of these things, but I do expect understandings can grow where extreme honesty is permitted and honored, as I believe it will come to be here, and many other places, in time. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 16:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Stupidest Statement of the Year[edit]

Thank you for your contributions. Please note that at Wikiquote, we do note use reference tags, but instead maintain sources inline following the quote. Please fix this in Stupidest Statement of the Year. Cheers! BD2412 T 12:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

QOTD[edit]

Thanks for adding rankings to the QOTD suggestions for August 31, but 4 is an exceptional ranking, and only one ranking of 4 should be used per date, per year, per person, as this signifies an assertion that it "definitely should" be used at that point by the ranker. Otherwise there could easily be as pervasive and perniciously "over-ranking bias" over many years for some particular quotes, as there already are for some quotes in their strong "under-rankings" below the norms of most participants. ~ Kalki·· 19:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC) + tweak

Thanks, Kalki, for the recommendation.  I have tweaked my rankings.  Best regards, Allixpeeke (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Ralph[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Ralph, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikiquote is not" and Wikiquote's deletion policy).

You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Votes for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much[edit]

Thank you, Alixpeeke, for your helpful redirects. :)

Much appreciated,

-- Cirt (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Asking socks to self-disclose[edit]

Billinghurst has asked DIFF that the third-party who is a Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed sock connected to accounts Jimmy11234 (talk · contributions) and Gene96 (talk · contributions) to self-disclose their involvement in the socking.

You are one of the accounts that voted before 12:09, 25 January 2015.

I ask that if you are behind the socking of Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed socks Jimmy11234 (talk · contributions) and Gene96 (talk · contributions) to self-disclose please at Wikiquote:Requests_for_adminship/Kalki_(4th_request)#Asking_socks_to_self-disclose.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Not I.  :)  Allixpeeke (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 08:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

signature[edit]

You can change your automatic signature (to start with lower-case "a") in your preferences, if you like. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Testing allixpeeke (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Music categories[edit]

Not that I want to discourage the work you are doing, but I wonder if all of these quite specific categories are necessary. I for one would not really be sure which to add to pages for musicians or bands in many cases. And are there enough pages to make such narrow categories necessary? Generally, when I consider adding a more narrow subcategory under a broader category, I only do so if there is a decent number of pages that will fit that subcategory (think double digits usually). Again, I appreciate your work - and I think it was necessary to go beyond just 'Rock' for example as a category for these bands, but I can't help but wonder if maybe you've gone a bit far when you've gotten to a subcategory like 'Screamo' which is 4 layers down into 'Punk rock' and as yet only contains one page. It's not that the categorization is wrong - I am sure it is correct - but whether it is needed. This seems to be overkill to me. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand the concerns.  I guess I'm looking at this work as anticipation for more band quotes in the future, laying the groundwork, so to speak.  I've been relying heavily on Wikipedia to tell me which genres each band works in, and which subgenres belong where.  My counter-concern is that "heavy metal" or "punk" or "progressive rock" may be too vague, and this vagueness may lead to some bands being labelled in a manner which may be misleading to readers.  Yours, allixpeeke (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
To me, the question is not whether it is "needed" or not, but whether it might possibly be useful, and, then, if so, if it might cause harm. I'm not seeing harm. Allixpeeke, it looks like you are simply using Wikipedia Categories, which is simple, and shouldn't be controversial, as long as they are stable. Wikipedia has Alternative rock songs/Emo songs/Screamo songs and there are about 163 pages in the Screamo songs category and subcategories. While there only may be one page here, those 163 pages represent, apparently, bands or songs notable enough for Wikipedia. Thus quotes might be notable enough for Wikiquote.
Category:Screamo here has one page, yes, Thursday (band). Our categories include Emo, Post-hardcore, and Screamo. So if Alixpeek is working on that page, and checks Wikipedia, she could reasonably add our related categories, all at once, and with some level of assurance that this is correct. If she is to refrain from that, she needs to do more work, actually, especially if we look long-term. I.e, if other Screamo band pages are later created, it would then become appropriate to go back and add the category.
There is another issue. Looking at w:Emo and w:Screamo, while Screamo is a subgenre of Emo, it also has very distinct characteristics. Efficiency suggests that if it's accurate, add it now. Make sure that categories are themselves categorized. I would not have Category:Emo be on the Thursday page at all, Screamo would be the category, and Screamo would be categorized in Emo, along with other bands' quotations. So anyone looking for Emo would find any Screamo page. But if it just Emo, someone looking for Emo could be confused if a Screamo band is classified there.
So if you want to do this, Alixpeek, I'd encourage it. What do you think, Scott? --Abd (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia lists w:Thursday (band) as both emo and screamo, so I figured it would make sense for Wikiquote to likewise list Thursday (band) as both.  Best, allixpeeke (talk) 22:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
In the end, I don't really have an objection - if the multitude of very specific subcategories is properly used. My thoughts turned more to maintenance of it going forward. My experience in other areas of the site is that unless the person who sets up the specific subcategories maintains a strong interest in seeing that they are properly used, we often end up with redundant categories or pages being miscategorized, leading to a lot of cleanup work. Having said that, I am certainly not against being as specific as necessary in categorizing pages. Should more pages be created for musicians or bands that swell the ranks of these subcategories, I would welcome their addition. I just wondered if (should this not occur) we would be left with a host of subcategories with minimal entries and whether or not such a massive effort were worth it in the end. For now, I will certainly not stand in anyone's way who wishes to undertake this - I just hope that this hierarchy of types of music (which is already many levels deep) is actually used, and to the fullest. Sorry for being so cynical regarding this (it is borne out seeing such situations not bear fruit in the past) - I hope I am wrong in this case. Oh, and I second the thought of not including parent categories on pages - I would keep the lowest level category and not have any parent categories on the pages. ~ UDScott (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
There's definitely plenty of work to be done.  I'm also hoping that, once the rest of these bands get categorised, it will help to fill in the gaps somewhat.  Yours, allixpeeke (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Ha![edit]

Your creation of Frances Bean Cobain (with her quote about Friday the 13th) inspired me to create Friday the 13th. Cheers! BD2412 T 14:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

BD2412, that's excellent!  Cheers, allixpeeke (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

slavery[edit]

Re. [1], bear in mind [2]. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Slavery does not benefit any economy.  Slavery's defendants were probably too ignorant of economics and praxeology to realise this, but they were holding their own economy back by defending that execrable institution.  There was Jeffersonian proposition put forward in the early days of the republic to have slavery abolished by 1800; had they been wise, they would not have resisted this change.  Alas, given that they didn't, it's no surprise that there was so much more economic growth in the Northern states.  allixpeeke (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages[edit]

I don’t believe it is generally desirable to expand disambiguation pages here to mimic those at Wikipedia, or even approach such levels — as these should disambiguate pages of quotes here, not direct people to Wikipedia — and it is very unlikely that we shall ever have articles of quotes to match the number of articles linked on many such pages. For instance, in your edit a short while ago, I believe the disambiguation of Judges and Judgement on the Judge page was quite sufficient, and would actually prefer even more subtle and simple redirects, such as a direct redirect to the page for Judges, with a top level link there for to the page for Judgement (or to Judgement with a top level link to Judges). I believe that would minimize the number of redirects most people would encounter. ~ Kalki·· 21:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC) + tweak

Dear Kalki, check it out.  I kept the extra links in the article but hid them from general view.  I added a comment at Talk:Judge#Hidden links so that people could edit the page and make names/topics visible when the time is ready.  Methinks this achieves the best of both worlds:  It (A) looks clean and (B) also provides useful building blocks for future expansion.  Cheers, allixpeeke (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I have now done the same with Train.  See edit and talkallixpeeke (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I have now done the same with Babe.  See edit and talkallixpeeke (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I have now done the same with Chick.  See edit and talkallixpeeke (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I have now done the same with Honey (disambiguation).  See edit and talkallixpeeke (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I still believe it serves our project little to create such pages with so many links which are, as yet, extensively or entirely irrelevant to our project — especially pages like Honey (disambiguation), which at this point disambiguates a number of uses of the word "Honey", NONE of which we, as yet, even have a page for here. Someone casually MAKING a link to honey, might think they have linked to a page where there are quotes, and yet if they or anyone else follows the link they simply find an array of links to wikipedia, and perhaps some discouragement and confusion on how to proceed in what otherwise would be a relatively simple procedure for creating a page for quotes related to the substance created by bees in their hives.  "Honey", referring to this substance, is what I believe is the only page we would likely need any time soon, with possibly links to any other pages such as works titled "Honey". Most of the extravagant arrays of links such as developed on some Wikipedia pages simply are of no direct use here. ~ Kalki·· 22:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC) + tweaks
Dear Kalki, that was UDScott who changed the link from Honey to w:Honey, not I.  (See her/his edit here.)  I agree with you, the Honey disambiguation page should not link to w:honey; it's the honey page that should link to w:honey, and when someone finally makes a honey page, it will.  The disambiguation page should link to honey so that people can go there and read quotes about honey, and that's why I am undoing UDScott's edit right now.  (see edit here.)  If it so happens that the link to honey is red (which it does happen to be), that will hopefully inspire people to start a page of quotes about honey (just as I inspired BD2412 to create a page for Friday the 13th by leaving it red link (see above)).

Look at the honey (disambiguation) page again.  It's not an array of links to Wikipedia, it's an array of links to Wikiquote.  It links to all of the following:

In fact, the only Wikipedia page to which it links is w:honey (disambiguation), and it links to that page for the same reason the honey page will link to w:honey once it is finally created.

Disambiguation pages serve a purpose.  If someone is looking to get quotes from various songs titled "Honey", Wikipedia is not the place to go; Wikiquote is.&nbs; But if there is no disambiguation page at Wikiquote telling readers that America (band), Mariah Carey, and Moby each have a song titled "Honey", they'll simply have to turn to Google ; Wikiquote will be of no help to them.  Only by having the disambiguation page is the purpose that is served by having a disambiguation page ultimately served.  Not having a disambiguation page means that the purpose served by having a disambiguation page remains unserved.

I am going to try to make some more tweeks to the honey (disambiguation) page to see if there is some way it can be made acceptable to all concerned.

Best
allixpeeke (talk) 03:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I edited honey (disambiguation) in order to add a few quotes to it.  Thus, now, it's not just a disambiguation page, but also a page with quotes.

I also created a page for honey.  At the top of the page for honey, it says, "For other uses, see Honey (disambiguation)."

Yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 03:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I like the way this page has been put together. We might not rise to Wikipedia-levels of disambiguation, but we definitely have ambiguous terms that people may search for. BD2412 T 04:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree that we definitely have ambiguous terms. We have a number of useful disambiguation pages to help readers find the topic they are looking for. This is not one of them, and I do not like the way this page has been put together. It is not a disambiguation page, it is a misdirection page. Referring to the current revision of the page:
  1. Aside from the primary topic Honey, the majority of putative disambiguations listed link to pages that contain no mention of Honey, in any sense of the word, anywhere on the page.
    • In particular, "if someone is looking to get quotes from various songs titled 'Honey'", as allixpeeke, suggests above, then these links are all misleading: not one of them leads to a page that quotes (or even mentions) any such song.
  2. Of the remaining links that lead to pages which actually do contain the word "Honey" (Cecil B. Demented, Dr. No (film), Ouran High School Host Club, The Incredibles, Mariah Carey), none are useful for someone who is looking for an article on the topic of some sense of the word "Honey".
    • In particular, "a disambiguation page is not a search index" (WP:NAMELIST) for occurrences of common names like "Honey" or "Fred". It is a tool for locating articles covering a specific topic when Wikiquote has articles on multiple different topics that might be known by the same ambiguous term.
Finally, regarding recent revisions whereby "now, it's not just a disambiguation page, but also a page with quotes" – even if it were a disambiguation page, which it is not, quotes belong in quotation articles, not in disambiguation pages. Disambiguating entries should contain sufficient information to identify which sense of an ambiguous term is the topic of the target article: anything else is unnecessary and inappropriate to the purpose and function of disambiguation pages. (WP:DABNOT) ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
On further reflection, I agree with Ningauble. A disambiguation page should solely exist as a navigational device, and should only provide such navigation for topics covered by Wikiquote pages. BD2412 T 17:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Honey (disambiguation)[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Honey (disambiguation), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikiquote is not" and Wikiquote's deletion policy).

You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Votes for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The deletion proposal was proposed on the grounds, "Wikiquote has no article that might be expected to be titled 'Honey'."

I have since created an article titled "Honey."  Considering that there is now an article titled "Honey," the previous expectation that no article titled "Honey" has turned out to be incorrect.  Now that there is an article titled "Honey," that justification for proposing deletion obviously no longer applies, and as such, I have removed the {{dated prod}} notice.

Cheers,
allixpeeke (talk) 03:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Honey (disambiguation) has been listed at Votes for deletion. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Honey (disambiguation). Thank you. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Please do not remove VFD tags, as you did at Honey (disambiguation). The notice must remain in place until the discussion is closed. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Honey (disambiguation). Thank you. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Didn't the discussion close at 2:00 (Eastern Daylight Time)?  I remember specifically waiting until after 2:00 to remove it, but I was rather tired when I did, so if I screwed up the math somehow, my apologies.  allixpeeke (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, Ningauble, I see what happened!  I took 18:00 and subtracted twelve, arriving at 6:00.  I subtracted five more from that, since the Eastern Time Zone is five time zones away from the Coordinated Universal Time Zone, which gave me 1:00, and then I added one to that to account for Daylight Savings Time, arriving at 2:00.  All of that was correct, but in the haze of sleepiness, I forgot to re-add the twelve hours I initially removed.  I should have waited until after 2:00 PM instead of removing it at 2:09 AM.  Yeah, my fault.  allixpeeke (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Sweetie[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Sweetie, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikiquote is not" and Wikiquote's deletion policy).

You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Votes for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Toots[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Toots, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikiquote is not" and Wikiquote's deletion policy).

You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Votes for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Nut[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Nut, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikiquote is not" and Wikiquote's deletion policy).

You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Votes for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I have created Nut (fruit) and Nut (goddess), and consequently have de-prodded this page and reduced it to those two links. BD2412 T 16:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, BD2412!
allixpeeke (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Chick[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Chick, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikiquote is not" and Wikiquote's deletion policy).

You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Votes for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

When I first conceived of creating a disambiguation page for chick, it was because there are two very different uses for the term that are not uncommon, women and birds.

Thus, when I first began constructing the layout for what would eventually become chick, here is what I had:

Chick may refer to:

Having this sort of disambiguation just makes sense.  There are, after all, these two very different senses of the same word, and both of them already have articles.  Why not have a disambiguation page that links to each?  Just as we need commercial to link to both the advertisement and to commerce, just as we need cursing to link to both profanity and to curses, just as we need pot to link to both pottery and to marijuana, we need chicks to link to both birds and women.  We can't not have it.

So, I made my prototype.  But, then, I decided to check Wikipedia's page for chick just to see if there were any other instances of chick I was forgetting, and I found some.  So, now, in addition to birds and women, the page also links to Chick Corea, Chick Island, Jack Chick, and Edgar Wallace (the author of Chick).

Again, it just makes sense.  If we have to have the page (which we do in order to have it link to birds and women), then we might as well also have Chick Corea, Chick Island, Jack Chick, and Edgar Wallace on there, too, no?

Respectfully yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I stand behind the reason given in the {{prod}} statement:  "Not a useful disambiguation page: Wikiquote does not have multiple articles that might be expected to be titled 'Chick'."

Regarding partial names of people and places, see WP:NAMELIST. Regarding the title by Edgar Wallace, there is no relevant content in the target article. Regarding the slang usage, this is not a plausible title for the target article that is not being used because it would be ambiguous. Wikipedia is just wrong about this one: nobody but Austin Powers would title the target article with a slang term that many people consider belittling or demeaning. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

If there is any doubt that having a disambiguation page that links to bird and to women is useful, let me remind everyone that there are people and characters quoted on Wikiquote who use the term chick to refer to birds, and that there also are people and characters quoted on Wikiquote who use the term chick to refer to women.

Andrew Dice Clay, Beavis and Butt-head from Beavis and Butt-head, Stephanie Zinone and Rhonda Ritter from Grease 2, Mike Donnelly from Black Sheep, Stifler from American Pie, Fry from Futurama: Into the Wild Green Yonder, Lois Griffin in Family Guy, Banky Edwards and Silent Bob in Chasing Amy, Randal Graves and Elias Grover from Clerks and from Clerks II, and Carly Shay and Sam Puckett from iCarly (just to name a few!) have all used the term chick to mean women.

Touga from Revolutionary Girl Utena, Agnes from Despicable Me 2, and Carly Shay and Sam Puckett and Freddie Benson from iCarly (just to name a few!) have all used the term chick to mean bird.

Why is this important, one may ask?  Answer:

At the bottom of this page, it says, "This is a disambiguation page…If you followed a link here, you might want to go back and fix that link to point to the appropriate specific page."

Obviously, plenty of dialogue exists on Wikiquote using the word chick, sometimes meaning one thing, sometimes meaning something else entirely.  (Sometimes, a single character will use the term chick with two separate meanings, e.g., Sam Puckett and Carly Shay from iCarly.)

Because plenty of dialogue exists on Wikiquote using the word chick, editors can create links to chick where the intended meaning is one thing or where the intended meaning is another.

When a person clicks on a link to chick, she or he will see the following message at the bottom of the page:  "If you followed a link here, you might want to go back and fix that link to point to the appropriate specific page."

That's vital.  The person realises that the link has not taken her or him to the page that actually deals with the topic the character was discussing, and can go back to the previous page and fix the link.  But if we delete chick, it will show up as a red link, and people will either (a) not feel motivated to fix the link or (b) forget that there are other meanings behind the term and thus create an article for chick that focuses on one meaning or another.  The most expedient way to prevent this problem is to keep the page for chick.

allixpeeke (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This has already been deleted after the {{prod}} had been in place for a week. (Before you consider appealing the deletion, consider that the word "bitch" is also used to refer to women, but the reason neither word is an appropriate alternative name for the Women article is not just because they are ambiguous with birds and dogs.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Duplex[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Duplex, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikiquote is not" and Wikiquote's deletion policy).

You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Votes for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Since there is now an article for Duplex (film) and Duplex (building), this particular disambiguation page is quite necessary.  Thus, I have removed the {{dated prod}} notice.

Best,
allixpeeke (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Chick Island[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Chick Island, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikiquote is not" and Wikiquote's deletion policy).

You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Votes for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I have deleted the deletion notice and added a {{Quotability}} notice in its place.

I believe we should keep this page in existence for the following reasons:

  1. These are the most quotable quotes about this topic that I believe one can find.  (If one can find quotes about this topic that are more quotable, then the solution is to add them to the page, not to delete the page altogether.)
  2. If the topic itself is notable enough to appear on Wikipedia (which it is), then it is notable enough to appear on Wikiquote.  The objective, therefore, is to find the most quotable quotes about this inherently-notable topic, which I believe these quotes are.  (If one can find quotes about this inherently-notable topic that are more quotable, one is, of course, invited to add them.)
  3. As an inclusionist (as well as an eventualist), I would find it dismaying to see this article deleted.
  4. I agree with the inclusionist phrase that "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia," and I believe that that standard can and must be extended to Wikiquote.  According to inclusionists, "Since Wikipedia does not have the same space limitations as a paper encyclopedia, there is no need to restrict content in the same way that a paper encyclopedia does."  Deleting this page might make sense if we were creating a physical book of quotes on the topic of islands—but we aren't.  Keeping this page in existence in a physical book might use of valuable space and make it harder to find the topics for which one is actually looking; but the same is not true here(A) This page uses up almost no space.  (B) This page isn't making it the least bit harder for readers to find other topics; it's not like a person has to turn to this page before turning to the topic for which she or he is looking.  Indeed, this keeping this page has zero negative repercussions.  By contrast, deleting this page has one negative repercussion: those who are looking for quotes about this topic will be unable to find them on Wikiquote, and will have to search for them elsewhere.
  5. The motto of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians "is Conservata veritate, which translates to, 'with truth preserved.'  This motto reflects a desire to change Wikipedia only when no knowledge would be lost as a result."  Deleting this page would result in a loss of knowledge.
The following arguments against deletion also apply:
  1. "Deletions and deletionism goes against the entire basic premise of Wikipedia: Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge.  That's what we're doing. — Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia."
  2. "It's easy to criticize and delete, whereas it's much more difficult to do research and create content.  'Better to light a candle than curse the darkness.' — Peter Benenson, founder of Amnesty International."
  3. "It can be frustrating for a reader to come to Wikipedia looking for information, and instead find that the relevant article that existed at one point has since then been deleted.  This discourages both Wikipedia readership and authorship."
  4. "Part of the reason people use Wikipedia is that it is a vibrant source of obscure knowledge, especially about obscure topics that aren't covered in a more traditional encyclopedia.  Other methods of ensuring quality, such as labeling a page 'In Need of Editing and Sources', are more than enough to correct problems."
  5. "Deletions and deletionism may cause disappointed contributors to leave the project.  Fun?"
  6. "Wikipedia is used at free risk.  There is no need to delete articles 'lacking of quality'.  But there is always a chance to improve them."
  7. "On the Internet, outside Wikipedia, why do you think there are a lot of people complaining over deletions, but not a lot of people complaining over articles actually existing?"
  8. "Deleting a well-written, well-sourced article on the basis of notability can reduce the amount of valuable information on Wikipedia."
  9. "It's a strength that Wikipedia can cover as much knowledge as possible."
  10. "Today's encyclopedists are limited only by totally manmade notability guidelines.  It's like rejecting the progress of technology, and still today travel across the Atlantic Ocean by sailing ship instead of motorship (or maybe aeroplane!)."
  11. "One article added, another one deleted. It can't be easy for Wikipedia to expand!"
allixpeeke (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The foregoing arguments pertain to Wikipedia, but your premise that "if the topic itself is notable enough to appear on Wikipedia (which it is), then it is notable enough to appear on Wikiquote" is not the whole story – there must also be something memorably quotable in the article.

Yes, Wikiquote is not a paper encyclopedia: it is not an encyclopedia at all. Wikiquote is not a collection of general information and factoids, it is a collection of quotable quotations. We limit ourselves to quotations which are notable.

Therefore, I have listed Chick Island at Votes for deletion. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Chick Island. Thank you. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Note:  Today, I have rescinded my position on this page, reverting my keep to an abstainallixpeeke (talk) 06:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Babe[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Babe, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikiquote is not" and Wikiquote's deletion policy).

You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Votes for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I posted the following message on the Babe talk page:
  • Keep—When a person is searching for a film about a talking pig, that person will often search for Babe, only to discover that the actual link for which she or he is looking is Babe (film).  When a person is searching for a baseball player named George Herman Ruth, she or he will most often look for him under one of his nicknames (the Babe, the Bambino, or the Sultan of Swat), only to discover that the actual link for which she or he is looking is Babe Ruth.  By keeping this disambiguation page in existence, it becomes easier for people to find that for which they're looking.  allixpeeke (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
allixpeeke (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Quotability[edit]

A page that you have been involved in editing, Template:Quotability, has been listed for deletion. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the nomination for deletion (see also what Wikiquote is and is not). If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Template:Quotability. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Thank you. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

If the problem with a given page is that the quotes aren't quotable enough, then the solution shouldn't be to delete the page altogether, but to improve the page by finding quotes that are even more quotable.  Adding a {{Quotability}} notice in a given page will help direct editors to help improve it.

As an inclusionist (as well as an eventualist), I find it dismaying to see pages deleted instead of being improved.  If and when more-quotable quotes exist than what appears in a given Wikiquote page, the solution should always be to find these more-quotable quotes and add them to the page, not to delete topics altogether.  This template helps to facilitate such improvements.  (Contrariwise, if one wishes to argue that a given page can't get any better, then that's not a reason for deleting the page, but rather for keeping it.)

allixpeeke (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)