From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hello, IOHANNVSVERVS, and welcome to English Wikiquote.

Enjoy! ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent valuable contributions, they are appreciated. You will notice I have removed the "bold" from the original quotes in Latin. It is not standard practise here to boldface quotes in other languages, this being English Wikiquote after all. I could be wrong, but then the problem would be: which quotes in Latin, and which parts, to bold. I should also point out that the picture you've added is nice, but (I think) a bit misleading—Virgil meant "from one crime, learn all", not that we should learn everything from one man. Okay, ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your kind gratitude and encouragement. Concerning the bolding of non-English phrases, I would like to continue the practice. Are there any rules against? Finally, I see the quotation as more generally 'from one instance, learn all', an elegant motto of inductive reasoning, which is well exemplified in geometry; hence the image choice.
There are no "rules" against it, but it is uncommon. I asked a more experienced editor about it. I'm open to the idea, I just wouldn't know where to start—e.g., should we "bold" Arma virumque cano right at the start too? (Why not?) There is a list of common Latin phrases on Wikipedia, with many by Virgil—maybe we could start with those. Regarding the picture: I see... that's a better interpretation. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is my understanding that the use of bold is to highlight quotations of higher quality. I understand a modest amount of Latin, so for me I choose to highlight which lines I most like. If editing a page with language alien to me, I leave it unbolded. I am glad to hear your feedback, friend.

Omnia vincit Amor[edit]

I restored the picture. Now that I think of it, I'm a bit concerned that the Caravaggio painting could perhaps offend sensibilities, but even then, I'm not sure that'd be a good reason to remove it. There are other good illustrations of Love, but Caravaggio seemed to me the most fitting for this particular quote. BTW, Dryden renders it, "In hell, and earth, and seas, and heaven above,/ Love conquers all, and we must yield to love." but I don't believe his first verse can be extrapolated from the original. ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you would restore the picture I will not resist. As for Dryden's translation, the first verse is indeed a liberality. Good to communicate with you, friend.
IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair notice[edit]

Regarding WQ:VP#Vote on prohibition of User:Kalki:  When initiating formal discussion to sanction a fellow contributor it is customary, and well nigh mandatory, to give fair notice on their user talk page. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. I hadn't considered such a measure. Although I did declare in a previous post on the Village Pump my intent to bring such an action about. I will post a message to the user's talk page now. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See here [1]


Where did you get this translation? ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found it on the Wikipedia article for Laocoon. Found published here [2], translator unclear. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll stop reverting you. I have better things to do with my time. ~ DanielTom (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to restore it to your previous version. ~ DanielTom (talk) 03:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like the Conington translation you added, DanielTom. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You removed something like 100 sourced quotes from this page. What is your criteria for "excess" ([3] [4] [5], etc.)? Are you an expert on the Qur'an? ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me there are too many quotations on the page; for example: surah 9 currently has over 50% of it's 129 verses quoted. I intend to make further reductions to some of the sections even still; Do you think I am wrong to do so? Thanks for your feedback. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
D.T. is right. The removing of the quotes was unnecessary, in my opinion. – Illegitimate Barrister, 22:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
IOHANNVSVERVS, it's not a problem if the quotes you're removing are truly superfluous. But you might also be removing important quotes, unknowingly. Hence my question: have you studied the Qur'an, or are you just removing the ones that you feel are less important? My guess is, the people who added them to the article probably know more about the Qur'an than you. So, again, I would like to know what criteria you are using to determine which "excessive" quotes should be removed (e.g., are you checking one by one if they are popular/widely quoted?). ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that many of the quotations were added en masse by a single user: [6], [7], [8]. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
You're right. User:ELApro is a great contributor, but sometimes goes a bit overboard (cf. A History of Western Philosophy). He might not be an expert on the Qur'an, but it's still a bit disrespectful to undo most of his work, as I told you at Talk:Latin proverbs. And many of the quotes he added are important (e.g., first in your last link, "O you who believe, take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends of each other. And whoever amongst you takes them for friends he is indeed one of them.", which you didn't remove) – that they were added en masse does not mean that they should be removed en masse. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
DanielTom, I don't properly understand your objection to my edits, although it seems you are concerned that I removed quotations indiscriminately. I can say that I was cautious about what I removed and that I did my best to discern what was quotable and what was not quotable. I am not an expert on the Quran, but I think that if we leave this project to experts than it will never make progress.
Prior to this discussion I had reduced surahs 2 to 6 and was intending to reduce surahs 7 to 11 as well for being overpopulated. Do you not think there is a problem of excessive quotations in these sections? Especially surah 9 as I mentioned above. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to trim away – I'll review your changes later when I have time. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you find this (rather poor) translation? And the quote is from Book VIII, not VII. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See here. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


for this edit – I think I'll adopt that style of citation ("; []'s translation"). It is less verbose than having "as translated by" repeated over and over again. Cheers ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

:D -IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I often just abbreviate "X, tr. Y". Too cryptic? ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I usually use the abbreviation "trans.", but "tr." seems valid too, and is even shorter. I like it. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me for commenting on the general topic of abbreviation uninvited, but here are a few common ones that you both may want to use in the future: Exod., Deut., Gen., Deut. Jas. (James), Jer., K. (King), Q. Queen. There are more at Oxford English Dictionary, but I thought these the most pertinent to shortened citations. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the particular topic of citing translations, the above comment by CensoredScribe misses the point entirely. There are a lot of lazy and incompetent editors who fail to cite the bible translation they are quoting: KJV, RSV, etc. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quote by Cicero(?) or Horace[edit]

Ave, IOHANNVSVERVS. Thank you for your prompt response to my query. The quote in question is : "When you wish to instruct, be brief; that men’s minds (may) take in quickly what you say, learn its lesson, and retain it faithfully. Every word that is unnecessary only pours over the side of a brimming mind." This quote is attributed to Marcus Tullius Cicero on the following websites : , , and , as well as several books of collected quotes. (nota bene : the word "may" is typically omitted.) However, a Google Books search on "Every word that is unnecessary only pours over the side of a brimming mind." returns, as its fourth result, a book titled Horace for English Readers: Being a Translation of the Poems of Quintus Horatius Flaccus by Edward Charles Wickham (editor & translator), Clarendon Press (1903), p. 357. The section of this book that includes p. 357 is a translation of Ars Poetica (The Art of Poetry) by Horace. I the looked at the version of Ars Poetica at The Latin Library (Latin only). By going back & forth between the book and The Latin Library, I finally focussed on lines 335-337 :

Quicquid praecipies, esto breuis, ut cito dicta
percipiant animi dociles teneantque fideles.
Omne superuacuum pleno de pectore manat.

I am pretty sure that this is the Latin version of the quote, though I would certainly like the opinion of someone with a better knowledge of Latin than I have to confirm (or dispute) that. I would also appreciate your thoughts on whether Horace could have been incorporating a quote by Cicero in his work about poetry.

I have also taken a look at the version of Ars Poetica at Project Gutenberg (Translation by George Colman) :

Quicquid praecipies, esto brevis: ut eito dicta
 Percipiant animi dociles, tencantque fideles.
 Omni supervacuum pleno de pectore manat.
 Instruction to convey and give delight,
 Or both at once to compass, Poets write:
 Short be your precepts, and th' impression strong,
 That minds may catch them quick, and hold them long!

Which reminds me of one other thing I am puzzled by : the quote as I originally found it is unquestionably the Edward Charles Wickham translation (which is unquestionably from Horace) , so how the hell did Cicero get dragged into the whole mess? I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, since I have encountered numerous examples of wrongly attributed quotes since I first started editing here at Wikiquote, but ...

At any rate: if you have the time to take a look at this, I'd be very appreciative to hear your thoughts on this matter.

Thanks and regards, CononOfSamos (talk) 04:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are an easy pupil, CononOfSamos; answering your own questions :D
You have done some great research here and I have little to add; most everything you've said is accurate.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I like the quote and hadn't heard it before. I've also added it to the Horace page here
Vale, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS, for your assistance (and your kind words). I also like this quote: furthermore, the website where I found it ( ) has a number of other great quotes on writing. Fair warning : I may ask for your help again in the future ; I love the Classics, but my language skills leave something to be desired. I studied Latin for a couple of years in high school (about 50 years ago!), but I was a dreadful student.
Vale, IOHANNVSVERVS. Until we speak to each other again ... CononOfSamos (talk) 04:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hi there! Hope all is well!

I've been putting together a page on former Australian Prime Minister Robert Menzies, but as a rookie, my skills are pretty mediocre. I was wondering if I could ask for your help in clearing up the page? I would be very thankful.


Hi, Nic; the page looks very good. Only needs citations/references to be improved. Maybe this will help: Wikiquote:Templates Cheers, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hi there! i was just wondering if I could ask for your help with something. I'm new to wikiquote, and my skills are quite poor at the moment, but i built a page and am trying to clean up the references section. How do i do this? Nicholasraphael (talk) 05:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Nicholasraphael; try these: Wikipedia: Referencing for Beginners, Wikiquote: Sourcing, Wikiquote: Citing sources.
If you have further questions try asking the community over at the Village pump. Cheers, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that the reason some of your contributions have been tagged for cleanup is because, unlike Wikipedia, citations at Wikiquote should be bulleted under the quotations, not in footnotes. Please do not use "<ref>" tags in Wikiquote articles. Thanks. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aeneas' dream[edit]

"Ah me! what aspect was his! how changed from that Hector who returns after donning the spoils of Achilles..." I think the annotation you removed was instructive. In Books XVI–XVII of the Iliad, Hector (with the help of Apollo) kills Patroclus, and then dons his armor, which belonged to Achilles. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if "quod dubites, ne feceris" were a proverb, as it is quoted in Pliny's Letters, it becomes a quotation from Pliny's Letters (cf. proverbs from Don Quixote). You should, of course, feel free to add a note saying that it is a proverb – if you have evidence for it ("praeceptum" does not actually mean "proverb") – but your habit of removing sourced quotations (instead of moving them to a "Misattributed" section and providing an explanation to readers searching for said quotations as to their actual origins) is simply reprehensible. ~ DanielTom (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove boldface from most "Last words"[edit]

Hello. Can you please weigh in and give your opinion at Wikiquote:Village pump#Boldface in all "last words"? There, I'm proposing to remove boldface from most quotes in Last words, Fictional last words, and their subpages. Details and reasons are given in the discussion itself. Thanks in advance. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]