User talk:Ningauble

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive
Archives

Problem[edit]

Eaglestorm has removed the quotes from The Simpsons Season 3 Page. Can you sort him out? --81.97.18.158 11:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@81.97.18.158:  If Eaglestorm has neglected to point out the reason for removing excess quotes, you may want to read Wikiquote:Limits on quotations which explains it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

sourcing question[edit]

Here, Canto I, stanza 2, lines ?? — which ones should I count, those within the stanza (lines 7–8) or the whole poem (lines 15–16)? Thank you ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

And another thing: should one write "Canto I, stanza 2, lines 7–8", or simply "Canto I, stanza 2, line 7"? Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
A: I would use a hierarchical schema, numbering stanzas within canto and lines within stanza, just as "chapter and verse" Bible citations use chapter within book and verse within chapter (unless one is using a widely recognized linear numbering standard, like Bekker numbering for the works of Aristotle). In situations where it is best to use line number within poem (e.g. where different editions use different stanza breaks, which can happen with poets who do not use formally structured meter) one should probably omit reference to stanzas altogether.
B: Some authors cite only the beginning of a quoted passage, so it is not wrong; but I generally cite a range when when referring to multiple lines that do not comprise a whole stanza, (even though it can be complicated when the passage begins in the middle of one stanza and continues into the next). ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again. One more question, if I may: which do you prefer, writing (e.g.) "lines 45–47", or "lines 45–7"? ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Please use both digits. Potential confusion from dropping the most significant digits outweighs the amount of ink saved. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hakan Lucius[edit]

Good edit.  That said, I worry the issue with that page runs deeper than its insufficient source.  See my note on the talk page.  Suffice it to say, I worry the page may be delete-worthy.  allixpeeke (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at the page since we last edited it until today, and I now see that 194.154.219.97 has edited the sole quote, substituting "a bank's" in place of "your," rendering it a quote found nowhere else online.  It all seems rather fishy.  Just wanted to bring this to your attention.  Best, allixpeeke (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree that it looks a bit dodgy for someone to post a second version without citing the source, even after a published source was requested. If you want to {{prod}} it for "no verifiable source" and give the user a {{prodwarning}} then go right ahead. (I also agree with your reservations about originality. These are minor variations on PR consulting buzz that has been circulating for years.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 11:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Science and Religion[edit]

The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations by Subject (= to the Oxford Treasury of Sayings and Quotations) uses "Science and Religion". Should I write to Susan Ratcliffe and tell her she used "improper" capitalization? ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

About Chile and template of deletion[edit]

Hello. Hey I've found a source but this wiki rejected the source. How can I add sources and more information without problems?. Have a nice day. Good bye.--Je7roi (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Hi Ningauble, can you rename my account to other name? --Wiki Wisdom (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Wisdom, I do not have that ability. Requests for renaming may be made at m:Steward requests/Username changes or at w:WP:RENAME, where a steward or global renamer can help you. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Kenji Goto[edit]

Would you please give a look? It has only one quote, then unsourced, now sourced. I am not ready to provide more quotes, but it'll be able someday, hopefully. --Aphaia (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Usually I do not like to cite a tweet without secondary sources, because there are millions of tweets every day and most are not notable. I notice that Wikipedia has this quote and cites a ".org" that I am not familiar with, so I looked for more secondary sources:

I found an AP story carried by The Guardian and The Telegraph, which shows it is a notable quote in the mainstream press. – Notice that the translation is a little different in meaningful ways.

I suggest adding a mainstream secondary citation to the article, as described at my essay Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, as evidence that the tweet is definitely notable. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your research, I'll give a second look, and consider if I can improve the current translation. --Aphaia (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, did you mean "brothers" vs. "brothers and sisters"? Then the original word 兄弟 means only male brothers (both elder and younger) for the first. In Japanese it can embrace female siblings, but it's a possible implication no one can determine out of context. It may be English mainstream media adjustment. The rest part is not significantly different from my eyes, but if you disagree, please point out. I'm willing to provide my opinion as a native Japanese speaker. --Aphaia (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah - another difference I've just noticed: who gets mad, perhaps? It depends. I prefer to use "we" or "one" in translation, but it's just my interpretation: the original Japanese sentence provided here no subject (Japanese sentences require a subject not every time). It's pretty up to the reader. --Aphaia (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Actually, the difference that struck me was in the beginning of the quote. The version in the article and at globalvoices.org uses the imperative mood in the second person and the collective "we" in the subjunctive mood. The AP version uses the first person singular in a very personal statement. The tone of the two versions looks very different, and the AP version is more intensely poignant in English. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Sure AP folks did so. The beginning is actually not in the imperative mood in the Japanese original, though it can connote an order. It was said as "lesson", so translation into the imperative would be within translators' license. I guess AP translator on the other hand wanted to keep the calm tone of this tweet allover, not using the imperative. I tried to provide the literal translation, which still has some addition for English grammar. --Aphaia (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The article looks good now, with a cited translation and a variant. (I don't have any Japanese myself, but I do appreciate that mood and nuance are expressed very differently than in English.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Good faith gesture[edit]

Puss in Boots (2011 film)[edit]

Hola.  After I added Puss in Boots to Category:Shrek, you removed itI urge you to reconsider.  The Wikipedia article on Puss in Boots has the film categorised in Category:Shrek films, which is in turn categorised under Category:Shrek.  I believe Wikipedia is correct in choosing to place all films/shows/video games from the Shrek franchise in the Shrek category, and I think we here at Wikiquote ought to do the same.  Best, allixpeeke (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Fine. I had not noticed that this film, in which Shrek does not appear, is considered part of the same franchise because the character was "borrowed" from a totally unrelated story for a supporting part in the franchise of films that are about Shrek, which this film is not. (Shame on DreamWorks.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Criminals[edit]

Should it be used here? ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I think tagging articles with this sort of badge-of-shame is in very poor taste, unless criminality is a principal reason the person is notable in the first place; but it seems to be standard operating procedure at Wikipedia. Go figure.

To be clear, I am not defending D'Souza. I have no sympathy for his brand of politics and polemics: there must be a special place in Hell for people with his level of intellectual dishonesty; but that is evidently not what is meant by this sort of categorization, whatever really is meant by it.

Someone looking for quotations from a criminal perspective (like Willie Sutton's reported explanation of why he robbed banks) would hardly benefit from having this article recommended; but that does not seem to be the purpose of such categories, which I regard as pointlessly pointed. ~ Ningauble (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your well thought-out response. I agree w/ you, but don't know if I can keep removing the category, if it is added back. BTW, I too used to find D'Souza's "intellectual dishonesty" very disturbing, so much so that some years ago (before he made his movies and became really famous) I even sent him an email detailing what I considered to be his many distortions and errors in his debates on the existence of God (and, guess what, he replied back). Still, I regard his books as useful resources, mainly for high-school students (e.g. his Letters to a Young Conservative), or for people living in a bubble who've never heard arguments from the "other side". And I agree with his defense of the spirit of 1776, as opposed to what he calls "the spirit of 1968". D'Souza is not so much an original thinker (exception?) as a popularizer. He is IMO good at finding and compiling arguments for and against any given position. Perhaps a certain degree of "intellectual dishonesty" is required in this enterprise, if you want to sell books (cf. "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people"). ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

word order[edit]

  • The Destruction of Troy (1656), Preface
  • Preface to The Destruction of Troy (1656)

Which of these do you prefer? (Should I treat "Preface" the same way I would a page number?) ~ DanielTom (talk) 03:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

My own preference is to treat it like a chapter if it is a preface by the author of the main work, but if it is one author's preface to another's work then I would write "preface to..." followed by a full citation to the work, including it's author. Note that prefatory materials often vary between editions, so identifying the precise edition is helpful. ~ Ningauble (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Misattributed/Disputed end[edit]

Hi, Ningauble, I found your misattributed/disputed begin/end templates useful so that I imported them to the Japanese Wikiquote. But oddly they don't work as same. Rather the first == title appears just as same as wikitext, the second next works properly though. For example, ja:孔子. I copied them and changed not at all. Could you please give a look and find the way they work well? Cheers, --Aphaia (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Self-solved! Not the template but the line followed was wrong. There was something different from SPC placed perhaps. So there is no problem ... I expect ... --Aphaia (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I am glad you found them useful, even if it took a couple tries. The formatting was originally suggested by BD2412 at Wikiquote:Village pump archive 31#Color coordination for misattribution sections. As discussed there, it took a couple tries to get the template implementation working. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes it did. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the category clarification[edit]

The lines are not always distinct as you yourself have noted, but thanks for the clarification regarding categories, I'm not deliberately trying to give you things to revert. I've noticed you've kept the interpersonal relationship categorization, anatomy seems to cover eating and drinking right now which seems a bit off. Again the only ones I would actually contest that you are wrong about are the ones about art; discourse is a vague term which you've helped clarify for me a bit; not as vague as art though. CensoredScribe (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Ben Carson[edit]

What do you think of this About section: Ben_Carson#Quotes_about_Carson?

It seems very biased to me. And I'm not even a Carson supporter. (His position on evolution reminds me of Ron Paul, another doctor who—many people don't know this—also doesn't "accept" the "theory" of evolution...)

But when I see unknown nobodies—who don't even have a Wikipedia page—insulting and attacking Dr. Carson ("mindblowing irrational thinking", "batsh*t crazy Bible-thumper", "ignorant, offensive, and downright stupid", "lacks [integrity] entirely", etc.), I wonder: should we even have quotes from people who are not even notable enough to have a Wikipedia page themselves? (In my opinion, no, we shouldn't—especially in politicians' pages, for obvious reasons.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I think "about" sections should be held to the highest standards for quotability. I also think candidates for high political office should be held to the highest standards for intellectual integrity. What I think has little influence in these areas. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

CensoredScribe[edit]

Hello Ningauble. You haven't edited in a while, so I hope you're doing well. You were 100% right about CensoredScribe. Could you please review his activity again and if necessary block him (at least for a limited time – e.g. 1 year)? Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I was just about to leave, but I checked a few pages on Recent changes before doing so, and noted this. Though I have not been taking extensive note of his activities, I can agree that CensoredScribe sometimes adds too extensive and sometimes rather irrelevant or only trivially relevant quotes to pages, but some of his contributions seem worthy of keeping, and certainly believe blocking him for more than a day or so at this point AFTER a clear and cogent warning and rational for doing so is unwarranted. The very longest block I see warranted at this point, AFTER a warning and reason for considering it, with specific examples cited, would be a week. I don’t have time to stick around right now and comment much more, as I will be leaving soon, and might not be active here till sometime tomorrow. ~ Kalki·· 23:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC) + tweaks

Can't you delete this yourself?[edit]

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thom_Shank ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Deng Xiaoping[edit]

I disagree with your reversion – it's a memorable story, and the reply is quotable in its context. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Senhor Tome. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Ningauble's reversion. While the story itself is interesting and perhaps even memorable, the single line of "He was lying" is not in any way quotable. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps one could start a separate project called WikiAnecdote. I somehow doubt the Wikimedia foundation would be interested in hosting it, but there are plenty of other services willing to host just about anything. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Are you being serious or facetious/sarcastic? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
My intent was to underline UDSCott's point about interesting stories by emphasizing that it really does not fit within the mission here. I accept full responsibility for any confusion that may result from being serious and attempting humor at the same time. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I myself have added such quotes before, though I am no authority – but I will say The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations and other editions disagree with you. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Neither of the above citations quotes the remark in question, which does not exhibit the sort of wordplay found there.~ Ningauble (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
There doesn't have to be wordplay. Consider: "Yes, I believe in God." reply to gunman – quote reported in the Oxford Dictionary of Modern Quotations (2007), p. 191. If you can't see that context (in this case, last words) can sometimes make "commonplace expressions" notable and quotable, you are very... imperceptive (let's call it that). ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────────┘
The removed quote actually was longer than the one in the OED. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

[1] Are you going to remove Margaret Thatcher's "no, no, no" next? ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

realism[edit]

You say that the reason we can't quote Shrek-4D is because of the fact that it's realistic to quote, yet there are many quotes on this wiki from real life people.--Trisha Gaurav (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I said nothing about realism in my proposal to delete the article, which reads: "This material from an amusement park attraction lack any quotability." (You should also be aware that the characters portrayed are not actually real life people, though this has nothing to do with the reason for deletion.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks and Apologies[edit]

I realize the recent Zootopia dispute probably wasn't fun to deal with. It was not in my interest to start any edit warring, and I did attempt to solve the dispute by other methods. So I'll apologize for that dispute. In the same area, I'll thank you for helping clear up some of the quotation rules regarding the limitations. I'll be honest and say I'm still trying to get used to it, and is nice to have a reference point. Cheers man. -SM (sorry I still don't know how to do the signature)

Could I get your opinion as to whether my citation fixes are "subtle vandalism" or if it is rather Daniel Tom's uncivil and disruptive behavior that warrants correction?[edit]

[2] I have a very long and sorted history with Daniel Tom, and although they normally have some basis for their reverts, this is a very clear cut matter of whether my recent citation fixes are correct or not, which I believe they are as every single style guide suggests ending citations with a period and my other grammatical fixes such as italicizing titles and using commas between entries (or periods in the case of the APA) are also near universally implemented. I've been copying their language substituting meat back for incompetent as I assume all editors are made out of meat, while incompetence is in fact a legal term.

Sorry for bothering you with this mess, I thought being a wiki gnome was welcomed, but I guess not. I wouldhave at least liked knowing what I did wrong from DT, but I guess I don't deserve that as "the most incompetent editor ever". CensoredScribe (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@CensoredScribe:  I notice that after posting this query/complaint at the Village Pump you immediately broadcast it to no less than ten users' talk pages. Please stop being a pest. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikiquote, Beer no citation provided[edit]

Hello Ningauble, Thanks for helping to edit the page - https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Beer&oldid=prev&diff=2140951, I see that you have reverted my edits with the comments stating that "no Citation provided" - would a request for citation for the quotes helped better to improve the content and gather the source and citation by other editors or me - rather than wipe and revert all the edits ? Please let know your thoughts - Thank you again! -03:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)—This unsigned comment is by Karthik sripal (talkcontribs) .

In Wikiquote's earliest days it was considered ok to include unsourced quotes pending further research. It did not work out well, because it led to a great deal of false information and outright nonsense (such as the Abraham Lincoln item you added, which is completely bogus: see Abraham Lincoln#Misattributed). The community decided several years ago that all unsourced attributions should be promptly removed from articles. Just like the policy at Wikipedia, all quotations must cite a reliable, published source.
As I often say: "If it ain't cited, it ain't a quote."(You can quote me on that.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikiquote's credibility[edit]

Any thoughts on this? I'm afraid it's just the tip of the iceberg. Illegitimate Barrister has polluted probably hundreds of articles with "quotes" by anonymous Internet users taken directly from message boards (or Blogger/WordPress, and their comment sections), often with extremely deceiving citations and links to Wikipedia pages that don't actually exist. While Illegitimate Barrister has done good work in many pages, the damage he has done to Wikiquote's reliability and trustworthiness by such additions (which are arguably worse than vandalism) is equally very great. I believe Illegitimate Barrister should be given a formal warning, at the very least. (I'm asking you because you are already aware of some of the problems with this user's editing, and to avoid escalation, but if you prefer I can bring it up at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I generally agree with your assessment, both in terms of the quality of such contributions and their impact on Wikiquote's standing. However, I confess that I am not at all sure of the best way to deal with it.

In the absence of any clear consensus disallowing unremarkable (unremarked) internet chatter, I am not sure action at the AN against an administrator could be sustained on that basis. Given that this is not the only prolific contributor whose conception of notability and quotability of random things found on the interestnet is at variance with what seems (to you and me anyway) a common-sense understanding of Wikiquote's mission, it seems to me that a discussion of principles at the VP or policy/guideline pages, rather than discussing an individual's actions, may be the more fundamental need. Alas, consensus on such matters has proved to be very elusive.

The matter of misleading citations and links may be more directly actionable on grounds of outright bogosity. I regard this as a grave matter, and quite appalling when it comes from a certified administrator. However, it almost feels like nit-picking when it concerns citing things that should never have been included in the first place – sort of like ticketing a car-bomber for stopping in a no-parking zone.

Perhaps comparing this to car-bombing is a bit hyperbolic, but I can think of few more effective ways of reducing Wikiquote to a pile of rubble than to treat it as a mirror site for internet chatrooms. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

On the plus side, we could then change Wikiquote's name to Wikilitter® (trademark pending). ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

My intervention[edit]

So you're implying I cannot express my opinion, which incidentally is not like yours? I'm a long-time it.wp and WD admin, btw. Nice to meet you.

I was discussing with Superchilum about Wikidata stuff, and he mentioned me this talk - not even linked me the talk, just told me. I came here by my decision, if that's what's troubling you, no canvassing or such. I just felt to defend his position, and to defend the work of other Wikidata users. We're all working for the same reason here, and nobody, nobody, wanted to offend Gilldragon or hint at an alleged breaking of the rules.

Anyway, if you wish I can help draw a guideline about Wikidata. Sannita (talk) 13:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

No Sannita, I am not implying that you cannot express an opinion. I was just wondering how this user's page became a venue for discussing Wikidata. It was not my intention to deprecate the project, but to intercede where a contributor received what looked very much like a level-1 user warning without cause. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Uncharted 4: A Thief's End (AmericanLemming)[edit]

Hello, there. I'm AmericanLemming, and since you marked Uncharted 4: A Thief's End as needing to have its copyright status checked, I've removed the trailer quotes, as they almost certainly exceed fair use. I feel that the number of quotes on the page is reasonable now. Of course, Wikiquote doesn't have a formal policy or recommendation for the number of quotes for electronic game articles (see Wikiquote:Limits on quotations#Types of articles), so what's considered a reasonable number of quotes varies from person to person.

Anyway, I was wondering if you still think that the article has too many quotes; I'm willing to reduce the number of quotes further, but I'd like to have a rough guideline of how many quotes I should have. (Note that the article currently has 34 quotes, and a movie of all the game's cutscenes put together is about four hours--search for "Uncharted 4 movie" on YouTube, for example). I only started editing Wikiquote this summer (though I've been on Wikipedia for 3 years now), and by the looks of it you've been here since 2008, so I'd greatly appreciate any advice you have for me. Thank you. —This unsigned comment is by AmericanLemming (talkcontribs) 02:37, 18 August 2016‎.

Hi AmericanLemming, please pardon the lateness of my reply. In the absence of a guideline it is a not easy to answer your question.

The Limits on Quotations guideline (draft) formerly recommend three quotes per game; but this was removed a year ago because it was very contentious. Some argued for twice as much, which would be six quotes, but as it stands now there is no codified rule of thumb – one just has to use one's judgment, which does indeed vary from person to person and can lead to contention.

My own opinion, since you ask, as remarked in multiple threads on the guideline discussion page, is that there should be greater focus on the quality of Wikiquote:Quotability rather than the quantity that may be permissible – a focus on showcasing a handful of brilliant and famous quotations in an uncluttered format, rather than cramming in as much material as can be justified under the fair use doctrine.

I am aware that game reviewers have praised the quality of dialogues in this game, but I am not seeing that quality exemplified in the present article. What we have here are mostly commonplace clichés, not memorably original expressions of "particularly witty, pithy, wise, eloquent, or poignant" prose.

My advice is to use the following procedure: (1) try to find the three very best quotes as if that were a fixed limit, and then (2) consider adding a few more of comparable quality that will not diminish the spotlight on what is most brilliant. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. The article as it stands contains what I consider to be the most memorable and thought-provoking quotes from the game. Obviously, that doesn't necessarily mean that they're memorable or thought-provoking enough to merit inclusion on Wikiquote. I was also trying to include the quotes that were most important for understanding the plot, but clearly Wikiquote is not the place for that. (So that all my hard work compiling quotes doesn't go to waste, I may add some of the deleted Uncharted 4 quotes to IMDB, which is probably a more appropriate place for recreating large chucks of dialogue.)
Anyway, in light of your advice I've trimmed the article further; it now has only nine lines of dialogue. I suppose there might still be some clichés, but I think the ones that remain are at least thought-provoking clichés. Additionally, the remaining quotes are more accessible to the general reader, as they don't require familiarity with the game. Let me know what you think; I plan on creating Wikiquote articles for Uncharted 2 and Uncharted 3 with about 6-10 quotes apiece, so getting more feedback on what kinds of quotes I should include would be most useful. Thank you again for taking the time to write me a thoughtful reply, which I hope will help me to constructively contribute to Wikiquote in the future. AmericanLemming (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

too verbose?[edit]

  • Sub tegmine fagi.
    • In the shade of a beech tree.
    • Book I, line 1. Also found in the last line of the Georgics (IV, 566).

I don't like how this reference is worded. Is there a way to convey the same information in fewer words? ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's overly verbose; but I would prefer "Repeated in..." (which is one word shorter) because it indicates the author repeating himself rather than the commentator finding it (and conveys the also-ness of it at the same time). "Also found in" is a common enough idiom; but it is one of my pet peeves that a reviewer or commentator ought not unnecessarily inject himself (I found it!) into the review or commentary. It is also common to ameliorate this drawback by using a passive voice as "May also be found in", but this really is unduly verbose, and a bit ridiculous because the reader's ability or permission(!) to find it is hardly at issue.

I do think it is worthwhile, and not superfluous verbosity, to note it is the last line of Georgics in addition to citing book and line number. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks for the suggestion and explanation. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

User:‎Rupert loup[edit]

This user claims that my mere undoing of its excessive linking to some words (most of which were completely irrelevant to the respective story) in articles is vandalism. That is not possible, seeing as most articles here on Wikiquote are okay without any links. WikiLubber (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

If you would like me to help mediate a dispute, please provide links the ongoing discussion(s) and/or diffs showing the contested edits. I don't need a great deal of detail to get started, but I do need to know what is being disputed, and where – the locus of dispute. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I am not disputing anything (now). While I understand this user's edits were meaningful, referring to my undoing of those edits as vandalism (when in reality, they are good faith edits) is beyond reprehensible. WikiLubber (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Greek proverb[edit]

Thanks! It is Greek proverb . In Greece almost say every day . It need source(s) ? But why; It is a daily Greek phrase .--Ρητά και παροιμίες (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes Ρητά και παροιμίες, every quotation needs a citation. This is a basic requirement: see Wikiquote:Sourcing. Regarding proverbs in particular: since they are widely repeated by definition, it should be easy to find citations where they are repeated. However, as noted in the section at WQ:SOURCE#Proverbs, it is best to cite the earliest and/or most authoritative source that can be found, in order to help readers understand the origin.

Why are citations needed for things that are purportedly well known, like proverbs? We need a verifiable source every time because contributors are sometimes mistaken, or even making it up. Readers must be able to check the source and see for themselves that it is true.

Speaking of mistakes, this translation is very poor: the English grammar makes no sense. For translations in the English Wikiquote it is best to cite reliable sources of translation.

The same proverb (or very close, guessing at the meaning of the broken grammar above) can be found in English as "they stumble that run fast", from William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet (1597), Act II, scene 3, line 94. If you can find the same thing in English translation of a Greek writer from antiquity, or at least earlier than the 16th century, it would be a very valuable contribution to Wikiquote. (It might even tell us where Shakespeare got it!) ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually! It has many similarities. I found a source (of the twenty-first century!)--Ρητά και παροιμίες (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

While it may indeed be a popular expression in Greece today, I am not sure Greek Gateway is a reliable source. In general, collections on the internet that do not cite their sources are not very useful resources for Wikiquote.

It would be very interesting to discover whether modern Greeks actually got the expression from a translation of Shakespeare's popular play, or whether Shakespeare (or his contemporaries) actually got it from reading classical Greek literature. (The earliest sources I could find on Google Books [3] do not shed much light on the question, at least to me.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Shakespeare probably knew no Greek. I don't know if he knew Latin, but "they stumble that run fast" is reminiscent of Seneca's Quod evenit in labyrintho properantibus; ipsa illos velocitas inplicat ("This is what happens when you hurry through a maze; the faster you go, the worse you are entangled"). If I had to guess, I'd say Shakespeare came to it the same way I did, through Montaigne's Essays (popular at the time), specifically the 10th chapter of the third book, where he writes: "la hastiveté se donne elle mesme la jambe" (9th chapter in this English translation: "Haste trips up its own heels"). ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I found the source to google books Greek and English Proverbs. Who hurries Stumbles. Sfirikse to Whoever hurry,Stumbles! . If said first Shakespeare or an ancient Greek i don't know.--Ρητά και παροιμίες (talk) 07:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, the book Greek and English Proverbs by Panos Karagiōrgos appears to be a citable source. (The Sfirikse to blog is not.) This is a good find Ρητά και παροιμίες.

Interestingly, the same Karagiōrgos has a recent book, Anglo-Hellenic Cultural Relations (2015), that may have clues to a possible Shakespeare connection. Chapter 4 reviews the first translation of Shakespeare into Greek in 1819. Evidently Greece under the Ottoman Empire had been unaware of Shakespeare's existence! Chapter 5 discusses the influence of Shakespeare on modern Greek literature thereafter, first flourishing mid 19th century. This is precisely the same age as the earliest mention of the Greek proverb that I was able to find in Google Books.

To support or debunk speculation that the Greek proverb came from Shakespeare, it would be very interesting to learn (1) whether Greek translations of the above line from Romeo and Juliet closely match the proverb, and (2) whether any uses of the proverb can be found that predate those translations.

This is interesting to me because, in the words of WQ:SOURCE#Evaluating sources, "One of the purposes of a compendium of quotations like Wikiquote is to assist users, whether students, scholars, or just curious people, in understanding the origin of a quotation." ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC) (revised 14:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC), Ningauble (talk))

Joseph Masclet[edit]

I sent a request to the BnF asking referencing this letter with the quote. This quote is really important for the related Wikipedia article. It neatly shows why Masclet was important on the subject of Lafayette. Genium (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

If evidence that he gave an address about Lafayette is needed in the Wikipedia article, then add a footnote to that article. It is not Wikiquote's purpose to provide footnotes for Wikipedia, but to collect notably quotable quotes. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svgY Done. Added another one. Genium (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Civilization IV deletion[edit]

Even though the page on Civilization IV does not use original quotes, it tells the precise origin of each one and separates those which are dubtious and misattributed. It would be helpful to people who played the game and want to know the veracity and provenience of the quotes without the need of visiting many different pages. As I understood, the originality guideline you cited only says that the quotes must be attributed to the actual person who said them, and that's not a problem in the article I've created. So why delete it? - Alumnum (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Alumnum, there are about a zillion people and works that quote famous quotations; it is what makes them famous quotations. We do not quote those people and works quoting others; we quote people and works that say something famously quotable themselves, in their own words. It may indeed be helpful to people who are interested in people and works that quote others, but it is not Wikiquote's purpose to catalogue who quoted what. "The Wikiquote community prefers to use sources which are as close to the original author or speaker as possible". ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Irving Fiske[edit]

If there are no published sources, why not accept unpublished ones? I'll send your copy of the tape of Irvimg Fisjes talks Ladybelle Fiske (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

It is frustrating as he was well known and respected and he repeated these quotes many times. Ladybelle Fiske (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Ladybelle Fiske, more pertinent than how often he repeated himself, for Wikiquote's purposes, is how often other people quoted him. Unless his words are widely quoted by persons not related to him, obscure memorabilia preserved by friends and family is not a useful resource for Wikiquote. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Pacatus Drepanius[edit]

Are enough these references? which is common are wrote in Spanish, but you can search it with the word "Pacato" in the search of your browser. Thanks for your time. [www.enciclopedia1.com/h/hi/hispania.html ] [4] --Vvven (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Vvven, it is better to cite a high quality translation of the original source. The only known surviving work by Pacatus Drepanius is a speech in honor of Emperor Theodosius I, preserved in the Panegyrici Latini. A good translation (with extensive notes and commentary) may be found here with the pertinent passage on page 452. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I hope to find material in that source, soon i will be reviewing. Thanks so much. --Vvven (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok but if you can when you have time, could help me with the translation, because is the best i can do :/. I have not idea how make better --Vvven (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I will work on including this in the article tomorrow (I am busy now). If you do not have much English then it may be difficult for you to contribute to the English Wikiquote. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svgY Done. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I could help with my time, to find references, If you could tell me how you found these original references on Pacatus that really help me, not only for wikiquotes but the rest of wikis--Vvven (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Google Books™ is your friend. After reviewing the English Wikipedia article on Pacatus Drepanius and the linked article on Panegyrici Latini I determined that, if the quote is genuine, this could be the only possible source. Then I searched Google Books for an authoritative translation, and searched within their online copy for key phrases to locate the quote. It helps that I have years of practice doing this kind of research. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

too verbose? (II)[edit]

I'm still experimenting, but here: "Opening lines, 1–5 (1–4 in the Greek text)" seems to be, besides condescending to the reader (they can count to 5), probably too verbose, especially as it is repeated later ("Lines 21–24 (15–17 in the Greek text)", etc.). Can you suggest a better way? ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems okay to me, particularly in the second instance. Quoting the Greek is a Good Thing™. Citing where it is in the Greek is not a bad thing. One could omit the word "text", as I did in the previous two sentences. It is grammatically odd to elide the noun, but very common practice. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, maybe I'm overthinking it. Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)