User talk:Ningauble

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search

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 In general, collections on the internet that do not cite their sources are not very useful resources for Wikiquote.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 [1] 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)

Many people quoted Irving. I have to dig up all the references, but there are many —This unsigned comment is by Ladybelle Fiske (talkcontribs) 11:32, 25 November 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. [ ] [2] --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)
  • Here, I'm thinking of adding an explanatory note: "Medea contemplating suicide, and deciding against it". Is it good English? Maybe you can think of a better description. (Or maybe it's not necessary to add a note at all.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
    The English is fine, but this seems more annotation than necessary. It may be helpful to indicate the passage is from Medea's point of view and, to a lesser extent, that the subject matter concerns suicide; however, it seems quite unnecessary to annotate a development, "and deciding against it", that is explicit in the text. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

An Essay Against Verbosity[edit]

There is much to be said for brevity. (You can quote me on that.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Urgent message[edit]

Numerous IP addresses continuously make unnecessary edits (and vandalism edits to boot) on the following pages:

Toy Story
Toy Story 2
Toy Story 3
Monsters, Inc.
Monsters University
The Incredibles name but a few, and they refuse to cease and desist, nor even explain their edits. I request that all those IP addresses be blocked for the maximum time allowed, and that all pages on which they have edited be protected for at least six months. WikiLubber (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


Need your opinion again: is this picture acceptable (or is it too anachronistic)? ~ DanielTom (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection. At least the image is directly relevant to the quote. In this instance anachronism may be a virtue: it demonstrates that the quote has stood the test of time. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

TOC limit[edit]

Why doesn't it work here? ~ DanielTom (talk) 06:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Short answer: That template is completely nonfunctional because it depends on undefined CSS classes. A longer answer here describes why this sort of thing happens. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

You can add source[edit]

Hello Ningauble, You added a tag to African proverbs about adding source. I would have improve the article by adding source but i don"t know how to add source to the page. You can improve the article by adding source to it or you teach me how to add source to the article.--Reekado (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Reekado, if you are not sure how to place your sources in the article, take a look at the French proverbs article for a good example to follow. For information on sourcing generally, see Wikiquote:Sourcing. Note in particular the sections on Evaluating sources and Proverbs in that guideline. I cannot add sources for these quotes myself, because I do not know where you found them. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok. I understand you clearly. But those proverbs which i added was writing on my own knowledge of African Proverb.--Reekado (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Enemy of the State[edit]

Now that is the importance of clear edit summaries. Yours made sense. Eaglestorm's didn't. LeQui (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit Revert[edit]

Good day Ningauble, Why was the edit i made to List of television shows reverted. I added youtube to the External links below because youtube is among the category of TV. I need your explanation, you might be correct.--Yung miraboi mark (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Yung miraboi mark, the purpose of Wikiquote list pages is to help people find Wikiquote articles: Wikiquote is not an internet directory. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Good explanation thanks, I now understand.--Yung miraboi mark (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Virgil (2)[edit]

Is quoting this remark by Enoch Powell too "political" (even though it's a famous, if controversial, reference)? ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Pardon the lateness of my reply. I have been preoccupied.

My view on this sort of "cf." or "compare" annotation is asymmetrical. It is appropriate on a page like Enoch Powell to identify his allusion to the Aeneid because it clarifies what he was talking about, but it is not appropriate on a page like Virgil to mention any of the myriad people who have alluded to or quoted from his works. I would make an exception for an otherwise obscure source if a secondary reference is needed to demonstrate notability, but such is not the case for Virgil. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

No problem. That's an interesting perspective. I'll comment out the references to later works (if not all, at least most of them). Thx. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Are there objective criteria?[edit]

I was planning to make a series of additions, but was taken aback when you deleted my quote on Greed from Khaled Hosseini -- a very well cited writer, whose quotes are found on numerous quotation cites. This particular one was taken from a collection of quotes on Greed on Goodreads. Is there any way I can tell if a quote is acceptable or not, so as to avoid guesswork and waste of time? —This unsigned comment is by Asaduzaman (talkcontribs) 17:12, 4 December 2016.

This is certainly a notable book by a notable author, and I would have no objection to adding this quote to the Khaled Hosseini article (with citation to where it appears in the book). The reason I removed the quote from the Greed article is actually subjective: because it is not a short, pithy quote that says something really new about greed. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

From reading the "about" it seems that there are no set policies -- or these are being incubated -- So I would propose a discussion on this as a policy guideline:

"Quotes should be short, pithy, and say something really new about the subject"

If adopted, it should be displayed prominently, to ensure that all are aware of this guideline. Asaduzaman (talk) 09:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Category deaths[edit]

Hi. I do not understand very well this; so Category:1088 deaths remains empty. --Spinoziano (talk) 12:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I have been using the idea (as briefly discussed a few years ago at Wikiquote:Village pump archive 31#Category:19th century deaths) that small categories do not need to be broken up into multiple smaller categories. Note that Category:11th century deaths, including its subcategories, contains only 23 articles. I do not think it is useful to to have individual year categories, most of which would be empty, to organize these few articles by historical context. (Empty categories will eventually be deleted during routine cleanup.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thanks.--Spinoziano (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


thanks for that move - JarrahTree (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

re suleiman[edit]

I happen to have a copy of Mansel, which is quoted in the wikipedia article, and checked the two extracts of the poems - the earlier refs that mansel utilises are to up to 3 other earlier sources, is it ok simply to have mansel as the ref ? I see your dislike for footnotes on your user page - I hope the format of the citation is in order JarrahTree (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

it would be very useful to understand why you dont respond to talk messages JarrahTree (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't, and sometimes I get around to it later. Reasons?
  1. This is not a full time job, and the pay is lousy.
  2. The sun is just dawning where I live, and I need another cup of coffee.
  3. I often find it easier to show by example than to write explanations.
  4. Et cetera...
~ Ningauble (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
ahh sheesh, thank you very much for your reply, (as for the coffee, I fully can relate to that and that would have been sufficient in itself to tell me to back off, so to speak) thank you for your showing by examples - it is much appreciated.

One weird curiosity (and take your time and please, and please ignore if you so wish) - Nikki Haley uses the expression have our back or have the back. I have been only exposed to usage in new york and toronto from first hand experience, (houston texas usage a very long long time ago) - and from an Australian (with English cultural accent) point of view, I havent come across the expression used - is it something that is expected from usual south carolina usage? I can imagine the UN instantaneous translators (I have known only one of them) would be scratching their heads on that phrasing... any clues ? Thanks again, I do hope I am not too much of a problem JarrahTree (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

JarrahTree, this usage is widespread in contemporary American popular culture, as attested in Wikiquote.[3][4] I do not know where or when it originated. I vaguely recall having heard it several decades ago, but judging from GoogleBooks it only started appearing in print with this sense since the 1990s.[5] ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for that, and the links - the variant in Australian or english english (sic), would be more to cover your back, or to watch your back - in other words the usage where the lack of a verb other than the possessive is interesting. My children when they were, as Australians often tended to drop either verbs or other usually helpful grammatical necessities for effect in their school days, as adults they are far more grammatically conventional/conservative JarrahTree (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikisource author-inline[edit]

Hi. Can you import this Wikipedia template into Wikiquote? ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The linked template invokes Lua code, about which I know practically nothing. I am not going to touch it because I lack competence. I also note that it uses a Lua module that is in Alpha testing/development. I would not advise anyone to use this unless they are actively engaged in and committed to developing and maintaining the software. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Arrowverse LOQ[edit]

Hey mate, I just saw your AFD about the Arrowverse crossovers. Can I ask why you think the individual series "press the Limits on quotations for materiel from these shows"? --SuperJew (talk) 08:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

For example, the Arrow article, as it now stands, is completely full up to the limit of five dialog sections per episode. Putting more sections from some of the same episodes in another page would be over the limit. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah I understand your meaning. Yes of course it is at the limit. They used to be over the limit and I culled them down to 5 per episode. But that is the limit so it's fine. I though you meant like slightly over. Cool thanks --SuperJew (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

David S. Cecelski[edit]

Hi Ningauble, thanks for your feedback here. Did you check if a new 2nd 2015 edition even exists? For example, the data about the 2015 edition speaks about first 2012 edition. -- Mdd (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes Mdd, there is a 2015 edition listed, without preview, at GoogleBooks.[6] However, I am beginning to have doubts about the contributor's veracity. I looked up a passage you removed with this edit to the Gautama Buddha article, using my own copy of the cited 1935 edition (19th printing, 1954). The first item attributed to that source is a mashup of material from different places in the text, with some wording changes, not a direct quote.

The contributor may be unclear about the difference between a quotation and a rewritten synopsis. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with your assessment. Because the actual quotes seem a mashup of the 2012 text, and the info on the 2015 edition don't make clear, that the book is a second edition, I have temporarily removed the quotes again, and replaced them with some more reliable quotes. -- Mdd (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Another thing about this situation make me wonder, who should have the burden of proof in situations like this? I assesssed Illegitimate Barrister's first edit, see here, a few days ago. The source seem to be removed from both and, and there is no way to double check this 993 words long quote. What can be done here? -- Mdd (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Pardon the lateness of my reply Mdd. The proof lies in verifying what the cited source says. As at Wikipedia, the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

PR material for Star Wars and Snow White.[edit]

I was wondering if you could clarify what you mean by PR material through example in regards to the quotes on Star Wars (film) and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film), for I've not actually seen what you consider a good example of an addition to an about section, only what you consider bad additions. I wonder if it would save us both time just deleting all the about sections for works of fiction. I want to know what standardized metric it is you use to determine notability as several of the quotes on the statue of liberty lack evidence of having been quoted. Thank you for your recent assistance. Forgive me if I restore this post should you delete it, but unless a question is clear cut vandalism with hate speech, blanking a talk page looks unprofessional, which you clearly are not in your editing capabilities. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

By "PR" I mean Public relations. I do not recall using the term in the contexts to which you refer, and have nothing to say about them. I have used the term recently when referring to quotes of people involved in a production (writers, directors, etc.) giving interviews to promote their work.

I have actually created or added to About sections many times myself, including the first article I ever created for Wikiquote[7], the longest article I have created to date[8], and numerous others. In each case I thought the additions had strong qualities of Quotability like this one or at least something strikingly distinctive like one of these. In no case did I quote someone pimping their own work. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Nepali Proverbs[edit]

Isn't there anything such as editing in good faith? Such complex rules to follow. Wiki knows only 1 Nepali proverb. I know a 100. But plz I can't. These boring rules. —This unsigned comment is by Thapa Kazi999 (talkcontribs) 06:43, 21 February 2017.

I am sorry that you find it boring Thapa Kazi999, but citing sources is what we do here at Wikiquote. A reliable and verifiable source must be cited for every quotation. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


What did you mean with this edit? [9]. Although I do like to create pages for films, I am an even more avid reader than film watcher. I'll assume sarcasm. :-) ~ UDScott (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Nothing personal. (I had not even noticed that it was you who created the article.) It's just something I occasionally comment when noting or linking the original basis of derivative works.

What I meant is that I highly recommend Chiang's novella. (It was I who created his article.) When discussing Stories of Your Life and Others at a book club recently, there was consensus that the best thing about the film is that it has inspired very many people who were unaware of Chiang to read his work.

If there is a taint of sarcasm in the tone of my stock comment, it is because I am often annoyed by articles on very inferior films based on very fine original works. I am not saying that is the case here, it's just a stock phrase. I have not even seen the film, and don't expect to, because the original story is so singularly brilliant I doubt anyone can improve upon it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

No worries. I would certainly agree that in most cases, the original work (especially the original written work) is far superior to a film adapted from it. I will have to check out this novella in particular. I did feel that this film was quite good, but I am interested in reading the original for sure. In this case, it was simply an oversight that I missed that a page for the author existed. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


Are these acceptable? ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Meh. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Care to comment?[edit]

Just wondered your thoughts on a discussion I am having with Mdd that I feel may represent a growing trend to stifle contributions here. I am all for keeping out non-notable material, but I fear we are going a bit far at times. The discussion can be found here: User talk:Mdd#Populism. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I replied there. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete my css page[edit]

Hello Ningauble, I have seen that you have deleted my Userpages as requested. Please delete the page User:Labant/common.css also. Thanks. --Labant (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


This is still showing up as having LintErrors, You've in the past fixed up a number of recurring errors on this. Protecting it might be advised.

How do I add a sandbox? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

  1. Can you be more specific about the errors that are flagged? On cursory inspection I am not seeing the problem (except that <div class="plainlinks"> should probably be a span).
  2. I have thought about protecting it on general principles because it is the only unprotected component of the Main Page, however (a) a number of regular contributors update it without problems, (b) it has not (yet) become a target for vandalism, and (c) the person who most frequently makes those recurring errors is actually an administrator, so protection is futile against that particular problem.
  3. You can create your own personal sandbox as a user subpage at User:ShakespeareFan00/Sandbox. When you don't need it any more just put a {{delete|author request}} tag on it.
~ Ningauble (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
It's listed here, which typically means that somewhere something's causing something to appear outside a table row or table data. Why is a table even being used for layout in this template? It should be a plainlist, but wikiquote doesn't have the relevant Wikipedia/Wikisource type classed style implemented currently.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
ShakespeareFan00, it looks like the template is using an unsupported/obsolete hack to create a table footer, and that appears to be the only reason a table is even being used. I will look into restructuring the whole template tomorrow. (I will be away most of the day today.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
To me if the "partial listing" is meant to be at the end it's a simple case of moving a div around. BTW English Wikisource has a template called plainlist, which makes it much easier to do certain types of list formatting. (It's based on some additional CSS classes which are defined in "") which if imported here could make it even easier to write code for things like {{TOCalpha}}ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


Perhaps you can get this to behave properly without using forced <nowiki></noiwki> handling? I tried and got various inserted or removed lines depending on which options were used. The current approach isn't ideal because embedded headings might contain content that can't be placed inside a P tag. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I've effectively had enough of trying to determine the minutiae of a parser, that from my perspective doesn't behave in a consistent, understandable way.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


I didn't add the pop culture, just neatened it. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Nothing personal. Your edit just called the situation to my attention. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)