User talk:RoboAction/archive

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search
..home.. | /talk | /format | /templates | /works | /useful
A place for past messages found on my talk page;


Per your posting on my talk page, on how we can achieve consistency between articles with TV and film quotes:

Thanks for the compliments. I've started and contributed to several discussions on format standardization and basic decent Wiki markup support for TV and film quotes, and have been frustrated by the general lack of interest, let alone debate or consensus. However, I'll contribute to another attempt at a debate. I've reviewed the pages you mentioned here and added to your posting at Wikiquote talk:Templates#Films & TV Shows with some alternative examples and my own views. We'll see if it gets any reaction. ☺ — Jeff Q 04:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just a quick response[edit]

I just noticed your message. I try to monitor things here as much as I can, even when I'm not contributing actively and usually can catch vandalism within a few hours at the most, but I sometimes miss a few. I am in a bit of a rush right now, and probably won't have time to give you a full answer until tomorrow. I have a busy schedule. Thanks for your contributions. ~ Kalki 23:46, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I finally have had the time to make a more thorough response to your comments and questions. I don't believe we actively need to be concerned about increasing the number of the links to our project in the Wikipedia, beyond those that are made at corresponding articles there (usually among the external links, or right above them) and I believe that it is best to use the Wikimedia project linking formats rather than the external url format. I do think we eventually will have a far greater footprint on the web, and am working on a few ideas and proposals on how to more rapidly increase interest in this site, and the quantity and reliability of material available here. Right now we probably have a bigger footprint than is actually deserved, because of our association with the Wikipedia project, but within a few months I would like to see Wikiquote rightfully recognized as one of the best places to find quotations on the web. We are not there yet, but I do expect we eventually will be, and the sooner the better.

I covered how I try to deal with SPAM and other vandalism as rapidly as I can in yesterday's quick jot. When I am at my computer I almost always have at least one browser open, and periodically check in. Sometimes during slower activity periods, I set one of them to check for any changes to the "Recent changes" page every 11 minutes, and to notify me of any changes.

The idea about logging in to make edits to Wikimedia projects is an attractive one that has often been presented, but at least thus far continues to be rejected for various reasons. Other options that have been floated, are for a two tier, or multiple tier editing systems, where non-logged-in users could still make edits to some pages, like the talk/discussion pages to make suggestions, but not directly to the articles themselves. It seems that things will probably remain as they are though, for at least a while yet, and I have not kept careful track of the discussions on the matter.

On the formatting questions: the format you are using is acceptable to me, but I don't see the necessity of the three dots between lines, believe that the use of the more extensive {{lynx}} bar at the bottom of the page, is preferable to the "See also: List of films" option, and I am not sure if use of the "<h2>" header format for sections is a desirable alternative to the use of "==" marks or not. I intend to make a fuller response to many of the issues involved with formatting of the film and show pages within the next week. I am glad that you have been a catalyst to discussion and hope that you will continue to find Wikiquote an interesting project to work on. ~ Kalki 19:11, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Clean-up" and "stub" postings[edit]

First, I want to thank you for reverting the spam vandal's pollution; I have not been able to keep watch here the last couple of nights like I usually try to, and the more people actively reverting this unwelcome junk the better. But many of your edits last night raise issues as to what we should consider a stub here, and seem to be implicit criticisms of quote pages that simply aren't arranged to your own inclinations or preferences.

I have stated that I agree there is a need for more definite format choices, and would like to narrow down the listed options that are available a bit, eliminating some that are exceptionally poor, but I re-emphasize that I do not think there should be any single style or arrangement mandated. I see nothing horribly wrong with many of these pages. As I have expressed in the past, I believe that some people (myself included) would prefer quotes to generally be presented in sequential order in most works, but I can see that there are often merits and advantages to having character-based sections or presentations as well. I really think the postings saying things are a mess is the messiest thing on most of these pages. Some things can certainly be improved on nearly all of them, but there is no need to declare all of them unacceptable based upon some implicit criteria that no one here have yet agreed to. The notices at this point give directions to pages that do not yet exist, and might not for a while. I continue to believe that the creator of pages should have a bit of choice in how they initially wish to arrange things, and not need to conform entirely to any set preferences, whether they be those of you, me, or anyone else.

If an article only has one or two quotes or little or no information as to the person or the work the page is about, I agree that it is incomplete, and should be worked on, but even a page with a couple of quotes and sufficient information about the person or work, can often be enough here, and no more need be expected or sought. Some people haven't said much to quote them on, yet still can merit a page for some notable statement that they have said, and we don't need to "pad" it with further information or quotes to make a larger article page. Evelyn Beatrice Hall comes to my mind in this regard. Her most famous statement is very notable, and usually quoted as being that of Voltaire, yet beyond the fact that it is she who first made that statement, it is hard to come across her further writings or much information about her. This isn't the wikipedia where we need to seek a "thorough" body of information upon anything, it is a compendium of quotes that people find interesting for some reason, whether they find them profoundly meaningful or simply amusing. While I see the usefulness of designating some pages as stubs, I would seek to reserve the use of "stub" notices to pages where there is basic information about the person or work missing, or that are very short pages, where one is confident that there is much more interesting material to be found. I will confess that I do believe that many somewhat notable films, books and people might have only one or two really notable quotes to provide, if that. People interested or familiar with particular works will most likely have their own favorites they wish to present, if they are not on a page already, and this should be the primary motive for creation or expansion of pages here, not to fill them with material because there is possibly more material that might be found.

You certainly have been an active editor since you started, and we certainly need more of these here. I am simply stating a disagreement with some of your current strategies and apparent inclinations, and I admit that I have been too busy lately to spend much time elaborating upon or developing some of my own, and need to get a bit more busy with them. I hope to have several ideas ready for presentation within the next couple of weeks that I believe could help us expand the project a bit more rapidly, and would make some options and suggestions clearer than they have been. Despite some points where I believe we are thus far inclined to disagree, you have been a bit of a goad to my own activity on work for this project, and probably other people's as well, and this is a good thing. I probably won't be able to be as active here as I would like for at least a couple more days, but I intend to do quite a bit of work here (and a few other projects) in the next few weeks. I really believe that what we most need at this point is a more extensive set of pages for people, books, films, and shows, and that once we have a broad range of pages established, people with more pronounced interest in particular pages will come along and gradually extend and develop many of them in various noteworthy ways. I truly believe in trying to preserve a state where there is only minimal control of the creation and editing of articles (ie: deleting obvious errors, spam, and cases of vandalism) ~ Kalki 19:06, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I just recently arrived home and read your message. I can agree that most the articles do need work, some of them a great deal of it, but one of the things to bear in mind about WIkiquote is that though we are connected to the Wikipedia, the traffic here is presently miniscule in comparison, and though it is increasing, and probably will grow more rapidly as time goes by, the number of people who regularly do editing here is still very small— some of these notices could stay up for a very long time.
I would prefer to make a few general notes in some introductory pages about the extremely incomplete or deficient nature of many (or even most pages), and provide general invitations to contribute, rather than adding individual notices to a vast number of pages (perhaps even the majority of them). In all cases it should be made clear to everyone, that if they perceive that some article they are interested in can be improved, they are invited to at least make attempts at doing what improving they can. When contentions do arise, as they sometimes will, about what might be the best arrangement or extent of some article or articles, they can be settled by dialog between those people most interested in some particular page or set of pages. I believe that this is a better and more versatile policy than attempting to develop any officially set styles to be used on certain types of pages. ~ Kalki 16:31, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Salve, RoboAction!
Thanks for your message on my Wikipedia talk page. I indeed have quotations to contribute to Wikiquote--I've been keeping notebooks of them for several years and have about 3000 accumultated--but haven't got to it yet. I've several from Dawson's Creek--I wrote the article on Wikipedia]]--that I ought to start with. And it's funny your "may be interested in" link included Jean-Luc Goddard as I last week just wrote him a letter to confirm a quote Roger Ebert attributes to him, "Every cut is a lie", which didn't turn up in any of my sources. If I can help with any of your projects, please let me know. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 18:27, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)