Wikiquote:Village pump

From Wikiquote
(Redirected from Village pump)
Jump to: navigation, search
Create a new topic
Wikiquote discussion pages (edit) see also: requests
Village pump
comment | history | archive

General policy discussions and proposals, requests for permissions and major announcements.

Reference desk
comment | history | archive

Questions and discussions about specific quotes.

All Wikiquote: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 - All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5


Archive
Archives



Welcome, newcomers and baffled oldtimers! If you have a question about Wikiquote and how it works, please click the link above "create a new topic", and then you can place your submission at the bottom of the list, and someone will attempt to answer it for you. (If you have a question about who said what, go to the reference desk instead.)

Before asking a question, check if it's answered by the Wikiquote:FAQ or other pages linked from Wikiquote:Help. Latest news on the project would be available at Wikiquote:Community portal and Wikiquote:Announcements.

Before answering a newcomer's question abruptly, consider rereading Please do not bite the newcomers.

Questions and answers will not remain on this page indefinitely (otherwise it would very soon become too long to be editable). After a period of time with no further activity, information will be moved to other relevant sections of Wikiquote, (such as the FAQ pages) or placed in one of the village pump archives if it is of general interest, or deleted. Please consider dating and titling your discussions so as to facilitate this.



Contents

Grants to improve your project[edit]

Greetings! The Individual Engagement Grants program is accepting proposals for funding new experiments from September 1st to 30th. Your idea could improve Wikimedia projects with a new tool or gadget, a better process to support community-building on your wiki, research on an important issue, or something else we haven't thought of yet. Whether you need $200 or $30,000 USD, Individual Engagement Grants can cover your own project development time in addition to hiring others to help you.

Echo and watchlist[edit]

Special:Notifications & Special:Watchlist substantially overlap in functionality, except the former also contains extra (some non-public) events and doesn't provide with passive usage options (means to turn off web-nagging or email-nagging and to just keep visiting the page whenever I'm free), while the latter doesn't provide with options of active web-nagging notifications (but already provides email interface). Partly, in my personal view, the Echo/Notifications project was driven by low usability of watchlist; [1] comes to mind. It's also perhaps worth noting that Echo users aren't exposed to Special:Notifications unless thy have JavaScript disabled — in which case it's their only means of reading the notifications.

I'd like to get this done:

  1. Merge these two pages into one.
  2. To remedy large inflow of information, introduce multiple levels of importance of the web-nagging notifications (red for mentions, orange for thanks, blue for new watchlist items, etc and configurable in your settings).

Thoughts on both, please? --Gryllida (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Change in renaming process[edit]

Part or all of this message may be in English. Please help translate if possible.

-- User:Keegan (WMF) (talk) 9 September 2014 16.22 (UTC)

WP-WQ links[edit]

I noticed a few days ago that although most of the pages I've created here on Wikiquote are linked to from Wikipedia, some are not. So I would be thankful if someone could add {{wikiquote}} to the external links sections of each of these pages at Wikipedia:

InfanticideShelly KaganHikaru no GoLustJohn ClevelandLe Roi et l'oiseauAlex JonesAnacreonAlexisDiphilus2016: Obama's AmericaGulliver's TravelsWilliam GiffordMinimalismBlank verseJason and the ArgonautsNicole OresmeBart D. EhrmanSarah Fyge EgertonTommy RobinsonDinesh D'SouzaLactantiusWilliam Henry ChanningMarco PoloJ. M. E. McTaggartFranz RosenzweigA. S. Neill

I can not do this myself, because I am blocked there. While I do not believe that making these harmless edits (even if on my behalf) will get anyone in trouble at Wikipedia, it's important to be aware of Wikipedia's policy against proxy editing (it only mentions "banned" editors, but I think it applies to blocked users as well). In any case, it clearly states that "proxy editing" is permissible if the editor is "able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits", which applies here.

(If no one is comfortable making these edits, no worries, of course.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svgY Done, cheers! BD2412 T 03:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Cool, thank you. ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

NECESSITY of Ethical Action[edit]

Dr Manhattan symbol.svg
Quaker Star JUL.png
The Quakers have an excellent approach to thinking through difficult problems, where a number of intelligent and responsible people must work together. They meet as equals, and anyone who has an idea speaks up. There are no parliamentary procedures and no coercion from the Chair. They continue the discussion until unanimity is reached. I want you guys to do that. Get in a room … And sit there until you can deal with each other as individuals
~ Hyman G. Rickover ~
LuMaxArt Golden Family With World Religions.jpg
Atom of Atheism-Zanaq.svg
Black Sun.svg

Unlike Rickover, I have no expectations or demands of unanimity in regard to most things, but do hope to promote greater respect for both individual rights and genuine social responsibilities. Though not all would use such designations for their attitudes, MANY Quakers are ethical absurdists, who properly reject arrogant absolutist stances of anyone, and I assert that absurdist opposition to many forms obnoxiously arrogant absolutist obfuscations is at the core of MANY ethical actions throughout the ages. Despite some hopes of progress, I do not actually expect unanimity to be reached in regard to MANY things of vital significance, anytime soon, here or elsewhere, but I am hoping to as swiftly as possible develop a clearly ethical and effective response to what I genuinely believe are forms of unethical and despicable behavior currently occurring. Specifically, in this instance, I refer to what I regard as nothing less than smug arrogant acts of foul sociopathic vandalism by BD2412 (talk · contributions), in his persistent efforts to subjugate MOST of the pages and the works of ALL others on the project to his PERSONAL and UNPOPULAR stylistic preferences, DESPITE the reasonable, rational and passionate objections to his asinine and DICTATORIAL behavior by others, on this and several past occasions. This is an arrogant and massive campaign of DISRESPECT for what has been the MANIFEST preferences of MOST other EDITORS on this project for OVER 10 years, both MOST regular ones, and most occasional visitors. I believe that it is very clearly a neglect and betrayal of the founding principles of most wikis, of respecting genuine consensus of those involved in them, and of NOT implicitly or explicitly IMPOSING any unnecessary or unjust demands upon others.

I know some clarifications of my assertions are necessary and that some of my statements might seem overly harsh to some, and overly gentle to others. As an ethical absurdist I am sincerely NOT very inclined to apply to people such terms as cannot be applied with some validity to myself, even if in very incorrect or misleading ways overall. As a very disciplined ethical absurdist I usually adhere very rigorously to paths I consider ethical, and help others to do the same, to the extent I believe I properly can, but that means that I do NOT seek to make or even pretend to make ANY absolutely reliable RULES for others — as arrogant and asinine absolutists of various sorts are OFTEN inclined to do, in QUITE sociopathic ways. I can only provide what I believe to be appropriate INDICATIONS of good paths which they may or may not have the ABILITY to properly understand and respond to. I have no doubt that MANY of the most habitual absolutists and other sociopaths would probably try to convince others that absurdism itself is absolutely sociopathic — because deep in their often neglected heart of hearts they can sense that genuinely ethical absurdism undermines the forms of cynical, antisocial and unjust absolutism with which they are often quite comfortable, and upon which they have often become dependent.

I confess to often being saddened when ANYONE behaves in so ethically abhorrent a manner as some are inclined to occasionally or habitually do, without much genuine regard as to the proper rights and dignity of others and Humanity in general. I also sincerely confess that I am in some ways somewhat more amused than angered by the levels of smug arrogant stupidity being exhibited in recent days, and by a few occasions in the past, by someone usually far more prudently respectful. Yet I am very inclined to be NOT amused at the various forms of ENDURING damage that is being done to his own dignity by his asinine neglect and denial of the dignity and proper rights of ALL others on this project to actively reject and oppose such asinine arrogance as he is currently making plain — which is certainly not an uncommon thing among some trained in ways of legalistic arrogance, and making MUCH that is foul seem fair and fair seem foul. And apparently sometimes even coming to BELIEVE it ABSOLUTELY so, in ways that might correctly be designated sociopathic in the sense of exhibiting little or no concern or proper consideration of the adverse consequences for others of one's actions.

In a previous occurrence of this situation, last year, in November 2013 when not quite so much smug dictatorial arrogance was evident, as I believe the assaults on the pages then did not continue over more than one day, I stated in Recurring style dispute:

I have noticed that BD2412 (talk · contributions) once again is going on another massive rampage of stylistic impositions which I believe had last occurred to such a degree during one of the lulls in my own activity here, (back in May 2012). He had then declared these massive changes were to "enforce consistency in punctuation and spacing" which to my knowledge have NEVER been agreed to here. I was VERY busy with other matters in that period, and had not much time to do much here, but I had noticed it had occurred and objected to the "Sudden changing of Punctuation standards" on his talk page, as did Ninguable, who asserted "we have bigger problems than inconsistency in whether non-sentential bullet items use a full stop. (Personally, I don't use them. I was schooled not to, but I know there are other schools of thought.)" Our objections were then dismissed with a simple assertion that it bothered him to have them in such a style as we preferred, and that he could "shoot through a few hundred pages in a matter of hours and fix them all." And massive alterations continued so as to "fix" them in the style he prefers.
I do NOT believe that this is "fixing" them well so much as fixing them ill and AGAINST what for MANY years had been the preferred style evident here. As I believe I have probably asserted somewhere in the past, I believe that his notion of "consistent punctuation at the end of citation lines to clearly indicate to the reader that the line has ended" are no more necessary or appropriate to the interlinear info lines here than are periods at the end of title lines. Both habits of punctuation have been used, I believe primarily in the 19th century and earlier, in some publications, but I believe them archaic, needless, and personally find them aesthetically ugly, in most cases. I believe an attempt at developing a more extensive consensus should probably occur here over the next month or so, so that guidelines might perhaps be established by the end of this year, and invite others to comment on the matter and make any suggestions.

The situation is cleary MUCH worse at this point. At that time only I and one other clearly spoke out AGAINST the actions, one other initially favored BD2412's stance, but then struck out his vote after further consideration, and 2 people expressed indifference. That was NOT enough for a genuinely reliable polling of consensus, but just on the voting tabulation there ended up 2 people AGAINST his actions, ONLY himself for it, and 2 uncommitted or neutral.

I am NOT someone inclined to desiring needlessly punitive or damaging reprisals against those who have exhibited even very inconsiderate or malicious forms of stupidity, but neither am I inclined to submit to spiteful or simply callous attacks on what I believe are my own or others rights, without responding in such ways as I believe are appropriate and effective, regardless of how cowardly or gentle those who commit such assaults would like to believe I and others should be with them.

To summarize:

BD2412 in recent days has renewed EXTENSIVE efforts to make quite ethically IMPROPER and DICTATORIAL impositions on the fundamental styling of HUNDREDS of pages despite objections of various concerned editors now and in the past AGAINST such behavior and practices. He is clearly embracing and flaunting arrogantly DICTATORIAL modes of behavior. I have made it no secret to him that I believe this behavior is DISGRACEFUL and UNETHICAL abuse of editing and admin privileges and trust, and that were I still an admin here I believe his behavior would clearly warrant at least a temporary block. He is apparently smug with a sense of impunity that there is apparently not yet sufficient will to oppose such abusive neglect of trust, and proper expectations of him to be respectful of the rights and concerns of ALL editors on this project, and to NOT make unwarranted changes to fundamental styles which have been the NORM here since the beginning of this wiki. Now and in the past, his efforts to personally alter the preferences or options available to most has clearly and vigorously objected to by several people properly concerned with his unethical actions.

His current arrogant stance seems to be that he KNOWS what is BEST for all and ANY objections are by "little people" without power to immediately stop him, others who might as yet not exhibiting the will or confidence to do so, and I who certainly WOULD do so, currently possess only the ability to present reasonable arguments where he knows reasonable arguments can often be easily and effectively subverted by clever and skilled appeals to pervasive fears, prejudices and resentments of anyone who would honestly INDICATE the reality of these in sometimes discomforting ways.

As someone I once was able to consider a well-trusted admin here, quite unlike a mere anonymous vandal whose abuses, destruction and defacements can usually be removed rapidly, BD2412 is familiar enough with situations to KNOW that in a relatively short time it will require MUCH more work on the part of others to UNDO the work of his arrogance, than it took him to indulge in them.

As most people have MUCH better things to do than such obsessive acts, and he seems so insistent on DOING this editing DESPITE protests of me and others on EACH occasion which it has occurred, in ways I believe QUITE damaging to this wiki and ANY claims he might make of LEGITIMACY to his actions, I believe that IF consensus develops against these extensive and obsessive acts of what I truly believe to be ethically unjustified VANDALISM, it should be requested of him that he as swiftly as possible UNDO so much as can be done ASAP. IF he declines to do so, and insist that these defecations defacements remain in place, I would not demand punitive action, but would regard it as further disgracefulness on his part, and with what time I have take it upon myself to undo as much of these as possible in coming months.

I do NOT know how effective my appeals will be at this point, but I am morally impelled to present them, and appeal to others to speak out against this current abuse of privileges and position, as swiftly and strongly as possible, so as to put a just end to what I clearly regard as abuses of privileges, and a disregard of the rights and implicit will of MOST editors on this wiki. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 15:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Banner of Peace from the Roerich Pact.svg Blue Pacific.svg Banner of Peace from the Roerich Pact.svg
Even a purely moral act that has no hope of any immediate and visible political effect can gradually and indirectly, over time, gain in political significance.
~ Václav Havel ~
Bratislava Slovakia 213.JPG
I am now once again, in hopes of putting a STOP to this ABUSE, directly appealing to others to speak out against this, so that further evidence of the OBVIOUS consensus of MOST editors here over MANY years be properly respected, and the arrogant impositions of BD2412 (talk · contributions) can be formally REJECTED and REPUDIATED.
~ Kalki ~

AGAINST IMPOSING periods at the end of interlinear citation lines[edit]

  1. Kalki·· 15:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC) — I am adamantly AGAINST this, for reasons indicated in the above statements: I do NOT have and NEVER have had any objection to the proper and standard use of periods at the end of grammatically composed sentences, I simply have very strong objection to their use to NEEDLESSLY terminate simple information lines, which is just as UGLY and UNUSUAL in MOST compendiums of quotations as a similar 18th and 19th century style which was never universal and eventually abandoned nearly everywhere, of ending nearly all book titles, chapter titles, section titles and poem titles with periods. I am certainly against their IMPOSITION — it simply has NEVER been the preferred style of most editors here in over 10 years of activity and has become the obsessively IMPOSED style of ONLY one: BD2412.
  2. While I am not so offended by the imposition of the periods as some, I do not believe they are necessary for most citations (unless, as discussed, a particular citation is actually a sentence) - and I have never (and do not intend to do so in the future) used them in citations I have provided as I consider their use to be awkward at best. To my mind, having inconsistent usage of periods for citations on a page is really a non-issue. And I believe there are far worse (and more numerous) real issues here to which I would much rather direct attention than this. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  3. Unlike Kalki, I do not consider this sort of punctuation aesthetically displeasing, and I do believe there should be consistent punctuation within each page; however, I think the style and punctuation of citations should be up to the page creator (or greatest contributor) of each page to decide. (This cuts both ways: BD2412 should obviously be free to punctuate citations in the pages he creates, and edits such as this by Kalki should be reverted on sight.) What I take issue with is the inconsiderate way in which BD2412 is trying to impose this particular form of outdated (and arguably improper) punctuation on all pages, completely ignoring (nay, going against) the wishes and sincere objections of other editors – and if there were to be a project-wide consistency imposed (which is not a priority at this point), I will say citations should clearly not be punctuated, for the reasons I gave here. (As to BD2412's defense below, that he is punctuating citations for the sake of "efficiency", I ask: aren't the quotes he is adding from dictionaries of quotations to already-existing pages fewer in number than the quotes that are already on the page? If so, it would seem that adding dots to all the already-existing citations actually takes more time than removing them from the newly-added ones would. Just a thought.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    Punctuation can be added by a semi-automated process that just finds unpunctuated citation lines and punctuates them. Removing punctuation can not be done that way, since some lines still require punctuation because they are notes containing complete sentences. Also, there are many cases where the number of quotes that I have added to a page has doubled the page size, or more. There are also many cases where some citations on the page were already punctuated. BD2412 T 18:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
From 2003 until NOW, most of the pages have NOT had such end-points on the information lines, and from 2003 until 2012 I generally and regularly (and I believe without ANY dispute) removed such end-points where they occurred as NOT being a part of the recommended or preferred styles here. Then suddenly in May of 2012, BD2412, without any discussion or inquiry about drastically changing the manifestly preferred styles of citations here since 2003 (and I believe in most other quote compendiums for over a century), began what I believe was his first episode of MASSIVE alteration of pages. I believe this occurred some time after I had announced I would be gone for most of a few days, with little opportunity to check in, and when I did have a chance I was APPALLED at the massive addition of these unneeded marks to MANY pages. I objected on 20 May 2012:
I have noticed you going through articles and changing what had been the most prevalent punctuation standard on most pages, and one common to many quote compendiums where descriptive lines of information on a quote are not treated as full sentences, to one that conforms to a rather archaic presumption that a descriptive line (such as a title, or those used in such lines) must be treated AS IF it were a sentence. I do not believe that imposing such presumptive standards are necessary or proper, and aesthetically I have always preferred the unpunctuated info lines, with punctuation used only occasionally for any full sentences within them. I probably don't have time to discuss things at present, but do not approve of the massive changes.
As has occurred in EVERY episode since, my objections were simply dismissed and disregarded, and when Ningauble also expressed reservations about his actions, and that they were not to his preferences either, there were brief exchanges, but BD2412 dismissed any objections as trivial, and went on altering things to suit himself rather than respecting what until then had simply been the nearly universally accepted style on all pages.
I believe that the archaic style should be TOLERATED, as are MANY other NON-STANDARD styles, and MUCH simple SLOPPINESS of various types, but it should NOT be preserved or maintained, let alone PROMOTED or IMPOSED as BD2412 has obsessively been doing at times. I do not see the desirability of promoting a page uniformity standerd as determining this, and I believe the original NON-PUNCTUATED format for info lines with start to be the APPROVED standard, and switching to it should certainly NOT be "reverted on sight". The massive campaign to alter things without EXPRESS consensus, and I belief AGAINST the manifest consensus of over a decade should be repudiated. Once again I have to be leaving very soon, but might have more time later. Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 19:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

FOR IMPOSING periods at the end of interlinear citation lines[edit]

  1. One of my main activities here has been to import public domain collections of quotations, including those of Harbottle; Hoyt's, the Dictionary of Legal Quotations, and Respectfully Quoted. As you can see, all of these have periods at the end of their citations. When I import them and either create new pages with them or merge them into existing entries, they come complete with those periods. It would be an enormous waste of my time to pick through and remove those periods (this can't be automated since some portion of the citations also contain further notes that are complete sentences), so in order to keep things consistent, I merely punctuate all citations (a process which can be automated). We've had this discussion before, and there was no community consensus one way or the other, so I consider myself free to do this in the distant hope of maintaining some semblance of professional consistency across our pages. BD2412 T 16:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
You are certainly free to add quotes from these books in such a style as was preferred by some in the 18th and 19th century, and you seem to find convenient, but you should NOT presume to make this the de facto style on this 21st century wiki, as you have clearly been attempting to do even on pages primarily worked upon by others who reject the style, and me specifically who OBJECTS to it. For the benefit of others I will point out once again a few of the points I made at your talk page at Gnat Turds are NOT necessary in this wiki, nor are similar small needless dots over all the pages:
RATIONAL CONSISTENCY rather than MECHANISTIC ROBOTIC CONSISTENCY is what should be favored. I do occasionally end info lines with a period — because they are arguably or certainly sentences or paragraphs with sentences, rather than mere info lines. I checked a few of the pages in your recent rampage, like Now, which I created as an article on 1 June 2014‎, and was the SOLE editor on since then, UNTIL your edit. There were only TWO lines which ended with a period, because they were arguably or certainly, interpretable as sentences. IF I were a totally COWARDLY ass-kissing MORON, which you seem to believe people should BE in regard to your claims, of a NEED for ROBOTIC consistency and OBEDIENCE to YOU, I might actually thank you for the ARROGANT ASININE PRESUMPTUOUS MENDACITY by which you seek to claim ANY RATIONAL legitimacy for your actions on MOST of these pages. I honestly cannot even pretend to do that. Your primary goal in the recent bout of assault upon the formatting MOST others seem to PREFER, seems to have been to INFEST as many pages as possible with your particular form of UGLY and NEEDLESS formatting. Even an initial supporter of your actions the last time this occurred conceded they were ugly. Indeed I will agree with you that "the biggest issue I see is a plague of pages that are just terribly formatted all over" —and I often try to gradually correct this with formatting that had been agreed to from the beginning of this wiki —  and that you CHOOSE to INCREASE that plague of poor formatting with your own massive INFUSION of a what has NOT been agreed to, and which I consider a VILE, UGLY preference of YOU, and basically you ALONE, of all the most regular editors here, in what I consider a vile, ARROGANT, and foully PRESUMPTUOUS way, is something I consider a despicable act. Otherwise you seem, for the most part, a fairly decent person, but in this regard, I genuinely consider your actions quite despicable, and in some ways more so than those of a merely anonymous vandal, whose damages are usually relatively easy to revert. In this case you know that few are likely to oppose you sufficiently to immediately revert the damages to the page formats, and it will get MORE difficult as time goes by, and thus are likely to persist for months or years EVEN if enough people become sufficiently aware of the arrogant asininity of your acts to oppose them.
You then smugly replied: "these formats will not persist for "months or years"; they will persist forever. Cheers!" Your petty minded arrogance in such responses to any objections to your asinine insistence that others defer to your will is something I find repugnant. I do not doubt that like most human beings you have mostly good will in your intentions, but in this case of actual practices I perceive MANY deficiencies and flaws in BOTH your perceptions and attitudes. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 16:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Regarding your assertion that these represent "a style as was preferred by some in the 18th and 19th century", Respectfully Quoted was published in 1989. It is in the public domain because it is compiled and published by the United States Library of Congress. There is also a 2010 edition that I haven't gotten to yet, which also fully punctuates its citations. This is a practice firmly embedded in the 21st Century, by one of the most respectable authorities that can be found. My "arrogance" in my talk page response was a reflection of your hyperbolic reaction to the addition of periods - which you called "gnat turds", in boldfaced letters, to the pages. BD2412 T 18:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
As an absurdist, I certainly have no doubts that even more exceptions can be found, but in general, such styling is NOT used in most works, and I believe has not been prevalent for over a century. ~ Kalki·· 19:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Neutral about IMPOSING periods at the end of interlinear citation lines[edit]

  • COMMENT : Even if you have little or no preferences as to whether these UNNECESSARY points are actually used by anyone, I am appealing to you to actively reject the IMPOSITION of them, as the SINGLE person who has consistently desired to do this in over 10 years of this wiki's existence has clearly exhibited what I believe to be a sociopathic obsession with doing so, quite akin to the actions of obsessive vandals. ~ Kalki·· 15:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    That would be true if vandals obsessively fixed things and made them more consistent. BD2412 T 16:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    Buckminster Fuller's remarks in Synergetics: Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking (1975) come to mind: "It is essential to release humanity from the false fixations of yesterday…" — as well as those of a friend of his great-aunt Margaret, Ralph Waldo Emerson: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds…" So it goes… ~ Kalki·· 16:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, well, there you go. BD2412 T 17:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

An alternative proposal to template all quotes[edit]

None of this would be a problem if all of our quotes were templated, with individual users being able to set preferences to see or not see punctuation marks at the end of citations. In addition, such a system would allow us to classify individual quotes by their template parameters. For an example of what this would entail, see this Wikisource page of quotes from Hoyt's. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

None of THIS would be so much of a problem if you had not gone about so many times obsessively changing the styling of citations from that commonly preferred by MOST editors here to an archaic one you seem to prefer. I do not know how easy it would be to implement any viable templates, that are properly formatted for interlinear rather than endnote use, but switching over to them would be a MASSIVE undertaking, and I believe that there certainly would have to be EXTENSIVE involvement by MANY here over weeks or months in deciding upon the options of formatting such a template. ~ Kalki·· 16:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
As I have explained before, it is not a matter of preference, but of efficiency. I am importing and distributing tens of thousands of quotes from other sources. These quotes happen to come with punctuation at the end of even short citations. I suppose it is a matter of preference to say that a given page should not have a mix of punctuated short citations and unpunctuated short citations, but I'm punctuating them. Period. Full stop.
With respect to templates, that is probably the best way to organize our quotes, and something that we should have done from the beginning. Yes, it would be a massive undertaking, but it would enhance the usability of this project many times over, since we would eventually be able to build a system to assemble pages of quotes by author, subject, work, rather than assembling everything ourselves. BD2412 T 16:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The continuing campaign of DICTATORIAL VANDALISM should be CENSURED and STOPPED.[edit]

The extent of BD2412's arrogantly DICTATORIAL presumptuousness is CONTINUING to become even more apparent, as even after I once again initiated the above polling of those concerned enough to indicate their opinions, where at this point there are 4 people who have promptly responded to those appeals to express views on this matter, and he ALONE among those, favors such IMPOSITION of "consistency" as he desires, and 3 others, myself included, have indicated that such formatting should NOT be IMPOSED as a standard here.

Though I am NOT calling for punitive measures, for past actions, I believe BD2412's behavior on each episode which has occurred where his actions were contested should be censured and condemned as inappropriate and detrimental to the wiki, and an active defiance and disregard for the MANIFEST consensus of MOST editors, as evidenced by the predominance of the style he apparently disdains and seeks to eliminate in a one-person campaign against the work of those "infidels" who lack faith in the supremacy of his "good judgement" of what is best for all others to accept, despite other styles being the OBVIOUSLY preferred forms of MOST editors since the existence of this wiki. I do believe that IF this continues, a temporary block on his editing IS appropriate, as a precautionary measure against further burdening of other editors who might wish to revert his arrogant IMPOSITIONS, as currently he persists in disregarding all appeals to stop his nearly universally UNDESIRED and certainly UNWARRANTED changes to pages.

Presently, as well as in such past incidents which I have opposed, I have been responding to what I sincerely believe are UNDESIRABLE actions and aims, and wish to make a few things I believe have probably become appropriate or even necessary to redress some of the damages which I believe have occurred more clear.

Prior to the episode in 2012 which began these rather needless, and I believe in many ways detrimental, dramas of MASSIVE and UNAPPROVED alterations to others works, in what had been CLEARLY APPROVED formatting, in doing simple cleanup work of integrating the quotes BD2412 had added from 19th century works onto pages, and cleaning up the page formatting, I often and regularly removed these needless end-points, as undesirable artifacts of ARCHAIC formatting of MOSTLY 19th century and early styles, with I believe, NO DISPUTE on such matters.

I do wish to make it clear — as with MANY other "unapproved" and "unfavored" format styles, I do NOT wish to ABSOLUTELY EXCLUDE such formatting AS IF it was "forbidden", and BD2412 should REMAIN free to add material from such books as ARE formatted in such ways without BOTHERING to adapt them to the formats which WERE approved and recommended, IF he continues to prefer to do so, but it should be made CLEAR that SUCH formatting has NEVER been preferred or favored by MOST who edit here, and that further altering lines which ARE properly formatted in ways which HAVE been approved and recommended since 2003, should be REJECTED, and I or anyone else who has always believed, or comes to believe that the EXISTING recommendations of NOT having such ARE preferable, SHOULD be free to edit out these UNNECESSARY ending points to lines, ESPECIALLY where they were added to pages and sections by these TROUBLESOME and UNDESIRED episodes of MASSIVE alteration of pages by BD2412. I believe that SUCH decisions, WITHOUT any calls for penalties for his past or present behavior would be a fair and proper outcome, far more generous than such harsh sanctions as SOME often seek towards actions nowhere near as damaging as I believe his have been. I do sincerely believe he has persistently and increasingly acted with DISGRACEFUL and DETRIMENTAL behavior, activities and aims, and HOPE that this SOON ceases, in proper acceptance of PREVIOUS and LONG existing STANDARDS here, but I do patiently await and request indications of the opinions and thoughts of others on the matter, in such ways as BD2412 has REPEATEDLY indicated his UNWILLINGNESS to do, in persisting to such editing as has been CLEARLY objected to, to varying degrees, by MOST who have thus far gotten involved in this matter. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 15:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC) + tweaks

I like you Kalki, I really do, but has it occurred to you that if you tried communicating like a more or less normal person, you might get somewhere with what you are trying to do? BD2412 T 16:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
That is quite a humorous remark, in very ironic ways, as it is clearly YOU who are certainly the individual in the minority on THIS issue, and apparently trying to change the subject of YOUR obstinate and unwarranted DICTATORIAL actions to some of my peculiarities of expression. I confess I have rarely made extreme efforts to seem merely "normal" in ways that I am not, especially if such required embracing cowardly dishonesties, and neither am I extremely inclined to be either prideful or ashamed of the ways I am unusual, because I am VERY respectful of OTHERS and their rights to diverge and differ from me, in MANY ways, but NOT of ANYONE'S presumptions of their "right" or "duty" to IMPOSE CONFORMITY to any of their preferences on others without appropriate and just warrant or clearly vital need. ~ Kalki·· 16:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC) + tweaks
I mean that your distaste for final punctuation seems as quixotic as your other expressions. In any case, your poll above appears to be asking whether Wikiquote should have a policy of requiring punctuation, not whether the addition of punctuation should be prohibited. The absence of a rule requiring imposition is not the same as a rule prohibiting imposition. Ask whether the addition of punctuation should be prohibited. BD2412 T 17:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
This is not a case of vandalism, which is an act intended to deface or damage. Nor is it, as some of the rhetoric above would seem to suggest, a case of crimes against humanity under any reasonable definition. The form, structure, tone, and content of this entire discussion only serves to prevent or inhibit reasonable consideration of the small point that is putatively under consideration.~ Ningauble (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Alternatives to Wikiquote:Templates/People[edit]

Could we discuss better ways to organize quotations than the current Wikiquote:Templates/People? When I was preparing Joseph Ritson, it seemed more useful to separate his quotes about people from his quotes on other topics. I alphabetized the names for easy reference, although this method does not conform to the current rigid standard. I suggest an alternative method to the current standard, useful in some cases, that would allow a choice where quotes can be organized under headings that focus on context or areas of expertise. In the case of Ritson, anyone needing to know what he said about his contemporaries (plus Lydgate) can easily find the quote. This seemed like a much better method than dumping a chronological jumble of words under the general heading, Quotes. HenricusHirschdörfer (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Before addressing the general question of alternatives to Wikiquote:Templates/People, I would note that arguments for the case of Joseph Ritson (current revision) do not strike me as very convincing. The importance of focus on context or areas of expertise may be contradicted by the article introduction saying he is "noted more for his caustic style than for his scholarship", which suggests to me that the subject of his remarks is less important than their manner. I would also note that chronological or textual order is not a jumble, it is linear; and it represents an objective ordering based on origins rather than a subjective assessment of what subjects are pertinent.

In other instances, I note that HenricusHirschdörfer also recently created an article on Joseph Strutt (current revision) that rearranges several quotations from a single work under various subject headings. He is not alone in this: an IP contributor recently resisted the removal of this sort of structure from the Hugh Macmillan, Baron Macmillan article (diff), even after being advised ([2]) that it is generally deprecated. Several editors have introduced subject headings over the years, and they have generally been removed in favor of our more conventional arrangement by chronology and textual order.

More broadly, the introduction of subject headings has often raised serious problems. They have frequently given the impression of expressing a non-neutral point of view about the person quoted, of making a polemical argument about the putative subject of the quotes and, in attempting to interpret quotations, of even misrepresenting the author's intent. These and other problems of interpretation and emphasis (such as attempting to place "more important" quotes at the top) are handily obviated by using a consistent and objective system of chronological and textual order that requires no analysis and invites no opinions. I heartily endorse the system that has been adopted.

That said, some alternatives to Wikiquote:Templates/People may be useful insofar as the template itself has shortcomings as a means of promulgating the convention it expresses. To wit:

The inherent form of such templates, intended for use with the InputBox tool (e.g. at Help:Starting a new page#Using input box), has little provision for covering many optional features and variations that are also commonly accepted practice. By its nature, it has to stick to the basics. Furthermore, and very importantly in my opinion, it affords little opportunity to explain the sense, purpose, or rationale behind the format it exemplifies, as can be better explained in a prose "guideline" page.

From the project's earliest days, the advantages of the template approach were recognized: It affords an easy and direct way for newcomers to just jump in and create an article by fleshing out a bare-bones outline. However, it is of little help when a user wants to try something different. Furthermore, when an article has already been created and tagged with a {{people-cleanup}} template, this may be precisely when some prose explanation is called for, but it only points to the InputBox template.

As an alternative or supplement to templates like Wikiquote:Templates/People, particularly in the context of a cleanup tag, something like Wikiquote:Guide to layout could be very useful. However, as it stands now it is a rough draft that needs a lot of improvement. Any thoughts on how much work it would take to make it suitable for linking from the cleanup templates and/or from the "editintro" feature of the InputBox tool? ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

These are excellent points, and improvement is the issue as Wikiquote evolves to meet the needs of its users. Rigid adherence to chronological and textual order is puzzling, when you think about it. What did Joseph Strutt have to say about gun safety back in the day? HenricusHirschdörfer (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Acton[edit]

Hi!

You have some good Acton quotes, but you don't have him in your index of 'Historians'.

Jim

Hello. If you mean Lord Acton, then I believe he already is in our "index" of historians: here, under "D", John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton. ~ DanielTom (talk) 07:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Meta RfCs on two new global groups[edit]

Hello all,

There are currently requests for comment open on meta to create two new global groups. The first is a group for members of the OTRS permissions queue, which would not contain any additional user rights. That proposal can be found at m:Requests for comment/Creation of a global OTRS-permissions user group. The second is a group for Wikimedia Commons admins and OTRS agents to view deleted file pages through the 'viewdeletedfile' right on all wikis except those who opt-out. The second proposal can be found at m:Requests for comment/Global file deletion review.

We would like to hear what you think on both proposals. Both are in English; if you wanted to translate them into your native language that would also be appreciated.

It is possible for individual projects to opt-out, so that users in those groups do not have any additional rights on those projects. To do this please start a local discussion, and if there is consensus you can request to opt-out of either or both at m:Stewards' noticeboard.

Thanks and regards, Ajraddatz (talk) 18:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Quotes "by" Jesus or "Attributed to" Jesus"?[edit]

I don't mean to open a can of worms here, but there are a substantial number of quotes on various pages for which Jesus is identified as the sole author. Generally, where a quote by one subject is in a work by another, we report the quote with a citation like: "John Smith, in Bob Jones, Biography of John Smith, date, page". We do not treat the subject as the author of the biography itself. The problem here is that the portions of the Bible that purport to quote Jesus are identified as ostensibly having been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and generally agreed by experts to have been written by later followers of these subjects who recorded an oral tradition. In this case, there are some additional problems: first, some people dispute the existence of Jesus (and therefore the authorship of any quotes attributed to Jesus); second, there are no contemporaneous records of the quotes; third, there are different version of the some of the same quotes given by different authors; and fourth, there are different versions of the same quotes in different versions of the Bible. I therefore propose that we should generally cite such quotes as "Attributed to Jesus in [book], [version]". BD2412 T 03:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@BD2412: That seems reasonable enough. There are also other sources for such quotations (such as the Gospel of Thomas or non-Gospel New Testament sources). For what it's worth, the non-historical theory has such little support as to be ignorable. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
First let me state that I emphatically agree with BD2412's last point: Bible citations should always identify the Bible version. Always.

On the larger issue, that Jesus is not the author of the cited works, I don't have a problem with current practice. I am usually a stickler for being very clear about whether a work is by the person quoted or is quoting or attributing his words, but in the case of Bible citations I do not think clarification is needed. (E.g., the work known as The Gospel According to Matthew is clearly "according to" someone other than Jesus himself.) In particular, we really do not need to express or imply an opinion on whether the Bible contains the Gospel Truth or direct quotations from eyewitnesses or traditional attributions compiled later – for the purpose of citing the Bible it just does not matter.

In the special case of the Bible, as with very few similar works, it is such an iconic source, a thing known and recognized the world over (whether one regards it as a cultural artifact or as the Word of God), that there is no need to clarify the nature of its contents: whether it is a primary, secondary, or tertiary source is immaterial when it is the foundational source for one of the world's major religions. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that we should assume that there is no need to clarify issues like this. There are still large parts of the world where Christianity is little-practiced, and people might assume that Jesus sat down with a pen and paper and wrote the things attributed to him in the Bible. Moreover, there are quotes "by" Jesus in the Gnostic Gospels, the Book of Mormon, and other works of that genre. Since we are not in a place to say whether any of these is "the" true account, we might be best off treating all of them as attributions. BD2412 T 19:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
@BD2412: Your concerns apply much more to other Ancient World figures than they do to Jesus. For example, we only have two sources for Socrates (his two admirers, Plato and Xenophon, who give very different portraits of him). Alexander the Great's earliest biographies were written 400 years after his death, yet they are regarded by historians as reliable accounts. When it comes to Jesus, even if we ignore Paul's letters, we know that Mark was written in the 50s, and the stories he narrates were around just ten years after the death of Jesus. Have some perspective. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't doubt that there are many ancient World figures to whom such concerns might apply. I come down on not taking a position for or against the assertion that the attribution is correct. That is to say, I think that where it is impossible to say with certainty that a particular quote was actually authored by a particular author, we should say who wrote the attribution (and perhaps call it an attribution. Jesus is just patient zero for this issue. It is certainly not incorrect to cite a given quote as "Attributed to Jesus in The Gospel According to Matthew" or the like. BD2412 T 18:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Kim Jong-un[edit]

Swedish wikiquote has a page about the korean leader: [3]. When will the English one? Hedman (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@Hedman: Anytime! As soon as you want to, you can add a page and a few quotations. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Global AbuseFilter[edit]

Hello,

AbuseFilter is a MediaWiki extension used to detect likely abusive behavior patterns, like pattern vandalism and spam. In 2013, Global AbuseFilters were enabled on a limited set of wikis including Meta-Wiki, MediaWiki.org, Wikispecies and (in early 2014) all the "small wikis". Recently, global abuse filters were enabled on "medium sized wikis" as well. These filters are currently managed by stewards on Meta-Wiki and have shown to be very effective in preventing mass spam attacks across Wikimedia projects. However, there is currently no policy on how the global AbuseFilters will be managed although there are proposals. There is an ongoing request for comment on policy governing the use of the global AbuseFilters. In the meantime, specific wikis can opt out of using the global AbuseFilter. These wikis can simply add a request to this list on Meta-Wiki. More details can be found on this page at Meta-Wiki. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on m:Talk:Global AbuseFilter.

Thanks,

PiRSquared17, Glaisher

— 17:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Category:Chemistry[edit]

While I certainly welcome the addition of new pages, especially on topics that had not previously received much coverage, I wonder if all the 95 pages in this category meet the criteria for having a page here. Many seem to be quite dry pieces of text from a Chemistry textbook and do not, in my mind, rise to the level of quotability sufficient for our needs here. Some do have some memorable quotes, but most appear to be quite narrow in scope and do not provide anything memorable. Does anyone have an opinion - either agree or disagree? ~ UDScott (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I agree with your concerns. We should not have as "quotes" textbook snippets that merely recite scientific definitions and characteristics of chemical compounds. Such materials appear more relevant to an encyclopedia than to a collection of quotations. I tend to think of quotations as things that a writer or speaker might want to pull out and plug into a conversation, speech, or article to inject some interest, and therefore to get away from mundane descriptions. With respect to many of these newly created pages with only one or two quotes, I would at the least want to merge them as subsections of a single page on, perhaps, "Chemical compounds", but some (like Diisobutylaluminium hydride and Heterocyclic compound ) seem unquotable to me, and should probably be deleted outright. BD2412 T 18:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I also don't anticipate a great deal of interest in most of those pages anytime soon, and see most of the quotes as low-interest statements for most, but do see some subjects worthy of expansion in some of them, and see no great harm in letting those with interest in them extend them as they will.
      It is not extremely likely that very many people are going to seek out the page for Polycyclic compounds for quotes on it, or be highly offended that there is one, or that there is thus far only one rather mundane quote on the rather specialized subject. In the case of Electrostatic potential maps which was prodded, I see no great reason to seek out further quotes just now, to attempt to save it from deletion, but would not impede others from attempting to do so, if that were their inclination. I have a very slight preference to keep it, for a few potential remarks related to the subject, but like many pages that get prodded, no real passion to do much any time soon on its behalf. I will do a slight bit on behalf of the others though, which have not yet put to the prod, that they might be left as they are, to grow or stagnate as others are inclined to either build upon them or ignore them. ~ Kalki·· 19:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
      • How would you feel about merging all those describing specific chemical compounds into a single page on that subject? BD2412 T 20:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
        • I personally would not oppose such a merger for many of them under relevant headings, but believe the created pages should remain as redirects, with potentials for latter expansion. The creator of many of these pages should probably be consulted for any opinions on such matters. ~ Kalki·· 20:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
          • That plan (coupled with Kalki's idea to leave the pages as redirects) seems fine to me. And talking to the pages' creator is probably a good idea too. I've been tweaking the pages as they have been created (adding cats, formatting, etc.) and was reluctant to delete them all - but also felt that many of the pages did not contain much that was quotable. To me, this appears to be a good solution. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I thought that quoting about chemical materials is all right because there are precedents. In Gaither's Dictionary of Scientific Quotations, there are quotes about themes such as "acid" -- "acetic", "amino", "carbolic", "formic", "hydrochloric", "muriatic", "sulphuric", and "uric". However, I am somewhat newbie in Wikiquote. If you think there are better suggestion, I will follow that suggestion. (I am not a native English speaker. Excuse me for my bad English.) by Y-S.Ko
    • Yes, but looking over the examples visible in Gaithers, they are still poignant or pithy, not dry and technical. BD2412 T 23:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Hmmm... How about Euler's identity? I don't know education system of United States. However, Understanding "e^{i \pi} + 1 = 0. \,\!" needs some technical understanding for complex analysis. However, there are quotes about this technical theme.Y-S.Ko (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
      • How about Schrödinger equation in Erwin Schrödinger page? I think understanding it needs some technical concept of differential equation.Y-S.Ko (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't think that my quotes are technical than other quotes in mathematics or analytic philosophy. For example, quotes "To every ω-consistent recursive class κ of formulae there correspond recursive class signs r, such that neither v Gen r nor Neg (v Gen r) belongs to Flg (κ) (where v is the free variable of r)." (in Kurt Gödel) is technical. Y-S.Ko (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
        • I think perhaps Wikiquote:Quotability captures the issue in a nutshell. Schrödinger's equation may be very technical, but it's also by itself a very famous quote in its circle. Schrödinger and Kurt Gödel are highly famous in their fields. You can tell this because the quotes (to the extent that they can be called quotes) are often quoted by others. As for Euler's identity, most of the quotes on that page have some bite to them beyond merely reciting facts about the formula. BD2412 T 00:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
          • Hmmm... then how about substituting quotes with similar quotes of Linus Pauling, Robert Burns Woodward or E. J. Corey, Nobel laureates, very famous in their field? (I quoted John E. McMurry or Kurt Peter C. Vollhardt (de), not as famous as Schrödinger or Gödel, but somewhat notable, according to Wikipedia...) If "merely reciting facts" is problem, how about Mercury_(element)#Mercury.2C_ultra_trace_analysis? These quotes are stating scientific facts. If notability is a problem, I think my quotes are made by more notable scientist (according to Wikipedia's criterion) than Paul Gouda (who is quoted in Mercury article). If technical scientific knowledge is a problem, quotes on mathematics are also problems. Therefore, I thought my quotation is all right because there are precedents like these....
            Well... now, I don't know so much about Wikiquote. Therefore, I can have some misunderstanding. Y-S.Ko (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
            • By the way, your contributions are very much appreciated, and some of them are spot on - the Hofmann quotes on Benzene for example. Imagine that every quote has point system, where it gets a certain number of points based on the fame of the quote itself, a certain number of points based on the fame of the person being quoted, and a certain number of points based on how useful it would be to whip that quote out in a speech or while making conversation at a cocktail party. The ideal is to have quotes that meet all three of these - famous quotes by famous people that are captivating or entertaining. BD2412 T 02:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor coming to this wiki as a Beta Feature[edit]

VE as BetaFeature.png

Hello. Please excuse the English. I would be grateful if you translated this message!

VisualEditor, a rich-text editor for MediaWiki, will soon be available on this wiki as a Beta Feature. The estimated date of activation is Wednesday, 26 November.

To access it, you will need to visit the Beta features page after the deployment and tick the box next to "VisualEditor". (If you have enabled the "Automatically enable all new beta features" option, VisualEditor will be automatically available for you.) There will also be a "VisualEditor language tool" that you can enable if you need it.

Then, you just have to click on "Edit" to start VisualEditor, or on "Edit source" to edit using wikitext markup. You can even begin to edit pages with VisualEditor and then switch to the wikitext editor simply by clicking on its tab at any point, and you can keep your changes when doing so.

A guide was just published at mediawiki.org so that you can learn how to support your community with this transition: please read and translate it if you can! You will find all the information about the next steps there. Please report any suggestions or issues at the main feedback page. You will also receive the next issues of the multilingual monthly newsletter here on this page: if you want it delivered elsewhere, for example at your personal talk page, please add the relevant page here.

Thanks for your attention and happy editing, Elitre (WMF) 18:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor coming to this wiki as a Beta Feature (errata)

Insofar as the Editing team of the Features department of Wikimedia Engineering intends to "make VisualEditor be the main, default editor for WMF wikis", I think it is important for Wikiquote regulars to engage with testing this new interface. Development of the Visual Editor to date has been primarily informed by and targeted for encyclopedic projects and, as far as I know, this is the first time it has been tried at a compendium of quotations – which may have significantly different needs that should be made known before the new interface becomes standard.

My first test drive at User:Ningauble/Sandbox/VE test (reproducing parts of the Bureaucracy article) was a little bumpy:  I can't figure out how to make cross-wiki links (the very first word in most articles is a wikilink to Wikipedia);  copy/paste from an existing article (reading view, not edit page) introduced spurious line breaks;  copy/paste from my word processor introduced all sorts of inappropriate metadata (I did not save this bit in my sandbox);  and very significantly because citing sources is a big deal for Wikiquote, the prominently displayed "Cite" button creates footnotes, which are deprecated here.  On a brighter note, copy/paste from an existing article (reading view, not edit page) did capture and preserve bold and italic formatting.

That is all I have time for testing today (and I will very busy in real-life for the next couple months). I encourage others to test the Visual Editor and share their experiences of what is probably destined, sooner or later, to become our default editing environment.

(I notice that the above linked "main feedback page" uses the totally deprecated and unsupported "Liquid Threads" talk page interface. It seems really odd to me that feedback about the new easier to use interface is being hosted on what is widely considered an unusable interface, but this roadblock may not be totally impassable.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Bare URLs[edit]

I am coming across a lot of pages containing either bare URLs, or linked URLs with no explanatory text. Can someone with the requisite wiki-fu generate a list of pages containing these? I would like to fix them all by providing the relevant description of the page to which the URL leads. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@BD2412: The only trick I would know of would involve w:WP:AWB and that wouldn't be terribly effective but it's a start... —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
If AWB can be used for this, I don't know how. I suppose one could search all pages for those with "http" not preceded by a bracket, but a list can't be compiled that way. BD2412 T 03:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
@BD2412: You can create a tracking category. There is a similar situation at en.wp with w:en:Template:Barelinks. And there is a Reflink tool over there which fills in information semi-automatically. Still not perfect but it's the first thing that comes to mind. I know that at en.voy they also had a bot that went around turning external links into more usable form... —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I have long felt that external links without explicit citation text are a major blight affecting many of our articles. I had thought about creating a local cleanup template as Justin suggests, and may go ahead an do so in the near future if nobody beats me to it. Unfortunately, I don't have any bright ideas for automatically detecting pages that need to be tagged and cleaned up. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I have asked for help at the Wikipedia village pump technical section. BD2412 T 17:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright question[edit]

Hi. Upon reading Wikiquote:Copyrights and its Russian version I realized that the Russian version is different, — it says that no copyrighted content (not even fair use) is allowed, and all quotations on the site are GFDL (where not, permission from original quote author must be sought). However in the English version a fair part of it is dedicated to the "it's only for educational purposes, it's a small quote, therefore it's fair use here".

Are such fair use quotations tagged or can they appear anywhere in a Wikiquote article? Gryllida (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I interpret it as that if I'm writing a for-profit document (i.e. a book for sale), I can't reuse such fair use quotations. Is that correct? [This is something I interpret at odds with that Wikimedia projects should be liberating, - by providing truly GFDL content.] Gryllida (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Gryllida: Unfortunately, each language edition of each Wikimedia Foundation project chooses their own standard when it comes to fair use. All projects must themselves be Creative Commons-licensed but some go even further and disallow any fair use material. Compare w:Adore (The Smashing Pumpkins album) with w:es:Adore (álbum de The Smashing Pumpkins). The former includes three pieces of non-free media: the album cover, a clip of a song, and a promotional photo of the band. The latter includes none of these. There is no technical or legal reason why es.wp can't include this media but they have simply chosen that their edition of Wikipedia will not include any non-free media. Generally, the WMF doesn't impose any conformity amongst the different communities to force them to include non-free/fair use media, so that's the situation. If you are familiar with Russian, you can appeal to the community at ru.wq and see if they want to revisit their standard but they probably won't. As an aside, media being free as in libre is not the same thing as it being free as in "not costing money". You can charge money for public domain works: go to any bookstore and they will sell you a copy of Huckleberry Finn. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed "Variant Translations" or "Variants" section[edit]

When there is an extensive list of variant translations, might there be a section created such as "Variant translations" or "Variants" where, similar to the "Reference" section, something like a {{reflist}} could be placed, e.g., {{varlist}}. The variant list could then be enclosed within something like <var><var/> tags. Then an entire section of the variant translations could be viewed under the "Variant translations" at the discretion of the reader, rather than being offered only a single path of reading through the list of variants until the next original quote is reached. This idea presented itself while reading the Wolfgang Pauli article, where a screen full of six variants is listed under the first quote.
ELApro (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Free 'RSC Gold' accounts[edit]

I am pleased to announce, as Wikimedian in Residence at the Royal Society of Chemistry, the donation of 100 "RSC Gold" accounts, for use by editors wishing to use RSC journal content to expand articles/ items on chemistry-related topics. Please visit en:Wikipedia:RSC Gold for details, to check your eligibility, and to request an account.

How else can the RSC assist your work on Wikiquote? Pigsonthewing (talk) 13:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #10—2014[edit]

18:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Lack of information for newer editors[edit]

Hello. This might not be the best place to put this, but I couldn't find anywhere better. (in the most neutral way possible) This wiki is a bit of a mess. The first result from Special:Random brought me to an apparent copyvio and a violation of the 250-word-per-quote policy. More than half of the see also section in Wikiquote:Welcome, newcomers was redlinked, and that page itself wasn't particularly helpful; not showing what work could be done nor a quick guide to Wikiquote's policies. There isn't even a policy/guideline/essay on being bold; making me slightly nervous to create those pages based on my (extremely narrow) understanding of Wikiquote policy, etc. So here are my questions:

  • Is there a "be bold" standard? Specifically, for good faith edits, can someone be blocked without warning?
  • What is there for a new editor to do? Is there lots of vandalism? Where do most of you get the content for Wikiquote articles? What's the best way to contribute content? To contribute in general?
  • In general, how are policies formed? How is consensus generally measured or found? I saw a Wikiquote:Requests for comments but I see it's not officially policy.
  • Anything else for a newbie to do?

Cheers, --L235 (talk) enwiki 02:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Lixxx235: I don't want to discourage someone else from chiming in and I don't have a complete answer to all of your (excellent) questions but do you want to collaborate on drafting up pages to help newcomers? —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
@Koavf: Sure, I'd be glad to, once I start to understand Wikiquote's policies more myself. Cheers, --L235 (talk) enwiki 02:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
@Koavf: Hmm, looks like Template:Re didn't exist (until now). Cheers, --L235 (talk) enwiki 02:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in becoming involved in our project here.
In somewhat of a coincidence, in the last day or so prior to your raising of the issue, I myself had been thinking that the time had definitely come when their was a significant need to do some work on such pages, and a few others within the next few months, and perhaps to make a start on methodically addressing such tasks within the next few weeks. Though I have many other things I must attend to, this request prompts me towards a greater urgency in attending to this matter, and I might try to have some ideas developed on how the pages and the accessibility to them might be significantly improved by the middle of next month, or if very lucky, even the early part of it, for the considerations of others. I have several other priorities to attend to for at least a few days, but might get started on it after this weekend. ~ Kalki·· 10:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC) + tweaks
@Kalki: Thanks for the note. If there's anything I can do to help, please let me know. I have a (if I may say so) a pretty deep understanding of en wikipedia's policies and guidelines as well as the majority of policy-like essays, so if you'd like that point of view, I could help with that. Also, what would you recommend. O help with on this wiki? Thanks, cheers, --L235 (talk) enwiki 17:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
@Kalki: Would you mind terribly if someone (you) started a discussion here about whether to make (most of) the pages in Category:Policy drafts policy? So newbies like me can get an idea on what actually has consensus and what doesn't? Also, would you consider something similar to w:simple:Wikipedia:Follow English Wikipedia? (some guideline such as "if there is no policy or guideline for any given circumstance, then use English Wikipedia policies/guidelines along with common sense to determine how to proceed", for example.) Looking forward to hearing from you and anyone else who has suggestions. Cheers, --L235 (talk) enwiki 03:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
As I believe some people are well aware, I tend to prefer things to be as loose and free as possible, until there are clear abuses by those disrespectful of fundamental ethical principles which warrant more drastic measures of action or constraints.
I do believe there has to be far more succinct summaries of what general Wikimedia Foundation policies and principles are, as well as the options available here and on all the wikis it was created to support, as well as those NOT appropriate to Wikimedia or Wikiquote activities, and a few pages which provide more complete access to presentations on the introductory pages, as well as a general overhaul of MOST of them, and perhaps access to overviews of how things have developed or decayed here, in various ways, and could yet develop. This is certainly not going to be a very simple task.
I probably will attempt to provide some suggestions in the coming days and weeks, but I also expect I might eventually remain far more active elsewhere on the internet than I am likely to remain here, most of the time, until perhaps the early summer or later. Once again, I am just checking in briefly, and preparing to leave again, and have an abundance of other things to attend to in coming days. I am already beginning to chart out some ideas for myself, and the activities to focus upon, but might not make some decisions about a few major things of relevance here for at least a few days yet. ~ Kalki·· 16:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I have had even less time to attend to this matter than I anticipated I would have, but it remains on my agenda, and I hope to have more time to deal with these issues VERY soon, though I continue to believe that generally satisfactory resolutions will probably take at least a couple of months to clearly attain, and I expect that there will be many forms of disagreements to sort through for some time, before that, and afterwards as well, as more voices on various matters become heard. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 14:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Adding Images To Articles[edit]

I've recently started adding images to articles and I want to make sure I am doing everything correctly here. Please see here and my contributions to assure I haven't caused any harm to the wiki. Thanks. Eurodyne (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Excellent work. BD2412 T 16:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
@Eurodyne: Agreed: you're doing great work and sprucing up the site. Thanks a lot. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I welcome your interest in adding images, and believe you are doing fine. Thank you for the additions. ~ Kalki·· 20:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I really appreciate the feedback. I'll continue the good work. Eurodyne (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I will be completely unavailable for the next week.[edit]

Please have this project finished by the time I get back, and don't skimp on the quotes! Cheers! BD2412 T 05:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, it is ALWAYS being finished in MANY ways. Being completed is quite another thing altogether. I do not think that is likely to happen in our lifetimes. Have a good vacation. ~ Kalki·· 10:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

No "Template:Copied" or "Template:Split from" for Splitting?[edit]

Did some reading at Wikipedia Splitting where they recommend using the Copied Template in the Talk pages and adding "split content to [[article name]]" to the edit summary for documentation. I tried using the Copied Template at Ethics (book) Talk and a Split from Template at Baruch Spinoza Talk for a split similar to Pensées, but the templates aren't being recognized. They also do not show up in the wikiquote List of all templates.ELApro (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikiquote doesn't have those templates (Template:Copied, Template:Split from, red links), that's why they aren't being recognized. We could copy them from Wikipedia, but it's a bit complicated because they depend on other templates that also don't work here. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Supernatural Page[edit]

Hi folks,

I've been editing the Supernatural page for a few months now, updating it when new episodes air and such. Anyway I was thinking about streamlining it so it falls in line with wikiquote's copyright guidelines, just wanted to check that no-one has any objections to this before I start.

I'll leave it till the 01/28/2015, if there's no objections by that time I'll start ripping it apart!
Putowtin (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no objections to people doing what they believe is best for the article, whether trimming it down or adding to it, and I welcome your participation in working on a page you are interested in. I would like to point out I have always had objections to anyone implying or accepting the implication that there is an absolute need to conform to what a few people have thought would be proper "standard limits" on what can or should be added to ANY articles without some kind of "committee permission", which I believe often highly impedes the interest and involvement of people not very interested in forming committees to rule or regulate others, or in being on them, needlessly. There are general guidelines that have been proposed which I believe could serve as good guidelines, but not ever as "good mandates" in any absolutist ways, no matter how many people are inclined to like indulging in various forms of absolutist, authoritarian, monarchial, oligarchical, collectivist or fascist mandates of various sorts, when there are not clearly any vital needs to do so. I know the stances I believe are ethically proper and necessary can puzzle others, who very often have NOT given such matters much thought, and sometimes object to my giving overt signs of having given them any. You don’t need to wait for approval for doing what you sincerely believe to be of good benefit to the overall worth of the page, but I would caution anyone about merely trimming down things to conform with supposed "norms" not all are inclined to accept or approve, just as much as I would caution them against adding so much of relatively trivial worth that it actually does become cumbersome, or even approaches genuine "copyright violation" concerns. ~ Kalki·· 15:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC) tweaks
Absolutely no objections - please feel free. I spent some time a while back to trim Season 1's quotes, but never got back to do more. Thanks! ~ UDScott (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Admin nominations for January 2014[edit]

There are now two active admin nominations which have been presented at the Wikiquote:Requests for adminship page, those of Illegitimate Barrister (talk · contributions) at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Illegitimate Barrister and of myself, at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Kalki (4th request). Comments and support for the currently clear NEED for more admin activity and presence here is requested. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 14:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Inactivity discussion for InvisibleSun[edit]

Bureaucrat and Admin InvisibleSun (talk · contributions) has been inactive both here and at en.wikipedia for over four (4) years.

I've started a discussion to remove both the Bureaucrat and Admin flags, at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/InvisibleSun (inactivity discussion).

-- Cirt (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Other inactivity discussions[edit]

Might also be a good idea to have other inactivity discussions for other inactive sysops, perhaps say those with zero edits for over two (2) years. -- Cirt (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair Use on Wikiquote[edit]

I've searched for this topic here and found nothing. We have a situation where a page here, Ian Fleming was illustrated with a painting of Fleming.

That painting is a derivative work of a photo of Fleming that is not copy-right free; the photo illustrates the Wikipedia article under Wikipedia's Fair Use policy, see [4]. As a derivative work, the painting is probably going to be deleted on Commons.[5].

Per WMF resolution, WMF wikis cannot host non-free content unless there is a local policy allowing it. So the present situation is that Wikiquote cannot host use any image of Fleming, apparently, whereas Wikipedia can. In order to allow fair use images here, Wikiquote would need to have an exemption doctrine policy, and would need to allow local uploads. Wikiversity does have this, but many WMF wikis do not want the hassle.

Has this issue been discussed? Where? Otherwise, what does the Wikiquote community think about this?

This basic point should be understood: Files hosted under an EDP must be machine-readably tagged, so that anyone re-using content can readily find such content and remove it if their application does not allow fair use (such as some commercial re-uses). Appropriate categories are machine-readable. --Abd (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we should stick to the current standard of only using images from Wikimedia Commons, and avoid fair-use on this site. -- Cirt (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
To promote the WMF mission, we should use only images that are hosted on Commons and meet the criteria to be freely reusable. The limited exceptions that Wikipedia English uses are not applicable for this WMF project that is a collections of notable quotes. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥ 20:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
It's a judgment call. How important is the quality of Wikiquote pages? What is the function of images on those pages? Some wikiquote sites, globally, do allow fair use. We can allow it, so I'm really asking for the basis for "should not". Has this ever been discussed in depth?
The WMF mission is actually more than one mission, for there are two major meanings for "free content." The difference becomes important when there is a conflict between "educational purpose," and "freely-reusable content," where the latter includes commercial re-use where a fair use rationale might not protect the re-user. Or might. What the policy does is to force users to find completely free images, thus doing the work of a commercial re-user for them.
Sometimes the quality of content is damaged. Does that matter? --Abd (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
For reference, [6]. 12 language-wikiquotes allow non-free content. 12 do not allow it. The rest are unclear. One that does not allow it directly, does allow sysops to use non-free content. --Abd (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Just for a little perspective, Commons now has twenty-four million files available. It is possible that it may be difficult to find a copyright-free image of a particular modern celebrity or from a particular modern film or TV show, but it is almost always possible to find a free image that captures the spirit of the page. BD2412 T 22:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Strongly agree with comments by BD2412 and by FloNight, above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict with above.) Great. I don't have a lot of Wikiquote experience, for sure. There appears to be no free photo of Fleming, at least Kalki claimed that. Fleming isn't terribly modern. So what about those rare cases when a free image isn't available? Like, say, this one. The photo would be direct infringement. The painting is indirect, as a derivative work, and the artist has released it. There would be no issue about resolution, etc. This might be a poster child for allowing fair use. If not, I don't know what would be. Some Wikiquotes only allow administrators to upload files. Everything else, Commons. --Abd (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Our policy is to use only images at Commons. We rely on the Commons community to decide whether an image is in the public domain or suitably licensed. This was decided many years ago, and uploading images locally was disabled in 2005. The decision was reaffirmed when the Image use policy was expanded in 2012. ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with Ningauble. The more complex the image policy is on Wikiquote, the more of people's time will need to be spent on having copyright violation discussions about images. I personally don't think that these types of chores are the best use of this people in this communities' time. Also, a big part of the wikimedia movement's mission is promote open access by working with outside organizations or people to convince them to re-license at least some of the content they control with a Creative Commons or similar license. An argument can be made that making exceptions by hosting non-free images weakens the incentive to work on getting content re-license. And lastly, I'm concerned that by hosting imagines on Wikiquote that aren't free, we will be encouraging misuse of copyrighted images to be copied improperly all over the place. This goes against wikimedia movement's goal of having a good working relationship with GLAMs (Galleries, libraries, archives, and museums). My 2 cents, Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥ 19:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
There is no question but that it is simpler to not allow uploads. The middle ground would be to allow sysop uploads, as some do. However, the argument about "encouraging misuse" would surely apply to Wikipedia in spades, Wikiquote is minor. As to "incentive to work on getting content re-license, that is the direct opposite of the first argument, i.e, making it simpler. The real difference is with commercial re-use, because any nonprofit use will have no difficulty with fair use, any more than Wikipedia does. So, instead of improving content, users are working to get re-licensing, to benefit commercial re-users. --Abd (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Does anybody even look at Wikiquote:Requested entries?[edit]

Cause I asked a question there more than six months ago and I see there's never been any reply to it.... DeistCosmos (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Admin rights removal for Miszatomic[edit]

Please see Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Miszatomic (removal).

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 01:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Request withdrawn by nominator - no community support for removal at this time. -- Cirt (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Drama[edit]

DoNotFeedTroll.svg

There has been some drama here lately. I believe that this arises because several editors on this project have strong personalities and tend to react to issues with furious walls of text, passionate denunciations, pointing fingers, accusations, and/or passive aggressive sarcasm. This is cream and sugar for trolls and vandals. They are not trolling because they have something against quotes, you know. They are here to indulge their ability to instigate dramatic reactions. The more drama, the more they will come. If we merely go about the frankly rather sedate business of building a collection of quotes without responding explosively to every provocation, there will be nothing here for them, and they will move on to more fertile ground. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

+1. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes. There is a middle ground. Collectively, the community needs to respond to issues, but key is "explosively" and "furious." Not explosively, not furious. Calmly, reflectively, becoming informed fully before acting, absent emergency. It's a wiki, so errors can be fixed. And the reward of patience is patience. --Abd (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #1—2015[edit]

18:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikilinking within a quote[edit]

Moving a discussion begun on User talk:Cirt:
I know on Wikipedia one does not ordinarily Wikilink words within any quote - is that true here or not? Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I can say that I have found such quite disconcerting at times. The original author did not intend those links. They may create impressions different from the original intent. I can imagine better implementation that would default to a display of no links, and, then, a "link explorer" that would show not only explicit links declared but also every word could be a search. But that is not the MediaWiki we have. And I think some users here liberally add such. Is there a policy? --Abd (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
It's done on many pages and quotes, and there is no clear-cut rule in the Manual of Style or layout guide explicitly forbidding them. As long as it's not blatantly vandalistic in nature, I don't see any problem with it. As there is no rule forbidding it, I take that as meaning it is allowed. Illegitimate Barrister 08:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
@Collect:Yes, again, just like with the bolding, wikilinking within a quote is a violation of NPOV. Unless the word itself was linked within the secondary source for that quote, itself, then that becomes the user's own decision to draw attention to a particular word, which is a violation of NPOV by emphasizing that user's POV. Both bolding and wikilinking within a quote should be avoided. -- Cirt (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, if I may: I disagree that the practice of wikilinking is inherently a violation of NPOV. The practice is one that has always been quite common on WQ and I believe its practice is different here than it is on Wikipedia. Yes, I would agree that there are times when it can become excessive, but in general, I believe it is actually good practice that has been used as a means to expose readers to other pages in the project. In Wikipedia, its purpose is more to help readers with difficult terms or concepts. It can be used for that purpose here as well, but has the additional use of directing readers to other pages. I don't know that there is, nor ever should be, a hard and fast rule on the use of the links or even how much of the links are OK - it has always been a judgment call and we have not had very many issues regarding it. In the end, I believe they are a valuable tool that helps our project grow and I fail to see how it adds any POV to the quotes. NOTE: I suggest, should this conversation continue, that it be moved to the Village Pump for a wider audience. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
It's inherently a violation of NPOV. It solely reflects the POV of the user that chooses where or when to add bolding or wikilinks. -- Cirt (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
"Items within quotations should not generally be linked; instead, consider placing the relevant links in the surrounding text or in the "See also" section of the article." There. -- Cirt (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
The arguments for wikilinking here would apply to wikilinking there. Wikilinking is justified in ordinary non-quoted text there, as part of the function of an encyclopedia, facilitating exploration. So why isn't it generally disallowed there? The reason is as Cirt has argued. It can introduce POV, by guiding the reader to particular pages -- and not others, and by creating emphasis. I will also say that it is disconcerting. Yes, Cirt complicated the issue by including bolding. I think we agree that new bolding or italics causing some words to stand out is inappropriate. However, linking has a very similar effect for me as a reader.
I don't think that the reasons for it have been well-explored and considered in relation to the mission of Wikiquote. Wikiquote has taken on a mission that is unstated. Here it is from the home page:
Wikiquote is a free online compendium of sourced quotations from notable people and creative works in every language, translations of non-English quotes, and links to Wikipedia for further information.
The unstated mission or use some are following is to explore the ideas involved in the quotations. It becomes a study, not just a "compendium of sourced quotations." Pages are created here on topics, which starts to push into this territory. This is the kind of work (study) which is done on Wikiversity. Wikiversity has developed ways of handling neutrality by inclusion. You can make POV statements on Wikiversity, if they are presented as attributed opinion or original research. If anything is controversial, we shove it down to subpages as attributed essays or managed seminars. This leads me to invite sister wiki links to Wikiversity on any article here, where the article can be studied, developed, or even debated.
Using links in quotes may be relatively harmless in most places. But it then creates something possibly controversial, so pages churn. It is obvious that there are differences of opinion here. I suggest seeking real consensus, instead of continuing to punt. --Abd (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
How does it reflect a POV? Adding a wikilink merely lets the reader travel to another page - it does not provide any emphasis that would lead to a POV. And the link you provided is a Wikipedia link - as I pointed out, we are a different, although related, project. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
How does it not add POV? How does a user decide which words to wikilink, within a quote? What about bolding? Both are tools for users to emphasize certain segments and thus violate NPOV. There's simply no reason not to have such wikilinks as a footnote, below the quotes. -- Cirt (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I completely disagree with your premise, but rather than continue this as a on-on-one, I am moving the topic to the VP. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I note you haven't my questions about how and why a user chooses to add bolding or wikilinking within a quote that did not originally have bolding or wikilinking in that quote. -- Cirt (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. There is no bolding or wikilinking within the original source of the quote.
  2. There is no bolding or wikilinking within the secondary source re-quoting a quote.
  3. Even when news sources re-quote someone's quote, and add their own bolding, they make an editorial note: "Bolding added by us, for emphasis."
  4. We don't do that here.
  5. We mislead our readers by neglecting to add an editorial note, and instead manipulate our readers into thinking the original quote had such bolded or linked emphasis.
  6. This is inappropriate and wrong.
  7. It violates NPOV.
  8. It places our users in the position of deciding when and what and how to wikilink or bold, within quotes, and therefore violate the sanctity of how those quotes originally appeared.
  9. Therefore this becomes a compendium of bolded emphasized things by our users, instead of simply a collection of quotes that reflect the quotes themselves. It becomes some new art form reflecting the POV of users.
  10. Wikipedia is correct when it says: "Items within quotations should not generally be linked; instead, consider placing the relevant links in the surrounding text or in the "See also" section of the article."

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I will be happy to answer your questions - just give me a moment to move the discussion as I earlier suggested so that a larger audince may participate. First, I have only been discussing the use of wikilinks - which is the title of this thread, by the way (and your continued insistence on cramming bolding into the discussion is not helpful). I believe that the use of wikilinks is merely a device to direct readers to pages about a particular subject and do not represent any attempt to emphasize a specific word. I can only speak for myself, but when I choose to add a wikilink, my choice is based solely on the fact that there exists a page for that given topic - and not because I wish to emphasize the word itself within a quote. It is long-standing practice here to do so in an attempt to expand the viewing of our pages. This is very different from Wikipedia, where they are less in need of exposure and such links are more often used to educate readers on a given subject. That is why WP has guidelines to restrict their use. We do not have such rules here. You may prefer that we do and you may have a preference that such links not be used. But that does not mean that standing practice should be altered based on your preferences. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Some past discussions that might help this one can be found: here, or here and or even here ~ UDScott (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps w:Template:Navbox style footer navigation templates would be a good way to interlink pages, if that's what you're concerned about, rather than altering someone else's writing from the way they originally intended their words to appear. -- Cirt (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Taking a line out of a speech or a novel and putting it on a page of other quotes from the same author or on the same topic is already altering someone else's writing from the way they originally intended their words to appear. BD2412 T 15:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Not if we find that quote re-quoted in a secondary source. -- Cirt (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Very few secondary sources will use our exact style and presentation of quotes. A book or newspaper article is likely to have shorter quotes in quotation marks, and longer quotes set out as block quotes. Even a book of quotations will have a very different appearance, with columns or a different arrangement of information. BD2412 T 16:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah but likely not with bolding or blue highlighting and underlining. -- Cirt (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Examples of how bolding or wikilinking can violate NPOV[edit]

  1. And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.
  2. And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.

Sounds a lot different, right? -- Cirt (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me toss my hat in the ring here. Or toss my hat in the ring.
  • And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.
  • And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for youask what you can do for your country.
It may not be obvious, but there can be POV embedded in the target of the links. So it is not enough just to verify that a quotation is accurate, any wikilinks must be inspected as well. --Abd (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
But again, you are confusing the issues - I am not talking about bolding - that is another topic, for another discussion. Your continued use of this as a way to argue your point is not helpful. Please stick to the topic at hand. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Both bolding and wikilinking within quotes that did not have them to begin with by the original writers, both add emphasis and both violate NPOV. -- Cirt (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
And your continued use of the red herring of bolding is just confusing the issue. If you wish to start a separate discussion on the use of bolding, feel free, but please limit this discussion to the subject at hand, which is the use of wikilinks. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
And by the way, stating that since a quote does not have links in its original source is a bit much too. Of course most of the original sources do not contain links, as the mere concept of links may not have even been in existence at the time they were first written or spoken. I fail to see how this means their use should be excluded. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Not a "red herring". At issue is whether or not to allow alteration of original quotes to some new format which was not the way the quotes were intended by the original speaker. -- Cirt (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Cirt, UDScott is right. Bolding confuses the issue. There are deeper issues which have been little mentioned, so far. Is what is in the target of a link what the speaker or original writer intended? If they were speaking, they did not want the listeners to pull out their iPhones and ask Siri to look up the words they used. This kind of linking is great in educational materials, like Wikipedia, but Wikipedia, as you know, discourages linking within quoted material. There can be rare exceptions. -They would normally be handled with footnotes or the like. (Such annotations are frequently added in academic editions of what someone wrote, or Shakespeare, to give another example. I have the annotated works of Lewis Carroll, massive commentary by Martin Gardner. Clearly set apart from the text.) -Abd (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Those things are all easily addressed by my next subsection of suggestions, below. -- Cirt (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with UDScott, bolding and wikilinking are two separate issues, and conflating them makes the discussion useless. Of course original quotes don't contain wikilinking, because unlike bolding, wikilinking didn't exist until this century, and does not exist at all in books in print. Bolding indicates that a particular word is particularly important; wikilinking merely indicates that another Wikiquote page exists on the topic. I strongly support continued wikilinking within quotes for relevant terms appearing within those quotes. BD2412 T 15:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Bolding certainly did exist at the time the words were written, but the writer chose not to use it. Wikilinking makes the word look a different color and adds underline as well. I strongly Oppose using both. -- Cirt (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Some general observations about this "Examples of ..." thread: (1) The "example" given appears to be a hypothetical absurdity rather than an actual example that ever appeared in a Wikiquote article. (2) An argument or demonstration that something can be misused is not in itself a sound argument that it should be categorically prohibited. (3) I am not sure why this rhetorical point about examples has its own section heading in the first place.

    This does not seem to be a productive line of inquiry. Can we get on with the discussion of "Wikilinking within a quote" in the main thread? ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

    • The example shows the inherent problem of bolding and wikilinking = inserting user's POV into writings of others. -- Cirt (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The issue is clear -- the person uttering the words may not mean them at all in the sense in which the link is made, and absolutely may not have given the stress inherent in a bolded word. Therefore it is intrinsically important that no editor on any project ever inject his own meanings and stress into the words of others. Collect (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Strongly agree with this comment by Collect (talk · contributions), above. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • agree, linking in a quote is wrong for both reasons Collect (talk · contributions) mentions. Bhny (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: The majority of posts in this thread are not about examples in general, nor specific to examples given. Please try to keep these discussions focused. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Abd has given another helpful example, above, of how wikilinking and bolding can change perception by the reader of the original quote. -- Cirt (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Cirt. I didn't use bolding. I don't think there is any disagreement about bolding. But linking creates a weak bolding, plus one should consider, as well, what is linked to. I made some points there that may not be obvious, just reading the text. --Abd (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Correct, Abd, to the reader linking creates another form of stylistic differentiation between parts of text, that looks quite similar to bolding. -- Cirt (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Counterexample: At the risk of appearing to digress off-topic, because the heading of this subsection would appear to frame the discussion from a non-neutral point of view, here is an example of wikilinking that does not violate NOPV:
I submit that the appearance of blue links (or whatever one's browser uses to indicate links) in this quote does not create an undue emphasis expressing a non-neutral point of view. The linked names already have the typographic emphasis of capitalization, and the links do not express any point other that one may view articles about the persons expressly named in the quote. I further submit that the links are a service to our readers, many of whom are not aware of who Giordano Bruno was and might as a consequence find the quote incomprehensible.

This counterexample is not entirely off-topic because it amplifies point (2) in my post of 16:19, 9 February 2015 in this subsection above, that just because something can be misused is not sufficient reason for a blanket prohibition against ever using it. A reductio ad absurdum may help to clarify: quotation itself can be misused, e.g. by taking things out of context, to express a view that is not only non-neutral but patently dishonest, and it is demonstrably the case that this has happened many times in our pages (one example). Should we therefore prohibit all quotations in this wiki?

Let us take it as given that wikilinking can be used to violate NPOV, and move on to address the NPOV problem without trying to stipulate that wikilinking itself is the problem. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

And you could not easily have placed such links in a note after the quotation? I fail to see that such a rule would make life that much more difficult for those adding material, to be sure. Collect (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Just trying to understand: are you advocating having a list of links (that show pages that exist for words in the quote) placed below a quote? Just trying to envision your suggestion. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
For obscure persons etc. - why not. Copernicus is, however, not a name one would expect to be a mystery to readers here. Link to that which is not "obvious" in a short note after a quote -- if a quote refers to (example) "Mrs. Robertson" it might make sense to link to her article, or simply say "a neighbour of the author" or the like. Linking to God verges on the silly in a quote, yet such over linking does exist now and should be deprecated. Collect (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
If the only criticism of my counterexample is that I linked both persons named in the quote rather than only one of them, I do not see it as an NPOV problem. On the contrary, chosing one over the other would look a bit odd, and I can well imagine someone objecting that it promotes a point of view.

Adding a "short note after a quote" might be discussed in the following section about "Other ways to add wikilinks to quote pages"; but if there is POV pushing going on with some wikilinking then I don't think doing it in a separate paragraph solves the problem. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that both bolding and wikilinking have their place on Wikiquote. Bolding the most famous quotes—especially in long pages like Virgil—can be of service to readers. And wikilinking key words within quotes, allowing further exploration, I believe does not violate NPOV, any more than dictionaries of quotations by themes do. Take, for example, the following quote by Smollett under the section "Courage" in this dictionary of quotations:

True courage scorns
To vent her prowess in a storm of words;
And, to the valiant, actions speak alone.

Being able to wikilink "courage" in this case is simply an advantage that Wikiquote has over traditional (paper-based) dictionaries of quotations. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Although I would still prefer to avoid conflating bolding and linking, I would add this as an example of legitimate bolding, from The Pride of the Yankees:
The bolded portion is both the most famous and most significant portion of the quote, and a portion that has been highlighted as historically important. I can see no better way to illustrate this than by bolding that portion. BD2412 T 16:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Presumably with italics. But that raises the question: In light of these objections, how are we to deal with spoken quotations which contain clear emphasis? Is my presumption correct, or is italicizing also a contentious issue? --DigitalBluster (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, this is my rule of thumb for how I use bolding -- though, being imperfect, I'm sure I've failed to adhere to it always (now that I'm aware it's a contentious issue, however, it will be at the front of my thoughts in future editing). In any event, authors usually didn't intend for the excerpted quotations we add to Wikiquote to be emphasized, either. We're all bolding in that sense. So I find the whole anti-bolding discussion mildly hypocritical. --DigitalBluster (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Other ways to add wikilinks to quote pages[edit]

  1. Intro sections
  2. Footnotes below the quotes, explaining difficult concepts or words
  3. See also sections
  4. Navigation templates as footer like w:Template:Navbox
  5. Within a caption in an image.
  6. On quote theme index pages.
  7. On category pages.

All of these places are better places for wikilinking, and all are ways to wikilink without perverting the original format of the quote itself.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's take some examples. From George Washington:
From Martin Luther King, Jr.:
These seem like usefully linked concepts in each case. How else would we achieve this effect? BD2412 T 16:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
And you choose to like Human and Nature separately in that first example - instead of "Human Nature" as a single item -- note the difference where two different choices are clearly available. And the bifurcated choice appears, on its face, to have been the wrong one. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC) .
Actually, I didn't add these links (someone else did), I just brought them to the discussion. I have fixed the link to human nature. BD2412 T 19:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Effect? Effect? We should not be thinking about creating any other "effect" other than the "effect" the original writer wished to convey! Oh my goodness! This is getting ridonkulous. -- Cirt (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Again, if that is all we were after, we would be Wikisource, since we would only present quotes in the context of their original publication. In fact, we wouldn't have any quotes from Shakespeare's plays or any public address, since these were meant by their authors to be heard and not read. BD2412 T 16:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
The bolding and wikilinking in your examples, above, is SO distracting, it's hard to even get through reading the entire quote without focusing on the bolded or linked portion and stopping, and thus, ruining the reading experience for our readers. -- Cirt (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps a viewer preference can be implemented, like a skin, where readers could choose not to see links. BD2412 T 17:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
No, our default should be the least distracting option for readers. Perhaps a viewer preference can be implemented, where those that wish to see distracting bolding and fancy blue coloring and underlining can see that interspersed all throughout quote passages. -- Cirt (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I disagree - that is again based on the premise that the consensus of our community is that these links are somehow bad and therefore should not be shown unless someone opts in. I believe it should be the other way around, because I believe these links add value to the project. They are a useful way to expose readers to other pages. If they are hidden, this goes out the window. I would rather let those few who seem to object or who deem them to be distracting to be able to hide them if they so choose. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
And there's no reason not to include such links -- just not inside quotations. But instead, there's so many other ways to add them on a page without violating the original speaker's text. -- Cirt (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: The majority of posts in this thread are not about Other ways to add wikilinks. Please try to keep these discussions focused. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I've given suggestions, above, of multiple ways we can wikilink to other pages, without wikilinking within quoted text. -- Cirt (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Generally, a well-developed guideline will suggest ways that editors can accomplish what they want, rather than merely prohibiting or discouraging one way of doing it, unless what they want is intrinsically contrary to policy. There is an example given in old revisions of the Wikipedia MOS: [8]. How else could this be handled? Because in-quote linking is so easy, it could be a waste of time to discuss alternatives if in-quote linking is "no problem." Rather, this should be discussed in detail on the guideline talk only if and after the basic problem is recognized. There is no emergency here, no need to find a solution today, given that this has been explicitly undeveloped since 2003!
Yet, long term, this is a basic issue, touching the very purposes of Wikiquote, and raising neutrality issues, which are better addressed sooner than later (or better late than never). I've proposed a path to solutions below, and it is being supported, so far, so I am hopeful of resolution. These things can seem difficult if people expect consensus to arise like magic, as if it already existed. It does not already exist here, even though Wikipedia came to consensus, apparently, over 8 years ago. That's obvious. --Abd (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Proposed: that a guideline or policy be developed covering wikilinking in articles, within quotes.

Supporting this proposal does not take a position. It recognizes that there has long been controversy over this. I do not expect this discussion, here, to resolve the issue, because there are a number of subquestions to be resolved. Most notably, there is disagreement over whether or not wikilinking is a violation of NPOV (an extreme statement) or can lead to NPOV issues (much more likely) or has no impact on NPOV at all (which has been said or implied). So a policy/guideline page should be started on the topic, that reflects consensus or the state of no-consensus. --Abd (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as proposer. --Abd (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, so long as the new page conforms with existing pages including WQ:NPOV and Wikiquote:Wikiquote. -- Cirt (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Premature at this point. Until someone articulates concrete ideas for prescribing some sort of middle ground, all this will do is call for an up or down vote on prohibiting the links entirely. The status quo is already documented, more or less, at Wikiquote:Manual of style#Free link style. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, I have not suggested a vote, except on the issue of encouraging the development of a guideline with consensus. Thanks for pointing to the existing MOS. It encourages free linking, but is not clear about linking within quotations: This guideline has yet to be discussed for Wikiquote — some feel that it may not be appropriate in the middle of quotations. That was in the original draft, taken from Wikipedia: 15:38, 23 August 2003‎‎. This is the source.. It does not mention linking within quotations. Current policy on Wikipedia: w:Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Linking. The language was introduced shortly before this edit from October 2006, which I cite because it shows an exception that is no longer shown, but that might still apply. Or not. --Abd (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support discussion that might eventually lead to a policy - but I agree with Ningauble that an up or down vote at this point is premature. And as an aside, I am still not convinced we will be able to arrive at a consensus on this - there are strong feelings on each side. But we will see. I believe such an endeavor would benefit from being led by someone not intimately involved with the arguments set forth above. As such, I will gladly participate, but I would abstain from leading such a project so that objectivity is maintained (I hope that others will do likewise). ~ UDScott (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm all for having guidelines. Whether there will be consensus for any specific elements thereof is another question. BD2412 T 21:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support guideline in congruence with existing policies and guidelines as noted by Cirt above. Collect (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with Ningauble, BD2412, and UDScott. It is woefully premature at the point in thisjuncture to be holding any sorts of votes. I will opine, however, that I agree with it in theory and in principle, though. Illegitimate Barrister 04:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Asking people to vote on a complex conclusion before there is some evident consensus from discussion is asking for trouble, from a high error rate due to participation bias and incomplete consideration. The only voting suggested here is on setting up process to develope a guideline or policy, which could happen anyway, but, speaking personally, before I proceed with what I know how to do here, I wanted to see community support for the process. I do see support, already, but will wait a little while to see if any actual opposition appears. The only opposition I have seen is to premature voting, and I completely agree with that and will be extremely careful about it. Please be aware, it is possible that a full consensus process will take months. Or not. Depends on what we find when we open the can of worms that nobody wanted to open since 2003. --Abd (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with UDScott's comments, farther up the page, that wikilinking can be helpful to the reader here just as on Wikipedia. Still, I wouldn't oppose the development of some sort of guideline, as long as it isn't too hamfisted. --DigitalBluster (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing[edit]

Use of BC and AD[edit]

BC and AD, rether than BCE a d CE noting years before and after year 1? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.171.103.140 (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2015‎

On one hand, “B.C.” and “A.D.” are unambiguously Christian in nature. On the other, they’re more familiar even to many non-Christians than “B.C.E.” and “C.E.” —174.141.182.82 09:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

25,000 articles milestone[edit]

Wikiquote-logo-25000-articles.png

Hello, I prepared new logos to celebrate important Wikiquote milestones: File:Wikiquote-logo-25000-articles.png. We use 20k version on Italian Wikiquote, now [12]. Bye --FRacco (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Inactivity discussions notification[edit]

There are a few inactivity discussions regarding admins that have been inactive for a few years, ongoing ones currently are:

  1. Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Iddo999 (inactivity discussion)
  2. Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/MosheZadka (inactivity discussion)
  3. Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Jaxl (inactivity discussion)

Comments at those would be appreciated.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

See also Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/LrdChaos (inactivity discussion). -- Cirt (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Link to specific content in article (with highlighting)[edit]

There is currently a proposal on Phabricator to add a new feature to MediaWiki where one could link to a specific part of an article's content. When someone visits this special link, they would be scrolled down to the relevant part of the content and possibly, the specific portion would be highlighted.

Before we get started with work on this, we wanted to know if this would be useful at all or whether it would help in any way. Comments? --Vghaisas (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Wanted pages - interesting ideas on pages to create[edit]

Folks may want to have a look at Special:WantedPages - interesting ideas on pages to create.

Cheers,

-- Cirt (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit]

At the moment the Wikiquote logo (in the top left corner) seem to be missing from Wikiquote editor...!? -- Mdd (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Not missing for me. 17:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Well that is reassuring, yet here in Holland the logo is still missing here. This is not in Wikiquote sister projects, and not in other sister projects. But I tried the (other) tablet computer, and there I witnessed the same. Very strange. -- Mdd (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I am definitely seeing the same problem, and have identified the cause: File:Wiki.png was deleted (again, cf. Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/020#Logo). Someone who is actively involved in project administration should revert it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
PS – I am not going to be drawn into wheel warring with the administrator who twice deleted this system file, but I will remark that given the history, and given the large, bold, highlighted warning not to delete it that was on the file descriptor page, I think the deletion was wildly irresponsible. Alas, it is the sort of thing I have come to expect. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
(@BD2412: it's not missing for me either... probably a cache thing.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's a cache thing. To be expected. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Special:WhatLinksHere/File:Wiki.png shows it as unused file. For now I've redirected the page, but perhaps we can alter the code to point the code to File:Wikiquote-logo-en.png. -- Cirt (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done, fixed it, file restored. Hopefully we can get the code to point to File:Wikiquote-logo-en.png, so we don't need the local version file copy. -- Cirt (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Update: I'll do some further research on the code to find out some more info. -- Cirt (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

[Global proposal] m.Wikiquote.org: (all) Edit pages[edit]

MediaWiki mobile

Hi, this message is to let you know that, on domains like en.m.wikipedia.org, unregistered users cannot edit. At the Wikimedia Forum, where global configuration changes are normally discussed, a few dozens users propose to restore normal editing permissions on all mobile sites. Please read and comment!

Thanks and sorry for writing in English, Nemo 22:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)