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


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.


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)

Here is another article that was split without a historical trail... God Is Not Great. The article's history might give the impression that it was created ex nihilo. There should be a formal procedure for splitting articles, such that the article's creation and history is clear and open. I added an "Article History" under its Discussion Page to indicate the page split history, along with a procedural request. ELApro (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I've implemented some of the dependants. Now all I need is the ability to edit MediaWiki:Common.css (or someone to edit it on my behalf) to implement the rest of the coding needed. Mdann52 (talk) 09:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Copied is now functioning within a limited capacity (with respect to Wikipedia). See "Category:Pages using copied template" for a few example pages utilizing the template to date. I don't know about the rest of the community, but I am very happy with the way it is functioning as-is. Thanks Mdann52 ! ELApro (talk) 11:45, 28 April 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 [1]. As a derivative work, the painting is probably going to be deleted on Commons.[2].

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, [3]. 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)



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)
I concur with User:UDScott that adding links within quotes does not subvert the POV of the quote, as long as the link actually directs to the appropriate page.  Common sense can usually dictate if or when this is being abused.

For example, let's say Nietzsche were an editor here.  Let's say he found a page where someone had been quoted as saying, "Because I'm a Christian."  If Nietzsche edits the quote so that it appears as, "Because I'm a Christian," we'd say that Nietzsche has edited the page in good faith, and that his edit in no way influenced the POV of the quote.  It would only be a problem if Nietzsche had edited the page to appear as, "Because I'm a Christian."  Nietzsche would clearly be inserting his own POV in that edit by doing this, as even those who agree with Nietzsche's POV (including Nietzsche himself) would clearly recognise.

To say that this latter hypothetical edit violates NPOV is correct, but to extrapolate from this that the former hypothetical edit also violates NPOV, that it someone "inherently" violates NPOV, doesn't make any sense to me.

Let's say someone is quoted as saying, "Theists and atheists disagree as to whether or not God exists," and I edit this line to read, "Theists and atheists disagree as to whether or not God exists," would anyone say that I've in any way subverted the POV intended by the original author?  No, since including these links in no way serves to promote theism, or atheism, or God; rather, including these links merely serve to direct the reader to more quotes they may be interested in.  As long as the links are added in good faith, there is no POV issue.

Emboldening text, I will admit, can more easily be abused.  When I embolden text, I try to make sure that I only do it to focus a reader's attention in a way that I believe does not subvert the POV intended by the original author, but I admit that this can be a harder objective to accomplish, and there can be honest disagreement as to whether or not NPOV is being violated by the emboldener.  Cases are much more clear-cut with the linking, and thus we definitely do not need any hard-and-fast rules prohibiting linking within quotes.

allixpeeke (talk) 12:56, 1 September 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)
In 1845, Salmon P. Chase gave a speech which was published.  One great line in that published speech appeared as follows:  "THE GOVERNMENT, therefore, in the case of every individual slave, is THE REAL ENSLAVER, depriving each person enslaved of all liberty and all property, and all that makes life dear, without imputation of crime or any legal process whatsoever."  If you wish to argue that the line should not appear here as "THE GOVERNMENT, therefore, in the case of every individual slave, is THE REAL ENSLAVER, depriving each person enslaved of all liberty and all property, and all that makes life dear, without imputation of crime or any legal process whatsoever" on the grounds that these links were "[not] intended by the original speaker," I would counter by asking, do you think inclusion of these links is in any way deceptive to readers, that readers will see these links and believe that they were in the original 1845 speech?  Certainly not.  Readers understand that these links were not included in the original speech.  Thus, they are not being deceived into thinking that the inclusion of these links reflects anything more than was intended by Chase.  When a reader reads "THE GOVERNMENT, therefore, in the case of every individual slave, is THE REAL ENSLAVER, depriving each person enslaved of all liberty and all property, and all that makes life dear, without imputation of crime or any legal process whatsoever," the reader already knows that what Chase said was "THE GOVERNMENT, therefore, in the case of every individual slave, is THE REAL ENSLAVER, depriving each person enslaved of all liberty and all property, and all that makes life dear, without imputation of crime or any legal process whatsoever" and that the links to government, slave, liberty, property, life, and crime are original to Wikiquote, and are provided solely to help direct the reader to other quotes in which they might be interested.  ONLY if we actually believe that inclusion of those links will deceive readers into thinking that those links were in the original would we have any reason to complain about these links not being "intended by the original speaker."  Sincerely, allixpeeke (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Both emboldening and adding links "add emphasis"?  That's where you lose me.  Emboldening text does add emphasis, but adding links doesn't change the emphasis.  Let's say someone is quoted as saying, "Theists and atheists disagree as to whether or not God exists," and let's say I edit this line to read, "Theists and atheists disagree as to whether or not God exists."  Where exactly is the emphasis being added?  I don't see any emphasis, I just see links to topics that a reader may wish to click on in order to read more quotes about said topics.  Yours, allixpeeke (talk) 12:56, 1 September 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)
There is no underlining caused by adding links; one must hover the mouse over a given link in order to see an underline.  Admittedly, the colour does change, but not in a manner that emphasises the content of a sentence; rather, it merely denotes the fact that a link exists, which the reader may or may not be interested in checking out.  A reader isn't going to read the sentence "I am a farmer" and get deceived into thinking the original author had any intention to emphasise the word farmer; rather, the reader will generally be smart enough to understand that the author wrote "I am a farmer" and that the only reason the word "farmer" is blue is because it has a link to a topic she or he may or may not be interested in checking out.  Best, allixpeeke (talk) 12:56, 1 September 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)

Why should a note be placed after the quotation when a note wouldn't add anything that is not already made clear in the example Ningauble provided, especially considering that Ningauble's edit is simpler for readers?  Yours, allixpeeke (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I completely agree with Ningauble that "the links do not express any point other that one may view articles about the persons expressly named in the quote", 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", and that "just because something can be misused is not sufficient reason for a blanket prohibition against ever using it."  Cheers, allixpeeke (talk) 12:56, 1 September 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)
Excellent point, DanielTom.  Cheers, allixpeeke (talk) 12:56, 1 September 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)
I don't find those links distracting.  In any event, are you suggesting that we take this:
…and change it to this:
…?  Because (1) if we were to do that for each quote, it would make pages more cumbersome, and (2) it would make it more difficult for readers to find the links they want to follow, defeating the whole point of including links.  Let's say a person is reading the quote with the links imbedded in the quote, and the reader gets to the word "utopian" and sees that we have a page for that topic, and immediately thinks, "Hmm, that's a page I'm going to want to read."  That person can either click that link immediately, or open the link in new tab to read next, or whatever else floats her or his boat.  But, if the reader is reading the quote with the links added as an addendum to the quote, it might not dawn on the reader that she or he would be interested in checking to see if there is a page on the topic until the reader finally gets to the addendum—assuming the reader even bothers to read the addendum (which she or he might not wish to bother to do, since she or he would, at that point, just be rereading words she or he has already read) and assuming that the reader's eyes do not glaze over and thus miss the word "utopian" when looking at the addendum.

Not only would adding-addendums-to-each-MLK-quote make the MLK page needlessly more cumbersome, but it would force readers to have to choose either to constantly reread words or to skip the addendums altogether.  It's far more practical to simply imbed the links in the quotes themselves.

allixpeeke (talk) 12:56, 1 September 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: [5]. 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)


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 this point in juncture 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)

  • Oppose—We don't need to develop a policy, we just have to use common sense.  If someone changes "Atheists don't believe in a god" to "Atheists don't believe in a god," that would be a NPOV violation; but if someone changes it to "Atheists don't believe in a god," there is no POV violation.  There's no ambiguity there, and thus no need to develop a new policy.  The debate ultimately just comes down to whether or not we will allow links in quotes at all, and most of us seem to agree that we should.  (To quote User:Ningauble, "An argument or demonstration that something can be misused is not in itself a sound argument that it should be categorically prohibited.")  Since most of us agree on that matter, and since we would all agree that "Atheists" would be a link imbedded in bad-faith, there seems to be nothing else really to discuss.  Sincerely, allixpeeke (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


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 (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.” — 09:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

25,000 articles milestone[edit]


Hello, I prepared new logos to celebrate important Wikiquote milestones: File:Wikiquote-logo-25000-articles.png. We use 20k version on Italian Wikiquote, now [9]. Bye --FRacco (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how others feel about it, but I personally think it would be really nice to adopt this logo, at least for a few days. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:57, 7 March 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)

Any comments? -- Vghaisas (talk) 14:29, 4 March 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.


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


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)
Isn't it just easier to keep it where it was? It is possible to change the location, but looks like it would need a system admin to do it... tbh, it's probably easier to get the file delete, protected, like the main page, then to get this changed. Mdann52 (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

[Global proposal] (all) Edit pages[edit]

MediaWiki mobile

Hi, this message is to let you know that, on domains like, 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)

Inspire Campaign: Improving diversity, improving content[edit]

This March, we’re organizing an Inspire Campaign to encourage and support new ideas for improving gender diversity on Wikimedia projects. Less than 20% of Wikimedia contributors are women, and many important topics are still missing in our content. We invite all Wikimedians to participate. If you have an idea that could help address this problem, please get involved today! The campaign runs until March 31.

All proposals are welcome - research projects, technical solutions, community organizing and outreach initiatives, or something completely new! Funding is available from the Wikimedia Foundation for projects that need financial support. Constructive, positive feedback on ideas is appreciated, and collaboration is encouraged - your skills and experience may help bring someone else’s project to life. Join us at the Inspire Campaign and help this project better represent the world’s knowledge! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Admin Inactivity process[edit]

Started a page on Admin Inactivity process.

Modeled after existing process at Wikimedia Commons, Commons:Administrators/De-adminship, and existing Policy for administrator access on Meta.

Page is at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Inactivity.

Please don't discuss here, but instead at Wikiquote talk:Requests for adminship/Inactivity.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Chemistry Quote Competition[edit]

Hi folks,

I am Wikimedian in Residence at the Royal Society of Chemistry (see WP:GLAM/RSC). I have in mind to run a competition, this Summer, using RSC publications and social media, to find the "best" chemistry related quotes. We might offer a prize for the wittiest, and another for the quote which best summarises the importance of chemistry. I would then arrange to have a selection of the entries added to WikiQuote. How does that sound? Would someone from the WQ community like to be involved?—This unsigned comment is by Pigsonthewing (talkcontribs) .

It sounds like a good idea. I can think of at least a couple of editors here who occasionally add quotes about Chemistry to Wikiquote, and who might be interested in this competition. I've just now added a nice one by John Webster (couldn't resist, didn't feel like waiting till Summer), but as finding good Chemistry quotes is actually quite difficult, I am curious to see what others will come up with... After the competition, once the quotes are selected, it will be easy to add them to Wikiquote, provided they are adequately sourced. Regards ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Are we talking about only those chemistry quotes not already in Wikiquote? BD2412 T 03:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes; the purpose would be to source additional content for WQ. Pigsonthewing (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok, that just wasn't clear to me from your initial statement. Of course, Wikiquote is an open project, and outside entities are free to promote neutral topic-area expansion as they see fit. Incidentally, I have on my to-do list contacting Carl C. Gaither of Killeen, Texas (author of Gaither's Dictionary of Scientific Quotations and others) to seek PD release of his older compilations. Among these is Chemically Speaking: A Dictionary of Quotations, focused entirely on quotes about chemicals. BD2412 T 20:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Cool book. At least in my region of the world, Google Books allows me to read pretty much their whole chapter on Chemistry (starting with the quote "Chemistry is the science of molecules, and it is a messy science." by Hugh Aldersey-Williams, on page 98), and from the Index you can tell it has some 20 pages of quotations on that topic alone. All the quotes appear to be well-sourced, and some of them seem quite good. Another dictionary of quotations that might be worth consulting is Gaither's Dictionary of Scientific Quotations, which I'm more familiar with, and that has 20+ pages dedicated to the subject of Chemistry as well (starting here). ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

SUL finalization update[edit]

Hi all, please read this page for important information and an update involving SUL finalization, scheduled to take place in one month. Thanks. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Work on the Musician pages[edit]

I noticed that there has been much work in adding categories to the musician pages today, and I would like to thank those who have been involved in this. It is a good improvement to open up more options of connecting people to more pages of interest to them. I hope to add quite a bit to some of the musician pages and create a few more in the coming year, and I definitely wish to encourage work on these, for I believe more of them will make the site more useful and appealing to many diverse music lovers in coming years. I just thought I would make note of these thoughts before doing a few edits, and once again leaving, but I believe that there will likely be a much greater interest in developing this project in the year ahead, by people with many diverse interests and views, and I certainly believe more poets and song-writers of many eras and styles should be represented. Though most of us also have many other ranges of interests that govern what we tend to attend to, I believe more attention to these will help make the site more popular and notable to many. So it goes... ~ Kalki·· 22:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC) + tweak

Possibility of a "Sister projects" report in the Wikipedia Signpost[edit]

Hello, all I'm a volunteer at the Wikipedia Signpost, the Wikimedia movement's biggest internal newspaper. Almost all of our coverage focuses on Wikipedia, with occasional coverage of Commons, the Meta-Wiki, MediaWiki, Wikidata, the the Wikimedia Labs; we have little to nothing to say about Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikispecies, Wikinews, Wikiversity, or Wikivoyage. I'm interested in writing a special long-form "sister projects" report to try and address this shortfall. Is there anyone experienced in the Wikiquote project with whom I can speak with, perhaps over Skype, about the mission, organization, history, successes, troubles, and foibles of being a contributor to this project? If so, please drop me a line at my English Wikipedia talk page. Thanks! ResMar 21:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Stewards confirmation rules[edit]

Hello, I made a proposal on Meta to change the rules for the steward confirmations. Currently consensus to remove is required for a steward to lose his status, however I think it's fairer to the community if every steward needed the consensus to keep. As this is an issue that affects all WMF wikis, I'm sending this notification to let people know & be able to participate. Best regards, --MF-W 16:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #2—2015[edit]

19:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Nominations are being accepted for 2015 Wikimedia Foundation elections[edit]

This is a message from the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee. Translations are available.

Wmf logo vert pms.svg


I am pleased to announce that nominations are now being accepted for the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections. This year the Board and the FDC Staff are looking for a diverse set of candidates from regions and projects that are traditionally under-represented on the board and in the movement as well as candidates with experience in technology, product or finance. To this end they have published letters describing what they think is needed and, recognizing that those who know the community the best are the community themselves, the election committee is accepting nominations for community members you think should run and will reach out to those nominated to provide them with information about the job and the election process.

This year, elections are being held for the following roles:

Board of Trustees
The Board of Trustees is the decision-making body that is ultimately responsible for the long term sustainability of the Foundation, so we value wide input into its selection. There are three positions being filled. More information about this role can be found at the board elections page.

Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)
The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) makes recommendations about how to allocate Wikimedia movement funds to eligible entities. There are five positions being filled. More information about this role can be found at the FDC elections page.

Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) Ombud
The FDC Ombud receives complaints and feedback about the FDC process, investigates complaints at the request of the Board of Trustees, and summarizes the investigations and feedback for the Board of Trustees on an annual basis. One position is being filled. More information about this role can be found at the FDC Ombudsperson elections page.

The candidacy submission phase lasts from 00:00 UTC April 20 to 23:59 UTC May 5 for the Board and from 00:00 UTCApril 20 to 23:59 UTC April 30 for the FDC and FDC Ombudsperson. This year, we are accepting both self-nominations and nominations of others. More information on this election and the nomination process can be found on the 2015 Wikimedia elections page on Meta-Wiki.

Please feel free to post a note about the election on your project's village pump. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the talk page on Meta, or sent to the election committee's mailing list, board-elections -at-

On behalf of the Elections Committee,
-Gregory Varnum (User:Varnent)
Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, 05:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC) • TranslateGet help

Found wrong source on Schumacher page[edit]

I think I found a wrong source on the Schumacher page, and mentioned it in the discussion there. I am not sure how to correct this. --Michael Scheffenacker (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Your efforts were very helpful. As I explained on the talk page of the article and your own talk page, the link you provided to The Radical Humanist, Vol. 37, No. 5 (August 1973), p. 22 does include the quote — but the first page 22 is in the April issue, while the text is later in the volume, on page 22 of the August issue. I have revised the sourcing in the article to reflect this. Thank you for providing better sourcing. ~ Kalki·· 16:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Funds Dissemination Committee elections 2015[edit]

Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg

This is a message from the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee. Translations are available.

Voting has begun for eligible voters in the 2015 elections for the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) and FDC Ombudsperson. Questions and discussion with the candidates for the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) and FDC Ombudsperson will continue during the voting. Nominations for the Board of Trustees will be accepted until 23:59 UTC May 5.

The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) makes recommendations about how to allocate Wikimedia movement funds to eligible entities. There are five positions on the committee being filled.

The FDC Ombudsperson receives complaints and feedback about the FDC process, investigates complaints at the request of the Board of Trustees, and summarizes the investigations and feedback for the Board of Trustees on an annual basis. One position is being filled.

The voting phase lasts from 00:00 UTC May 3 to 23:59 UTC May 10. Click here to vote. Questions and discussion with the candidates will continue during that time. Click here to ask the FDC candidates a question. Click here to ask the FDC Ombudsperson candidates a question. More information on the candidates and the elections can be found on the 2015 FDC election page, the 2015 FDC Ombudsperson election page, and the 2015 Board election page on Meta-Wiki.

On behalf of the Elections Committee,
-Gregory Varnum (User:Varnent)
Volunteer Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 03:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC) • TranslateGet help

Cross-wiki Proverb redundancy[edit]

I find it problematic that we have three different Wikiprojects that contain somewhat overlapping (but largely uncoordinated) material on proverbs.

This is something of a mess. I believe that there should be some coordination to avoid duplication of effort, the potential presentation of conflicting translations or interpretations, and other inconsistencies in content arising or likely to arise between projects. I propose a cross-wiki task force to review the materials contained in these three projects and to enforce some sence of coordination and communication between them. In my view, this is exactly the kind of opportunity to harness the energies that are going into three different, redundant pages, and build one thoroughly vetted page in a single place.

My inclination, quite frankly, is to say that we should do away with the Wikipedia list and the Wiktionary appendix entirely, and host the entire thing on Wikiquote, with the appropriate cross-wiki soft redirects from the other sites, and with links to the Wiktionary definitions for individual pages on specific proverbs. I am cross-posting this on all three projects, but I believe that the discussion should be kept in one place, and should probably be the Wikipedia Village Pump discussion because that is the highest-traffic project. Cheers! BD2412 T 01:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I saw your note here, and made fuller response at the Wikipedia page you suggested, summarizing my very brief assessment of things with the statement that "so long as there are general links provided between the projects, I am inclined to believe that any attempts to artificially develop absolute cross-wiki conformity in aims and purposes in relation to the listing of proverbs would probably be far more of a mess than any purported messes that such would be designed to solve." I am sure all the articles in every place could use improvement, but most of us don’t have time or inclination to attend to them, and I don’t see that developing a cross-wiki policies on attending to them would make many minor things any less problematic, and might make major aspects of things of general importance far more problematic. I once again have only a short time to deal with things here, as I must be preparing to leave again soon, and continue to be very busy with other matters. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 11:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Can we have sub-pages?[edit]

Can we have pages in your username space?
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 21:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure, just create a page at User:[Your Username]/[Subpage name]. BD2412 T 23:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


Embroidered wikiquote logo.jpg
The British Library has media related to Magna Carta.

I thought people might enjoy this embroidered version of the Wikiquote logo, taken from Magna Carta (An Embroidery), a 40-foot long recreation in needlework of the en-wiki article Magna Carta as it stood in May 2014, that was unveiled at the British Library on Thursday.

Further images at c:Category:Magna Carta (An Embroidery). Jheald (Talk) 14:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections 2015[edit]

Wmf logo vert pms.svg

This is a message from the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee. Translations are available.

Voting has begun for eligible voters in the 2015 elections for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. Questions and discussion with the candidates for the Board will continue during the voting.

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is the ultimate governing authority of the Wikimedia Foundation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization registered in the United States. The Wikimedia Foundation manages many diverse projects such as Wikipedia and Commons.

The voting phase lasts from 00:00 UTC May 17 to 23:59 UTC May 31. Click here to vote. More information on the candidates and the elections can be found on the 2015 Board election page on Meta-Wiki.

On behalf of the Elections Committee,
-Gregory Varnum (User:Varnent)
Volunteer Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 17:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC) • TranslateGet help

List of People ranked by number of quotes[edit]

Has anyone created a List of People ranked by number of quotes they have on Wikiquote? - —This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) . 12:50, May 29, 2015 (edit) (undo)

There is a listing of -- Mdd (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Number of quotes is a bit misleading. For example, you could have a whole speech from a Shakespeare play as one quote, or you could extract from it three or four notable phrases, s having more quotes but less text. Conversely, length of an article might be increased by having numerous pictures with lengthy captions that just repeat quotes.--Abramsky (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Sister Project Links in En-Wiki Navigational Boxes[edit]

Hi All, there is a RFC on a topic of interest of this community at w:en:Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#RFC: Should Sister Project links be included in Navboxes?. Please join the conversation, and help us figure out the role of links to other Wikimedia Projects in English Wikipedia Navboxes, Sadads (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Pywikibot compat will no longer be supported - Please migrate to pywikibot core[edit]

Sorry for English, I hope someone translates this.
Pywikibot (then "Pywikipediabot") was started back in 2002. In 2007 a new branch (formerly known as "rewrite", now called "core") was started from scratch using the MediaWiki API. The developers of Pywikibot have decided to stop supporting the compat version of Pywikibot due to bad performance and architectural errors that make it hard to update, compared to core. If you are using pywikibot compat it is likely your code will break due to upcoming MediaWiki API changes (e.g. T101524). It is highly recommended you migrate to the core framework. There is a migration guide, and please contact us if you have any problem.

There is an upcoming MediaWiki API breaking change that compat will not be updated for. If your bot's name is in this list, your bot will most likely break.

Thank you,
The Pywikibot development team, 19:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata: Access to data from arbitrary items is coming[edit]

(Sorry for writing in English)

When using data from Wikidata on Wikipedia and other sister projects, there is currently a limitation in place that hinders some use cases: data can only be accessed from the corresponding item. So, for example, the Wikipedia article about Berlin can only get data from the Wikidata item about Berlin but not from the item about Germany. This had technical reasons. We are now removing this limitation. It is already done for a number of projects. Your project is one of the next ones:

  • 11 June 2015: all Wikiquote, all remaining Wikivoyage
  • 15 June 2015: Wikipedias: ar, ca, es, hu, ko, ro, uk, vi

We invite you to play around with this new feature if you are one of the people who have been waiting for this for a long time. If you have technical issues/questions with this you can come to d:Wikidata:Contact the development team.

How to use it, once it is enabled:

I hope it will be helpful for you and allow you to do useful things with the help of Wikidata.

Cheers Lydia Pintscher 14:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #3—2015[edit]

10:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


22:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Problems on the iCarly article[edit]

Hi, guys! Well, I'm a newbie here and I don't know if this is the right place to complain about something but I was reading iCarly article and I noticed someone messed up that page by editing the dialogues and typing curse words... it is bothering so much and I could edit that myself, however my computer has no internet and on mobile editing something is very hard work. Can someone fix that?

I have reverted the vandalism—thanks for letting us now. (There could still be some left: unfortunately, some IPs like to engage in subtle vandalism, which is harder to detect; but at least the offensive words are now gone.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Any requests?[edit]

Hello; I read in the archives of admin applications that being active at the village pump is a must. I was wondering what to do next other than vandalism and copyright cleanup, I think I've done a pretty good job at Wikiquote so far, but now I'm out of ideas. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll see what I can do. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Chemistry Quote Competition[edit]

The Royal Society of Chemistry's chemistry quotation competition (discussed above) is now running. While the intention is to draw new readers and contributors to Wikiquote, entries from existing editors will of course also be welcome. Pigsonthewing (talk) 09:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Silver City[edit]

Hi, there are two pages related to the same film: Silver City (2004 film) and Silver City. Would you please merge them in the same page and connect it to the correct Wikidata item? Thanks :-) --Superchilum (talk) 10:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Symbols on the main page QOTD[edit]

The quote of the day (QOTD) entry on the main page often has bizarre and irrelevant symbols accompanying the quotation;

For example today's quote is:

"Everything written with vitality expresses that vitality: there are no dull subjects, only dull minds. All men who read escape from something else into what lies behind the printed page; the quality of the dream may be argued, but its release has become a functional necessity. All men must escape at times from the deadly rhythm of their private thoughts. It is part of the process of life among thinking beings."
- Raymond Chandler

Accompanied by these symbols (amongst others):

Helm of Awe.svg
Brighter Rainbow Heart.svg
Yoism symbol.svg

I suggest this be discontinued or at least greatly reduced in frequency of occurrence. What think ye other Wikiquote users?

Note: This is my first visit to the "village pump" so I do not know how to proceed other than to make a suggestion and await response. Please bear with me if I err.

I was just preparing to leave as I checked in here, and have taken the time to make a brief reply before leaving.

I will start by asserting that I am very thankful for some of the contributions you have been making lately in providing quotes. I also will confess I often tend to use some symbols which in some way express or indicate vitality in ways that will not always be familiar to all. WE all are products of very mixed influences, and I assert that the wise acknowledge this and do not seek to needlessly constrain the influences which can arise.

There is an eternal struggle throughout all ages between the tendencies of conformism driven by fear of life and diversity among the ignorant and confused, and desires to rule over others amidst that, and the hope in life and diversity among the most knowledgeable and wise, who seek to rule no other but themselves and what influences they choose to manifest and support for the vitality of all.

As mortal beings with limited awareness and appreciation of many things we do not and cannot always agree with all of the ideas of those whose views are indicated or posted here, but in the central arrangements of the QOTD I have often employed symbols which have often long represented some of the ideas expressed, and the Ankh is certainly an ancient symbol of life and vitality — among the oldest employed by humankind in its writings, and the heart shape in our times has long been employed in similar ways. To call these "bizarre and irrelevant" in this context is I believe rather "bizarre" and though one might wish to assert the less familiar symbols of the Helm of Awe, and that of "Yoism" "irrelevant" to most, there are clearly relevancies with the theme of Chandler's assertion. I myself do not accept or approve all the assumptions of people who most regularly employ these symbols, but I do not accept or approve the assumptions that display or familiarity with them and various notions of what they mean or might mean should be reduced even further.

I had hoped to do a bit more work here already today, but was to busy with other things to do so — and now must leave again, with a few other things unfinished that I had intended to do. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 12:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC) + tweaks.

If anyone other than Kalki wants to start putting together QOTD entries, they are free to do that. As a matter of practice, Kalki does them, and the rest of us appreciate Kalki taking on the chore, and do not much mind the way it is done. QOTD is ephemeral; if the current arrangement is problematic, wait a day and it will be gone. BD2412 T 13:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with BD2412's comments and would add that I do not have an issue with the use of such images - in fact I believe they drive users to explore further ideas. I have taken exception on rare occasions with the images selected (and sometimes with the amount of images - but in both cases, discussion was held regarding any perceived issues and I believe this process is working fine), but in general I think they are good things (much like the use of wikilinks) that encourage users to explore new ideas. The fact that sometimes the connection between the images and the quote is not immediately clear actually makes this exploration even more likely to occur. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
@ BD2412: (1) As a matter of practice, most attempts to actually participate in editing the selection and layout of QOTD images have been unilaterally reverted by Kalki. (2) Each QOTD display is indeed ephemeral, but the pattern is persistent. Consider how many images of this sort have been used (and re-used) in this current month to date. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with IOHANNVSVERVS that doodling on the Main Page is not appropriate, and have said so before. (And yes, this is the right way to raise your concerns.) Image montages on the Main Page have been discussed many times here at the Village Pump and at Talk:Main Page. To recap some of the main points of my opinion on these issues:
  1. Image use on the Main Page should conform to Wikiquote's Image use policy in all cases and without exception. (Not because "rules must be obeyed", to which some may object, but because the fundamental idea embodied in the rule is a very important one.)
  2. The main mage QOTD should not be surrounded on all four sides with images. This takes up space that is disproportionate to and detracts from the quote itself, and makes the QOTD box a disproportionate chunk of the whole page.
  3. Instead, a little space should be allocated to citing the source of the quote. Every quotation in main space (i.e. "content pages") should be cited. The Main Page should not be an exception to this rule, it should be exemplary.
When I first joined Wikiquote in 2008, the main page QOTD was accompanied by a single small image on the side (usually a picture of the author). I am not aware that anyone ever complained about it. After it expanded into a montage of images surrounding the quote (with varying degrees of relevance) many people have complained about it many times. At one point it even led to banning all images from the main page for a year. I believe this graffiti on the Main Page is an embarrassment to Wikiquote, and reform is long overdue. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I think Kalki prefers these little symbols over citing sources for one reason only: his own personal sense of aesthetics. In other words, he thinks the symbols look pretty. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I hope you are not being facetious, DanielTom. -IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Notwithstanding DanielTom's tone, in fact Kalki's expressed reason for not citing sources on the main page is an aesthetic preference. (That was at a time when only a single small image was being used, before montages and doodles were introduced.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I would like to say that I intend no disrespect in my writings, nor to Kalki nor any other. Perhaps my calling the symbols bizarre is unfair, I concede that. However, the charge that they are insufficiently relevant stands. The heart as a symbol of vitality is somewhat fair but this highly ornate heart with rainbow pattern is stretching it. Also, as regards vitality, the term is quite broadly applicable.

Though this quotation:

"Nothing is harder, yet nothing is more necessary, than to speak of certain things whose existence is neither demonstrable nor probable. The very fact that serious and conscientious men treat them as existing things brings them a step closer to existence and to the possibility of being born."
-Herman Hesse

Certainly is not related to these symbols:

Metatrons cube.svg
Böhme Heart.png
Psi and Caduceus.svg
Brighter Rainbow Heart.svg
Expo 67 logo.svg
Helm of Awe.svg

Additionally, that these symbols are so often doubled and made to be symmetrical suggests that they are being used more for decoration than for illustration.

It is fair to consider the Wikiquote Image use policy regarding relevance:

1. Images should directly support or embody the theme of the provided quotes.
2. The connection between the images used and the subject matter of the page as a whole, and individual quotes on it, should be obvious and specific. The relevance should not be so ambiguous or abstract that it could refer to anything or nothing.
3. Images are used to illustrate the subject of a page or a quote, not to express an opinion, interpretation, or commentary by, e.g., introducing metaphors, analogies, comparisons, or relationships that are not explicit in the captioning quotation, or by highlighting arbitrary, literal meanings of words used in a figurative sense.
4. Images that could connote a specific cultural meaning that differs from that of either the page or the specified quote should not be used.

What say you friend Kalki?

-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

You're not the only person who thinks the images are inappropriate, that they discredit Wikiquote, and make it look foolish and silly. Unfortunately, as BD2412 says, only one editor seems to have the time and energy to put together the daily quotes, and nothing that anyone says - and no Wikipedia policy - has ever discouraged that editor from decorating quotations with symbols, whether appropriate or not. It would be very good for Wikiquote to ban images on the main page, but I doubt it's going to happen. Also unfortunately, more than one editor has reduced his or her participation in Wikiquote because it is embarrassing to be part of a site that looks like the current Wikiquote, but, again, there seems to be no alternative. By the way, prepare yourself for an extremely long answer to the question at the end of your comment above. Macspaunday (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
There are many issues raised, by a few people, and laughably ignorant and confused assumptions and misleading assertions, as well as legitimate concerns, and all these deserve an adequate response, and tempering my self somewhat, I will respond as fully as I feel appropriate, in time; but as usually in recent months, I have had much less time than I would wish to spend here, and I must be leaving now. ~ Kalki·· 00:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC) + tweaks

Kalki, your response is awaited. Also, I would like to say that there are some here who would attack your character; pay them no mind; this ought not be and is not personal. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I thank you for your patience, and I will attempt to provide direct responses to your statements and inquiries within the next day or so, and respond to some of the more complicated matters others have indicated, at least to some degree, within the next week or so. I remain far busier with many matters in recent days than I expected to be, but believe I should have more time to spend here tomorrow than I have had in weeks, and at least begin to directly indicate some of the many things on my mind in regard to some of these issues. Once again I must be leaving, but responding here will be one of my priorities after I return. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 00:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I apologize once again. Some of the issues which have been raised impel me towards a more thorough range of assertions than I am yet prepared to provide here. I did not have quite as much time in recent days to attend to things here as I had hoped and expected.

From a very early age, I was acutely aware of the difficulties and limitations of many forms of communication and indication of facts and ideas about experiences and knowledge, and had rather profound and extensive insights on many ranges of perspectives on many things which most seemed relatively unfamiliar with, and seemed to have immense difficulty understanding, relative to my own perceptions, and I clearly discerned how limitations and errors in regard to a number of certain facts affected how much people could come to easily and properly understand about many others. The quote which you referred to, as presented, was this:

Nothing is harder, yet nothing is more necessary, than to speak of certain things whose existence is neither demonstrable nor probable. The very fact that serious and conscientious men treat them as existing things brings them a step closer to existence and to the possibility of being born.
~ Hermann Hesse ~

That quote by Hesse, who wrote quite a number of works with profound ethical and mystical perspectives, on lore gathered from both western and eastern cultures, was from his The Glass Bead Game (also known as Magister Ludi). If you were curious enough to investigate the matter you might have read in the Wikipedia article on that work that in it: "The rules of the game are only alluded to — they are so sophisticated that they are not easy to imagine. Playing the game well requires years of hard study of music, mathematics, and cultural history. The game is essentially an abstract synthesis of all arts and sciences. It proceeds by players making deep connections between seemingly unrelated topics." It also states: The Glass Bead Game is "a kind of synthesis of human learning" in which themes, such as a musical phrase or a philosophical thought, are stated. As the Game progresses, associations between the themes become deeper and more varied.

In the central area, I used images related to Rosicrucianism and the Age of Enlightenment which blossomed despite efforts to suppress the ideas of precursors and influences upon them, such as Giordano Bruno.

Having now only slightly touched upon Hesse's complex awareness, appreciation and involvement in many forms of mysticism, playful and thoughtful games, and what I would characterize as somewhat absurdist perspectives upon the ways many diverse truths can be indicated, related and associated, I will now briefly address some of the most direct assertions made in your statements. You declared with apparent certitude that such a statement "certainly is not related to these symbols" and then post them, as if the bare display of these symbols which might be to varying degrees familiar or unfamiliar to many were evident proof of that assertion. I certainly do and must disagree, for a number of reasons, most of which I will not even attempt to elaborate upon, at present, but I will begin to indicate some of them.

The layout itself, as limited and flawed as it was from my own perspectives, had some significance, as to how the images and symbols were arrayed, with each other, but I will simply indicate some aspects of some of the meanings of these symbols themselves and some of the ways in which they certainly can be very properly perceived to relate to the statement.

  1. Metatrons cube.svg : this is a very simplified and stylized representation of the complex multi-dimensional pattern which has become known as Metatron's Cube, and "the fruit of life".
  2. Böhme Heart.png : A symbol of the Christian mystic Jakob Böhme incorporating patterns with Christian, Jewish and Pythagorean significance.
  3. Tetrad.svg : more pythagorean and mystic symbolism here, indicating many things, including justice, equality and birth.
  4. Psi and Caduceus.svg : A symbol of psychiatry and Psychological Balance and Health, derived from ancient Hermetic symbolism of communication between the divine and mundane.
  5. Brighter Rainbow Heart.svg : The heart, which has been used as a symbol of love and the soul, is here rendered in rainbow hues, which have long signified various ideas of splendor, diversity, and even divine covenant between God and mortal beings, of tolerance and security.
  6. Expo 67 logo.svg A symbol created to represent "friendship around the world",
  7. Helm of Awe.svg : the Ægishjálmur (helm of awe) has been used as a symbol of awareness and potency in response to aspects of Reality in all directions and dimensions, and as one "to protect against abuse of power" such as would overly constrain or destroy the vitality of individuals or societies.

I certainly believe that all of these relate to varying degrees to such ideas as many "serious and conscientious" people do tend to treat as existing things and thus help to bring "a step closer to existence and to the possibility of being born", into the existences or awareness and appreciation of others. Examples of "Psychological Balance and Health", "Justice" and "friendship around the world" and "protections against abuse of power" might not yet be so prominent and reliable as many would wish, but they do exist to varying degrees, and I believe most who are wise are inclined to help them achieve greater existence and new birth into the lives of many.

There is much more that could be explained, or at least indicated, in terms of other more generally familiar ranges of knowledge, but I firmly believe that people with knowledge enough to make associations and relations that are evident in statements or symbols, whether mystical, scientific, or related to artistries of many diverse types, should not be required to explain everything they do or say or present to everyone who lacks knowledge or familiarity with them, nor be compelled to silence in efforts to indicate only the set of things which everyone would find obvious and sensible — which actually is nothing at all.

Many people certainly should often be prepared to explain some aspects of relatively obscure but profound associations or simple jokes to the politely curious, but to demand that all things which can be or are associated with a statement, word, idea or image be explained or evident to everyone, involves rather absurdly stupid presumptions which would permit the least intelligent and most obnoxious to insist that the most intelligent and knowledgeable constantly be burdened with trying to convey the most complex and intricate forms of thought to those who are either least inclined or least capable to engage their minds beyond the most moronic levels of literalism and legalism, or even allow others to embrace, nurture, or express many forms of imagination and awareness which are not abjectly deferential to their particular tastes.

If one were to limit oneself literally to the supposed "common sense" constraints dictated in such assertions as some have provided, one would actually be unable to provide so much of a statement or quote as even a Dr. Seuss rhyme:

I am Sam.

And even many of the contexts and complexities of association of so simple a statement as that, which might be familiar or even obvious to millions of people, will be relatively obscure or unimagined by many millions more.

There are even more extremely facetious yet true and valid assertions I could make about some of the rules and mandates which I believe some people are all to prone to casually devise, but I prefer to not delve into many of these issues at present.

I will confess that I have often been in a bit more of a rush than normal on many of selections the layouts in the last month, and actually am today, and that there were aesthetic dissatisfactions which remained with that one which you first specified, but I believed it potentially educational to the curious to include a number of indications of mystical allusions related well to the themes and assertions of that quotation. Much of the initial layout actually began as I was considering using another quote by him from another work: "It is not our purpose to become each other; it is to recognize each other, to learn to see the other and honor him for what he is: each the other's opposite and complement." I also initially thought of using some eastern symbolism such as Hesse was very familiar with, but in the end, after deciding to use another quote by him, and with limited room, I confined myself mostly to some indications of traditions of mathematics, philosophy and mysticism, and sophisticated humor about the human condition, such as are evident in the novel quoted.

During the time this discussion has been occurring in this section, one of the QOTDs was a very good one suggested the day before its use by Bystander53 (talk · contributions):

The more one does and sees and feels, the more one is able to do, and the more genuine may be one's appreciation of fundamental things like home, and love, and understanding companionship.
~ Amelia Earhart ~

I believe that this relates well to some of the reasons I often tend to prefer to provide more rather than fewer links to associated ideas such as images, symbols and hypertext links can provide. At a very early age I recognized the truth that the more that is known the more there is that CAN be known, in even more complex and splendrous ways, and that there is no end to explorations of the splendors of Reality which mortal minds can endeavor to appreciate, so long as they live.

The quote of the day which was selected for July 26, when I initially attempted to make an adequate response here, was one by Carl Jung, who is widely known for his research into the meanings or significance of symbols and the interpretations of signs, and in considering quotes by him and several other notable people I had some strong inclination to use this one, from his Modern Man in Search of a Soul (1933):

No language exists that cannot be misused... Every Interpretation is hypothetical, for it is a mere attempt to read an unfamiliar text.

I believe that it is appropriate to end my current note with some reference to the important subject of semiotics. I believe it can be vitally important to have a profound respect for the diversity of meanings which can be associated in many relatively fixed or malleable ways with various signs and words and this can help one to properly avoid many of the worst forms of idolatry and delusion of confusing absolute and relative aspects of reality, which have long plagued humankind, whether one is fortunate enough to be socially permitted to identify them by such words or not, in relation to various traditions.

I ended up favoring the QOTD chosen for many diverse reasons which it would take me a great deal of time to indicate or explain, as is always the case for nearly any decisions which are made by any human being, though many remain in ignorance or denial of such facts, or choose to ignore them.

With that relatively brief note (for me, relative to the number of issues raised), I will close my comments here, for now, and must again be attending to other matters. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 21:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC) + tweaks


So there is method in your seeming madness.

I jest; but truthfully, and respectfully, I say: "Your ways are wise, but they are not Wikiquote's ways."

Let us review the Wikiquote image use policy regarding relevance:

  1. Images should directly support or embody the theme of the provided quotes.
  2. The connection between the images used and the subject matter of the page as a whole, and individual quotes on it, should be obvious and specific. The relevance should not be so ambiguous or abstract that it could refer to anything or nothing.
  3. Images are used to illustrate the subject of a page or a quote, not to express an opinion, interpretation, or commentary by, e.g., introducing metaphors, analogies, comparisons, or relationships that are not explicit in the captioning quotation, or by highlighting arbitrary, literal meanings of words used in a figurative sense.
  4. Images that could connote a specific cultural meaning that differs from that of either the page or the specified quote should not be used.

If you start your own website I will be happy to visit and learn more of all these things you speak; truly so. For example, I was grateful to have learned about Jakob Böhme from investigating your usage of his image; I also learned about C.S. Lewis' The Pilgrim's Regress, which references Boehme.

However, I still maintain that this image:

  1. Böhme Heart.png : A symbol including the names "Christus" and "Immanuel" surrounding an inverted heart containing a Tetractys of the Tetragrammaton... etc.

Is not relevant to Hesse's quote of:

"Nothing is harder, yet nothing is more necessary, than to speak of certain things whose existence is neither demonstrable nor probable. The very fact that serious and conscientious men treat them as existing things brings them a step closer to existence and to the possibility of being born."

By your standards, everything must be considered related in some indirect way.

Whether the current Wikiquote policy is inferior to your attitude or not, surely the policy ought to be changed before your differing practice be implemented.

I personally support the Wikiquote policy, but if you would like to change it, you may attempt to. I don't know the regulations regarding modification of policy, but I suspect with such a controversial suggestion as yours it will not pass. But I stand prepared to be proven wrong, and I encourage you to campaign to change the policy if you feel it will improve Wikiquote. Until then, I think it is fair and just that the current policy be followed, and that your contradictory practices be discontinued until Wikiquote policy is modified to accord with them.

Kalki, your response I was glad to read and I respect you. I reiterate that this is not personal and neither of us will decide which of our suggestions the Wikiquote follows, but the community will decide. I thank you for your time and effort to respond and engage rationally and politely.

Sincerely, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to hear what others think after all of this progress in the discussion; especially UDScott and BD2412. -IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Commons has literally millions of images available. I say we institute a practice of not using the same image twice. That will insure that every arrangement contains new and original images. This is not intended to detract from the general rule that images should relate to the quote (although I think this should be applied more loosely to QOTD than to quotes on quotation pages). BD2412 T 17:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
This is an excellent idea, which will make the whole wiki more interesting to visitors. And everything said by IOHANNVSVERVS seems to me both eloquent and right. As always, of course, the problem is going to enforcement of any policy that gets decided upon. If an editor ignores policies, this wiki seems disinclined to do anything about it except to hold a fruitless discussion (on this page) once every year or two, never with any results that affect the actual appearance of the pages. Macspaunday (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the problem with repeated use of irrelevant images lies not in the repetition but in the irrelevancy itself. For widely quoted authors whose words are featured at QotD on multiple occasions, I have no objection to using the same portrait of the author more than once. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that we adopt the following rule: a portrait of the author should always be used if available. My thinking is, this would reduce at least by half the subjectivity (and bias) in the choice of pictures. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Provided that a portrait of passable quality is available, I agree. (E.g., the only available picture of George Pólya would be embarrassing on the project main page. That said, the images actually chosen when quoting him [11][12] were not particularly apropos.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: Observing the origin of many of the symbols used in this way, I have initiated a separate thread to discuss #Exhibiting user artworks on Wikiquote Main Page below. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to create PNG thumbnails of static GIF images[edit]

The thumbnail of this gif is of really bad quality.
How a PNG thumb of this GIF would look like

There is a proposal at the Commons Village Pump requesting feedback about the thumbnails of static GIF images: It states that static GIF files should have their thumbnails created in PNG. The advantages of PNG over GIF would be visible especially with GIF images using an alpha channel. (compare the thumbnails on the side)

This change would affect all wikis, so if you support/oppose or want to give general feedback/concerns, please post them to the proposal page. Thank you. --McZusatz (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

What does a Healthy Community look like to you?[edit]

Community Health Cover art News portal.png

The Community Engagement department at the Wikimedia Foundation has launched a new learning campaign. The WMF wants to record community impressions about what makes a healthy online community. Share your views and/or create a drawing and take a chance to win a Wikimania 2016 scholarship! Join the WMF as we begin a conversation about Community Health. Contribute a drawing or answer the questions on the campaign's page.

Why get involved?[edit]

The world is changing. The way we relate to knowledge is transforming. As the next billion people come online, the Wikimedia movement is working to bring more users on the wiki projects. The way we interact and collaborate online are key to building sustainable projects. How accessible are Wikimedia projects to newcomers today? Are we helping each other learn?
Share your views on this matter that affects us all!
We invite everyone to take part in this learning campaign. Wikimedia Foundation will distribute one Wikimania Scholarship 2016 among those participants who are eligible.

More information[edit]

Happy editing!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Do Superhero films count as fantasy?[edit]

If Superman is a fantasy film (as it is currently categorized), than isn't Friday the 13th as well? The page for fantasy says that it has to avoid scientific explanations and isn't macabre. CensoredScribe (talk) 01:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Persian on Wikiquote Globe[edit]

Please update the globe on Wikiquote Portal. Persian Wikiquote is one the most active Wikiquote projects with 3,000+ articles. I think it's time to put it on the globe. --Doostdar (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Requests to update the global project portal should be made at template. Global portals can only be edited by MetaWiki administrators.

The portal has generally displayed the ten largest projects. It is not entirely up to date at the moment, but Persian Wikiquote is currently listed 12th in size here. It would be difficult to accommodate this request without redesigning the page with more spokes on the wheel. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Captain America[edit]

This was originally at the Admins Noticeboard...

Somebody please check into Alexandervoneimann's editing in the article these past two months. He's deliberately violating LOQ and even after Cirt and I already reprimanded him about not running afoul. It'd be better if this was handled by people who never edited there at all. He also does this at other MCU-related articles like Thor.--Eaglestorm (talk) 05:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Proper section for this quote[edit]

I have added this quotation to the Napoleon Bonaparte page:

  • A dîner, il nous disait qu'il se trouvait beaucoup mieux, et nous lui avons fait observer, à ce sujet, que, depuis quelque temps néanmoins, il ne sortait plus, et travaillat huit, dix, douze heures par jour.
    «C'est cela même,» disait-il: «le travail est mon élément; je suis né et construit pour le travail. J'ai connu les limites de mes jambes, j'ai connu les limites de mes yeux; je n'ai jamais pu connaître celles de mon travail.»
    • At dinner, he told us that he was much better, and we pointed out to him, about this, that, for some time however, he had not been out, and had been working eight, ten, or twelve hours a day. "That is just it," said he: "work is my element; I was born and made for it. I have found the limits of my legs; I have found the limits of my eyes; but I have never been able to find the limits of my labour."
      • Mémorial de Sainte Hélène, Volume 6, p. 272

My question concerns it's proper placement on the page; precisely, whether it ought to be placed in the 'Quotes about' section or in the 'Quotes' section.

It is a sort of mixture of quote proper and quote about.

Thanks to all, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe the proper section is "Quotes about", but you can then (if you like) "bold" the most relevant part – see, for example, Quotes about Sallust. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree. Thanks for the response. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Gadgets inactive at present?[edit]

Someone stated that Hotcat was not working for them on my talk page, and I have noticed that the gadget for the clock and purge option in the corner of my window has not been working since some time yesterday, so I am assuming that at least these gadgets are not functioning on this wiki. Is anyone else encountering such problems? ~ Kalki·· 21:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

HotCat (the only gadget I use) is not working for me as well. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Test It just worked from me. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Gadgets are still not working for me. Anyone have any ideas? ~ UDScott (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
@UDScott: Have you posted to phab:? —Justin (koavf)TCM 14:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Pardon my ignorance, but I don't even know what that is - or how to go about reporting an issue there. My expertise here is definitely not on the tech side. :-) Usually, if there is a large enough problem (or enough people report a problem on the VP, someone is able to find a fix. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've opened a ticket on phab. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
...and that is --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC) displays all the gadgets with issues... --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
If it appears that responses to T109076 thus far seem to be saying "so fix it yourself", this is because MediaWiki developers generally believe user editable configurations are not their responsibility. Cf. discussion at the "stalled" ticket T85433. Realistically, if hundreds of Wikis each have their own home-grown gadgets then the central developers are not in a position to manage and maintain them.

What happened in this case is that "Legacy gadgets" were recently deprecated by MediaWiki developers without much warning. This strikes me as very poor practice when they knew this was going to break all the gadgets. On the other hand, they don't really know who to notify – Wikiquote does not have a team of gadget maintainers who follow up on technical bulletins. We just have some users who copied gadgets here from other wikis, gadgets that worked at the time even if they had no idea how they work. Any assumption that the underlying infrastructure is stable, or at least maintains backward compatibility, would be naïve. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Ningauble - this was pretty much how it has gone - I'd be happy to try to fix the problem, but I don't really know how. And it does not appear we are getting much more help coming our way. So, back to the original question: how can we fix these to make them work again? ~ UDScott (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, we could apply for a Foundation grant to hire a software engineer to fix it. (Just kidding, I would not expect that level of support. But competence is required.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@UDScott: Which one(s) are you trying to use? —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, specifically the HotCat one, but the others are also useful - like the liveclock or the clear delete reasons, or the sysop flags, etc. I would ideally like to have them all back. I just find it a funny (and not in a good way) that when something is changed and breaks things, that there is not a better response when users ask about it. And just basically saying: "Fix it yourself" is not a good answer IMHO. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
@UDScott: Agreed. You may wish to copy User:Koavf/monobook.js to User:UDScott/monobook.js and see if that helps. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Koavf: I tried it, but no dice. Still cannot use the gadgets. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@UDScott: Which skin do you use? (By the way, if you use Template:Ping, I will see your response faster). —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I do not have much time to spend here presently, but just wish to note that the clock and purge function gadget is now working for me, and would like to thank whoever is responsible for having fixed that problem. ~ Kalki·· 12:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
That would be User:Kaldari, the Foundation employee who leads the Community Tech team, which has a remit touching on gadgets, bots, and such. Notwithstanding that this kind of fix is not really his job, and notwithstanding strenuous objections by some to using Phabricator for gadget-related tasks, he pitched in there to fix the problem.

Even though I don't use gadgets myself, I too am grateful for this support for our often overlooked community. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, the edit was [13] (it's not clear whether that was a volunteer action or a Community Tech team job action performed with wrong account). I encourage to actually test those gadgets though, because they might actually not be compatible with ResourceLoader. --Nemo 22:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #4—2015[edit]

Elitre (WMF), 22:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Enforcement of Image Use Policy[edit]

I started a thread here on the Village Pump recently regarding the inappropriate use of images on the 'quote of the day' section of the main page. That thread can be viewed here: Symbols on the main page QOTD

Since that time the practice has continued, despite multiple users expressing great discontent and opposition, and the user responsible, Kalki, being informed that their actions are a violation of the Image use policy.

I understand policies here are to be taken lightly and as loose guides rather than strict rules, however the principles being violated are to my view quite important/fundamental, and their violation has in this case brought about a significant controversy among users.

Being unexperienced here I do not know how to take this further, but my suggestion is that Kalki be banned from adding images to the Main Page.

I think it is important that this issue be resolved as soon as possible. I ask more experienced users to help with direction on how to proceed further.

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I thought we were making progress in the earlier thread, and am disappointed that it seems to have died out without coming to a resolution. BD2412 T 15:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Could the admins make suggestions about how the policy could be enforced? It seems possible that many editors have lost interest because all previous efforts at enforcing image policy here have gone nowhere. Macspaunday (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I thought we were making regress in the earlier thread, where UDScott withdrew his support for the policy that the connection between images and quotes should be obvious and specific, and where BD2412 suggested the policy not apply to the main page. Both contributed substantially to formulating the policy, but now we seem to be right back where we were before the policy was even conceived. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Just one clarification: I did not withdraw any support for the policy in general. I was just making a comment specific to the QOTD page. In the end, as I have in the past, I do support the image use policy. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok then, if I read more into your remark than was actually there then I stand corrected, and apologize for misinterpreting your statement.

I seem to have been misled by failing to notice the part of the WQ:IMAGE policy that somehow indicates "except on the Main Page". I may have overlooked this exception because I recall that when images were previously banned from the Main Page pending development of a policy[14][15], development of our current Image use policy was initiated the very next day with a straw poll [16], and image use on the Main Page did not resume until after the policy was adopted. I now recognize that some do not consider applicability of the policy to this page to be obvious and specific. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Love the sarcasm...Fundamentally, I don't think we disagree. I guess I just haven't been as bothered by the images on the QOTD page as others. Yes, I understand that my position does not appear to be consistent and I fully admit this. But I fail to see how a changing viewpoint is such a horrible thing. In any case, do what you will regarding this topic - I will comment as I see appropriate and certainly support the consensus of the community. I do support the policy and in general wish to have relevance of images, but I see so many other problems on the site that I believe are more pressing. I will continue to work on these... ~ UDScott (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Being inconsistent or changing one's mind is not in itself a horrible thing, I just don't like the direction things have been going. If you feel this is not such a big deal I can respect that, but I don't think we fundamentally agree about it: when "Kalki's personal art project" now completely dominates the Main Page, often taking up nearly half of our most prominent and highly visited page, with an order of magnitude more space devoted to illustration of the quote than to the quote itself, I think it is literally a big deal. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand how to edit the Quote of the Day. Today's QOTD has this: Monad.svg, a monad; although it is hard to see and potentially a mistake, it is fully unacceptable and ought to be removed; though I myself don't know how to edit the QOTD to remove it. Would anyone explain to me how to edit the QOTD? Also, User:Kalki, I urge you to see reason and obey the policy and will of the Wikiquote community. Also, other users must take a stronger stand here in my opinion; I am spending a lot of effort and thought trying to fix this problem but I lack the expertise to understand how to do so. It seems to me no one understands what the solution is which is why there is a lack of progress. Again I suggest banning User:Kalki from adding images to the QOTD. This can not continue, and its persistence is disheartening. Let us do something about this now. Is my suggestion feasible? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the monad image in particular, a cursory inspection of file usage shows it has been a frequent inclusion at QOTD for several years and has lately been featured on the Main Page QOTD every single day for more than a year.

Whether this is potentially a mistake – a very consistent error – or whether it reflects some sort of idée fixe, the difference is moot:  this seeming monomania clearly has absolutely nothing to do with the individual quotes. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Ningauble, I think there is strong majority in favour of improving the image use on the QOTD, but the problem is how to do so? Do you have any ideas as to how to proceed?
IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
It is very difficult to obtain consensus for sanctioning someone with such a long and extensive history of valuable contributions when it is only some of their activities are objectionable. I have been trying for years to improve this situation, but nothing had any lasting impact. If I think of a new idea with some prospect of working I will certainly bring it up. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
You suggest it is difficult to achieve but is possible? I think banning image contribution solely for the 'quote of the day' section is a very mild restriction. Considering User:Kalki has received many complaints in the past (examples here: [17], [18]), I think it is a fully reasonable measure. My only uncertainty is how to achieve such a ban. What say you, Ningauble? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't mean to be pessimistic, but it has been tried before: the ban that was imposed "until such time as we have a consensus as to image use policy on the Main Page"[19] (full thread) lapsed (was ignored, not rescinded) after one year without developing a policy specific to the main page. Given that two prominent contributors to the general Image use policy that was adopted during that year are currently backing off from applying what it says to the Main Page, I am at a loss as to how to make anything stick.

I would vote to enforce the existing Image Policy on the Main page, would vote to hold the Main page to the same standards for citing sources as any other page, and would vote for some limitation on the size of the QotD presentation that currently dominates the page, but if a vote were called I doubt the community is ready to move on any of these. I am not saying it cannot be done, but I really do not know how to move it forward. I hope you or someone else will think of a way... ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Ningauble, imagining there was a consensus supporting a ban on image contribution for Kalki on the Main Page, who would be able to enforce that? Also, is Kalki the only user with the ability to edit the Main Page QOTD? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems that administrator status is required to edit the QOTD? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the Main Page and its components are protected because they are highly visible targets for vandalism.

Individual QotD pages are only protected on the day they are current on the main page and the days immediately before and after. In theory, this allows regular contributors to collaborate on developing the QotD presentation in advance, but this has not been happening in practice. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I would like to restate my earlier proposition that we require that images not be repeated on the main page. Currently, Commons has more than 27 million media files available, mostly images. That is enough to have six previously unused images on the main page display every day for over 12 thousand years. I would also like to suggest that perhaps we should focus on positive quotes and images. We have enough quotes about Love, Peace, Hope, Happiness, and Friendship, for example, that we can go for quite a while without hitting on any negative themes. BD2412 T 18:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Discussion of images on the Main Page is becoming scattered and redundant. This thread is nominally about how, and implicitly whether, to enforce an existing policy in that context. Suggesting ideas for new or improved policies or guidelines is a Good Thing™, but it might be better to organize them in a manner that would better facilitate centralized discussion. How about a separate thread for brainstorming main page policy/guideline ideas (located on the Village Pump or another pertinent talk page such as that of the Main Page, or the Image use policy, or a sub-page thereof)? ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It's probably easier to just forbid images on the main page. I don't see what utility they have, and they clearly have a disutility in that they reduce accessibility especially on smaller screens. Even on desktop, in the current main page I have to press page down twice to reach essential links such as the "Main categories" section. Nemo 22:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The current video game quotation limits are ridiculous compared to the leniency given to other mediums, they are often several times longer than movies yet don't even get to use as many quotes as movies.[edit]

Compare "Three quotes maximum per game. Recommended maximum length of quotes: seven lines by one character, ten lines of dialogue.", to some random electronic games like Final Fantasy VII and Metal Gear Solid for example have as much text to read as most books yet are supposed to have 3 quotes max, less than a film. The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind has hundreds of books you can read in it, yet there's only 3 quotes on the page which reflect nothing of those books. Do you really want every video game page to look like the one for Morrowind where there's three quotes for something that's dozens of hours long just to read as a transcript? I would like to use more than 3 quotes from metal gear solid on the page for genetics. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

There was never a consensus favoring that limitation; I have deleted it. We will need to come up with some kind of limitation, however. BD2412 T 15:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

How can we improve Wikimedia grants to support you better?[edit]


The Wikimedia Foundation would like your feedback about how we can reimagine Wikimedia Foundation grants, to better support people and ideas in your Wikimedia project. Ways to participate:

Feedback is welcome in any language.

With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation. 05:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Merge Transamerica[edit]

Please, could you merge Transamerica and Transamerica (film), which deal about the same film? --Superchilum (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done ~ UDScott (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Why was Hangul deleted?[edit]

I know hangul was speedily deleted and its reason : out of focus. But I take objection to this deletion. First, this article is not out of focus. Hunminjeongeum is one of the old name of hangul.(Also name of book which contain about hangul, too) Second, I have a mind to fix it, so I commended at its talk page. But you ignored it and deleted hangul. As a consequence, I insists that Hangul is restored. --LeJourdeStJ (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I have restored this page. I can see no reason why we would not have quotes about Hangul, although the initial description seemed to be incorrectly saying that Hangul was a letter, when it is in fact an alphabet. BD2412 T 15:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Then, can I write one quote from old version? (The first quote of old version.) --LeJourdeStJ (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Those have been (again) removed for reasons explained at Talk:Hangul. Why not start an article on the Korean Wikiquote? -- Mdd (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Vote on prohibition of User:Kalki[edit]

I propose that the user Kalki be banned from adding images to the Main Page.

The reasons for such a prohibition have been expressed here: [20] Also, complaints have been brought against the image use of Kalki before, see here [21] and here [22].

Please place your vote below:


  • Support - I support a ban forbidding Kalki from contributing images to the main page. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


This person states, that "complaints have been brought against the image use of Kalki before" and cites a case where there is clear incomprehension by rather ignorant and thus easily confused people in a presentation I made in June 2011, in relation to a quote by William Styron, author of Sophies Choice, which included an image no longer present at the commons, of a person (arguably representing Humanity itself) crucified upon a Nazi swastika, as well as the relatively innocuous or reverent use of the ancient symbol of the swastika in ancient and modern systems of belief that have had nothing to do with the vile absolutist intolerance of Nazism, and its meticulous uses of legalisms to sanction many of its policies of extreme censorship, brutal oppression and suppression of any and all forms of opposition to its aims and methods, or even the presentation of rival ideas and ideals.

I find it significant and somewhat ironic that this effort to further the desires of some to meticulously suppress and control the good-faith contributions of others comes when the QOTD is on another one in which I used images of the times of Nazi oppressions, related to a quote of a person who witnessed the rise of Nazism in Germany in the 1930s:

Reichsparteitag 1935 mod.jpg
Children headed for deportation.JPG

I often feel that worse than the most fiendish Nazis were those Germans who went along with the persecution of the Jews not because they really disliked them but because it was the thing.

~ Christopher Isherwood ~
The day after Kristallnacht.jpg
  Arthur Szyk (1894-1951). Anti-Christ (1942), New York.jpg
Stroop Report - Warsaw Ghetto Uprising 06b.jpg

One of the links in this QOTD is to the page for Conformity — where I now note an image which had been added by someone else, related to the notions of people impelled to being "cogs in a machine" has been removed by this person. It had no quote as a caption, but the relationsip of the image to the subject is one I believe obvious to anyone of even average intelligence, and I have now added one. I would like to work on that page and many others far more, but I especially doubt I will have the time anytime soon, as I must soon attend to responding to many issues which have arisen here.

The other incident mentioned is one in 2012 which impelled me to DECIDE to stop even bothering to add images to the layout at all, I thought perhaps for a month or so, because the sufficiently expressing the levels and extent of contempt I had for the attitudes and activities of several people at that time, and indications of the reasons for this, would have taken me far more time than I had to provide to it. I actually ended up not making any effort to return to adding images to the pages for over a year, so much contempt and disgust did I have for the vile situation that was then evident, which I consider to have been one of the most disgusting and contemptible periods of vile disregard to the fundamental principles of the wikis, and not only the overt harassment of me and my efforts at contributing to this wiki.

I found it appalling that others apparently found it convenient for various reasons to accept and even support some forms of this harassment, which continued sporadically for some years. IF some are looking for some clear reasons why there is not more involvement on this wiki, in recent years I believe that the extent of the deplorable and disgusting amounts of abuse and slander I generally received for some years, after defying what I considered ill-informed and ultimately unethical demands upon me, which I have never yet even attempted to fully explicate to others.

THIS is the layout which was summarily CENSORED and removed at that time, I believe primarily as a means of harassing me, and not from any sincere or even rationally justifiable objections to the use of the images.

Motherhood and apple pie.jpg

I went down to the sacred store
Where I'd heard the music years before
But the man there said the music wouldn't play
And in the streets the children screamed
The lovers cried and the poets dreamed
But not a word was spoken
The church bells all were broken
And the three men I admire most
The Father, Son and Holy Ghost
They caught the last train for the coast
The Day the Music Died.

~ Don McLean ~


  Buddy holly.jpg
American apple pie.jpg

I do not have time to indicate right now many of the very strong reasons I have long objected to what I have at times openly declared to be movements towards arrogant and presumptuous authoritarian policies of control and constraint of the editing and presentation options here, as mild or "politely expressed", or ineffective as some of those efforts have often been.

I do not have time to further indicate many things at present, but I will note this: I have been the primary editor of the QOTD and its presentation layout since 2003, in the earliest days of the wiki, and though there have been some relatively minor conflicts which have arisen a very few times in all those years, I believe most people can and do recognize that I have been thoughtful, considerate and created often interesting compositions of presentations relevant to the quotes selected. The main page has been regularly observed by tens of thousands of people daily for many years and there have been very few incidents of any significant controversy, except from a VERY FEW editors here, most of whom have regularly objected to various forms of image use on any of the pages at all, and some to almost all forms of them.

There are issues I will try to address further, after I return, and I expect it will take weeks of contentions before resolutions are likely to be reached, but I must be leaving soon, and even when I return will probably take time to check some facts and confirm some aspects of my memory of past events and occurrences, before making note of them. ~ Kalki·· 00:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC) + tweaks

  • Oppose Don't look the mouth of a given horse. Spannerjam (talk) 08:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We would be much better off developing a consensus for the number and range of images, and for a process of community determination of main page content in advance of its posting. BD2412 T 15:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Non-voting comments and discussion[edit]

  • I don't think it's appropriate to have regulations that apply only to a single user. It's obvious that the images and symbols on the QOTD only serve to discredit this project, but a regulation directed against a single person isn't the way to go about fixing this, and would also serve to discredit the project. - Macspaunday (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • My initial reaction was to oppose this motion, for two reasons related to points already raised by others. Firstly, as BD2412 notes, we would be much better off if we had a clear consensus about content of the main page. My reading of the current discussion at #Symbols on the main page QOTD above, linked in the motion opening this thread, does not show a solid consensus. (Summary nose count: IOHANNVSVERVS and I support applying the image use policy on relevance as it stands, and Macspaunday appears to implicitly do so, while DanielTom remarks about subjectivity and bias in the choice of pictures. Kalki opposes the image use policy, while BD2412 suggests it should only be applied loosely and UDScott does not object to this sort of image use.) Secondly, as Macspaunday suggests, framing this as a sanction against an individual contributor is a dubious proposition. In the absence of clear consensus on a policy that is being violated, or solid evidence of specifically identified personal misconduct, a personal topic ban is not appropriate. (Note that it was not a personal topic ban when image use on the main page was previously suspended pending development of a policy.)

    However, I am beginning to think otherwise, that there may be an objective case of actual user misconduct involved. Note that Kalki is engaged in an ongoing edit war over tagging the Main Page with a favorite symbol every day. Note also in particular today's QotD as originally posted, which not only includes multiple images of no relevance to depicting what the quote says, including edit warring with a math symbol often appearing in Kalki's signature tag (Unicode U+2A00: "n-ary circled dot operator"), but which also prominently features a doodle of Kalki's own creation, the meaning of which may exist only in the creator's mind.

    Edit warring clearly is personal misconduct. Tagging the main page like a dog marking its territory and splashing it with graffiti may also rise to the level of unacceptable behavior. I am reserving my !vote for the time being, but that is the way I am leaning. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

    Kalki's response. Did you notice that embarrassing "doodle" has the ⨀ symbol too? ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    (I am not entirely sure that is the same person.) Yes I noticed, which is what prompted me to investigate where the heck it came from. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Observing that this "doodle" is not an isolated incident, I have initiated a separate thread to discuss #Exhibiting user artworks on Wikiquote Main Page below. I am inclined to think it may be an abuse of administrative privileges (i.e. editing protected pages) to use the Main Page for exhibiting one's own artworks. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
    • On the topic of personal misconduct, I would add that the user continually engages in name-calling (see above - "ignorant and thus easily confused", "ill-informed and ultimately unethical") and assumption of bad faith ("THIS is the layout which was summarily CENSORED and removed at that time, I believe primarily as a means of harassing me, and not from any sincere or even rationally justifiable objections to the use of the images."). The user (also above) compared the idea of removing images from the main page to the rise of the Nazi Party.

      "We should develop a policy" is a common refrain, but what would that policy look like? How would it be developed? Would it be followed? I would propose a series of votes on the topic among regular contributors (of which I am not one - I'm just a concerned user), starting with "Should we limit the use of images on the front page?" If that determination is Yes, then have people submit options (based on number, size, location), and vote on those. I don't know if that is the ideal way to develop a policy, but it at least has steps that can be followed and would maybe be less likely to fizzle out than an open-ended procedure. TreeRol (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

25.000th article[edit]

Wikiquote seem to have passed the 25.000 articles. If I am not mistaken the 25.000th lemma is Bloodline (TV series) written by an (North-Irish) anonymous user, whose ip address is located around Belfast. -- Mdd (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

And 2,000,000 edits (which is even more impressive). ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Exhibiting user artworks on Wikiquote Main Page[edit]

Reviewing recent developments in light of other discussions above, it appears I have been missing out on opportunities afforded by this wiki for users to exhibit their own artworks in a highly visible gallery with several thousand visitors per day.

1)  May I exhibit my own artworks on the Wikiquote Main Page? There appears to be ample precedent for doing so. Here are a couple dozen examples:
2)  If I may, how do I avail myself of this opportunity? Do I just upload my artworks to Commons and then insert them into the Main Page wherever and whenever I like?
2a)  And, not incidentally, how would this opportunity for exhibiting one's own artworks in the Main Page gallery be exercised by other users who do not happen to be able to edit protected pages?
3)  If I may not, then why is anyone else allowed to use Wikiquote's Main Page as an art gallery for exhibiting their own works? Is this some sort of "freedom of expression" where some users are more equal than others?

The foregoing are not just rhetorical questions: I am quite serious. Wikiquote's Main Page is becoming "Wiki-art-exhibition" (with one quote and some links to quotations thrown in). If we are going to allow this then everybody should be able to exhibit in the free art gallery that anyone can edit. If we are not going to allow this then it should stop now. What say you? ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I agree, this is serious and problematic. It's one thing to use existing images to illustrate (or even just decorate) the presentation of a quote; it is quite another to create a bank of meaningless compilation images for this purpose. This makes me reconsider the degree to which main page images should relate to the quote itself. BD2412 T 22:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
    Don't worry, Kalki will explain why they are not meaningless. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
User:Ningauble writes, "May I exhibit my own artworks on the Wikiquote Main Page?  …  The foregoing are not just rhetorical questions: I am quite serious."

Do you have any artwork in particular you were thinking about?

I wouldn't mind seeing some of my art displayed.  E.g.:

They're Made Out of Meat.jpg

Thinking meat!  You’re asking me to believe in thinking meat!”
~ Terry Bisson ~
~ "They're Made Out of Meat" ~
That bit of digital art was created back in 2009 and was directly inspired by Bisson's short story.  (In fact, the art even has the same title as the short story.)

I copylefted the image, so if you wish to display it, you're free to do so; you needn't even ask me in advance.

Cheers, allixpeeke (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

As an admin on a Wikimedia project Ningauble of course actually seems to be merely facetiously adopting the naivety and tone and rhetoric of a rather sarcastic newbie. But of course, those who actually do seek to do some kind of work of some EXPRESSIVE or INDICATIVE nature on various themes are certainly welcome to upload images or other forms of work relevant to them at the Wikimedia Commons, with proper licensing releases under those devised by the Creative Commons (such as have been used both there and here for some years now). If anyone believes them relevant to some specific quotes or theme pages on this wiki they can certainly post them on various pages of this wiki, and even suggest them for use with some of the Qoutes of the Day.
Thank you, allixpeeke, for the observation of the fact that ALL individuals are welcome to provide what they can in devotions to the presentation of ideas here, and the general aims of serving humanity, and the wikimedia wikis, with whatever means they have. The wikis certainly were not formed with the intentions of either serving or promoting the desires of anyone more inclined to find ways to constrain and control the good faith efforts of others than to provide helpful indications of the worth of many ideas and the efforts to present them.
I sincerely believe that efforts of people to seek ways rigorously suppress rather than permit and welcome expressive work in presentation of ideas, is generally not welcome on healthy wikis, or healthy communities where various long established ideals of Justice, Unity, Liberty and Love of Humanity tend to prevail, by whatever systems of ethics they might be framed.
I do not have time to present an extensive response to some of the very flawed and facetious rhetoric and observations made here at this time, but probably will do so within the next day or so, and might have time to address a larger range of issues that have been raised on this page within a few days. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 00:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
As others have expressed, I too find this quite disturbing. When we were just talking about existing images, that was one thing, but the fact that such user-created images were used many times is another. Especially since they were used by someone with special privileges to edit these pages. This clearly smacks of inserting a POV and is not something that I believe we should allow on the site. Despite Kalki's protestations about the suppression of ideas and free expression, I do believe there are some limits that our community accepts and expects - and this behavior, to me, clearly goes beyond those limits. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I had much less time yesterday to attend to things here than I had thought I would, had far less time at home than usual, and I know I might have even less time today, but I believe that some of the issues raised here in this section have actually provided me greater means of indicating and elucidating many of the problems that have been growing more apparent to me for some time, and which I will earnestly seek to explicate within the coming days, weeks and months. I do expect to have a great deal of time within the next month to respond more fully here to many issues, but will attempt to respond more directly to primarily this one within the next few days. Right now I have less than an hour before I must leave again, and have many other things to attend to than those here — though I will attempt to do maybe as much as a half-hour's work here before I leave again. ~ Kalki·· 11:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Introducing the Wikimedia public policy site[edit]

Hi all,

We are excited to introduce a new Wikimedia Public Policy site. The site includes resources and position statements on access, copyright, censorship, intermediary liability, and privacy. The site explains how good public policy supports the Wikimedia projects, editors, and mission.

Visit the public policy portal:

Please help translate the statements on Meta Wiki. You can read more on the Wikimedia blog.


Yana and Stephen (Talk) 18:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

(Sent with the Global message delivery system)

QOTD Proposal[edit]

Others have proposed that the Quote of the Day ought to be uploaded some days before it appears on the Main Page that it may be edited and contributed to by other users. This would have a great democratizing effect on the widely disputed QOTD content and would be an excellent step towards quieting the controversy.
What are the thoughts of others? Especially, Kalki, I would like to hear your opinion. Thanks to all. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I certainly have no objection to people getting more involved in selecting the images used and have considered ways for this to be done myself, but I recognized that there certainly were some outstanding issues that I believe have not yet been sufficiently clarified, which had made me reticent to make some suggestions along such lines.
Currently I have been so busy that, though usually I have several alternatives in my mind at least a day or two ahead of time, I have often not made the actual selection of the quotes until a few hours or even a few minutes before the deadline, or even a few minutes afterwards, on relatively rare occasions. Today, I actually worked on the layout and didn’t decide on the final images until the last minute or two, and had to tweak them for size rendition until the deadline.
I definitely WILL attempt to make selections and layouts earlier within the next week or so, to enable further discussion on them, but it might take me at least a few days to catch up on this. Within this next month I also intend to restate and emphasize some of my own objections to how certain things have been done her for some months or years. I have no doubt that it will take time for me and others to sort through many of the details of such contentions, but I would expect a clearer resolution of many aspects of things within the next month. I must be leaving again now... So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 00:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The early-selection idea doesn't sound bad, and I certainly like the idea of people being free to make picture suggestions (assuming they even have any suggestions to make).  Although I'll almost never personally care what the images are, others may, and the early-selection idea does seem like a useful way of "democratizing" the selection, as IOHANNVSVERVS put it.  I look forward to Kalki putting forwards other ideas, too.  allixpeeke (talk) 02:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Do we even NEED to have a bunch of HUGE irrelevant pictures to go along with the QOTD on Wikiquote's Main Page?[edit]

They are distracting and taking up too much space; version with just one picture is much cleaner and more professional-looking. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree with your assessment that the images are irrelevant to the subject of the quote, and that of art based upon vital experiences, the dreams of architects, and the intelligibility of many aspects of nature which are all involved in many forms of art.
I will confess that I myself actually was somewhat unsatisfied with some aspects of the layout of that page, and usually am with at least a few in the course of a month, but I believe the most of the images selected, even when not fully integrated into an entirely satisfactory whole actually do prompt further reflection upon some of the themes of the quotes, and their relation to many other aspects of Reality. I do not actually accept that this process of thought actually equates to mere "distraction", and the choices made usually involve a great deal of reflection and consideration on my part, based on my general knowledge of the author, the specific themes of the quote, and images which are related in various ways to these. In this particular case you present, I was extremely rushed for time, as I have often been in recent weeks, and especially in recent days, and in the relatively brief time I had to spend here, went through considerations of several candidates for the Quote of the day, and conceived some aspects of layouts or devised full layouts for this and other quotes, and after I had rushed through a series of options, had one simpler design that seemed okay, but then decided to extend the quote for context, and went through a few more considerations, and finally had hardly any time left to spend here and settled on that one.
Today, I just recently got home, quickly scanned through some of the comments on this page, went to work on the QOTD, after completing work on a list of quotes I had actually been building for several recent days, in the relatively limited times I had to do so, considered the options, made a decision, and just began considering further details of such layouts as had already begun to be considered mentally, as I made the selection. I went through 10 actual layout options, using various images, some which I had never seen before, after rapidly scanning through images on some of the themes of the quote chosen, before accepting the layout I just posted as the best overall of those I had considered in the space of little more than half of an hour. I actually now have only a few minutes to post this and another comment I have been rapidly composing, and must be leaving again. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 00:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Kalki, you write, "I believe the most of the images selected, even when not fully integrated into an entirely satisfactory whole actually do prompt further reflection upon some of the themes of the quotes, and their relation to many other aspects of Reality."

That may be so, and I certainly have no problem with having many images included on the various pages that help to serve this function.  But I'm hard-pressed not to agree with DanielTom that the "simple alternative" he proposed looks better than the "Main Page today" approach.  I'm inclined to say we should forego the "prompt[ing of] further reflection upon some of the themes of the quotes" (etc.) via images on the main page.

You write, "the choices made usually involve a great deal of reflection and consideration on my part, based on my general knowledge of the author, the specific themes of the quote, and images which are related in various ways to these."

I'm sure that's true, and I don't think anyone wishes to make the case that she or he doesn't appreciate the effort you put into QOTD maintenance.  But none of that changes the fact that the "simple alternative" approach does look more professional.

Respectfully yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, for balance, we could include one QOTD-related picture on the left side, and one picture related to a new page accompanying the list of new pages on the right side. BD2412 T 22:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I don’t actually object to having images added of new authors, works or themes related to new pages, and actually think that that suggestion is a very good idea, but I believe having an extensively unrelated image at the same level for any related to the QOTD actually would be distracting from the themes and associations of the quote of the day, and if we were to begin adding such images, I would prefer them remain at the lower level where the new page list currently is. ~ Kalki·· 00:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Simplify I agree that if we have one more direct and relevant image alongside one more abstract image it would be visually appealing and probably fit better on smaller devices. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Kalki's objection to having another image, even one, where it might compete for the viewer's attention is very telling. I have stated repeatedly, for several years, my disapproval of completely dominating the Main Page with an obtrusive montage of the day. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time Kalki has addressed that issue directly, here advocating that everything else should be subordinated.

Since the issue has been joined, I encourage the community to speak up and reject the proposition that these graphical meditations should be given priority over all else, that anything unrelated to them should be out of sight below the fold. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with DanielTom that the "simple alternative" displayed above does appear tidier.  I would support the proposal to limit the number of images attached with the QOTD to one.  Preferably, it would be a picture of the person who issued the quote, except for those instances where a quote references a particular event or topic that would better be represented by another picture (e.g., a quote about (or from) the Declaration of Independence would be best coupled with John Trumbull's painting Declaration of Independence, or with a picture of the engrossed copy of the Declaration).  Best, allixpeeke (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I strongly agree with this proposal. Admins, how do we go about actually making this a rule? TreeRol (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I support DanielTom's position, having proposed the same thing myself. I strongly support BD2412's suggestion for a more balanced page. This is consistent with my longstanding position that a single QotD-related picture is best, and my previous suggestion to move the QotD to the two-column portion of the page. Adding an image to the New Pages section is an excellent idea that, in addition to balancing the page layout, well serves the purpose of our main landing page – introducing visitors to our site – by highlighting recent developments. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. As an experiment, I have added an image from one of our new pages. I think ONE image to the left of the QOTD, and ONE image in new pages box, would work very well. BD2412 T 16:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I like BD2412's idea, now illustrated above. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
    • As do I, immensely. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Likewise.  In order from favourite to least favourite, "another idea" (BD2412), "simple alternative" (DanielTom), "Main Page today" (Kalki).

      That said, while I am in obvious agreement with Ningauble that the number of images should be limited to one-per-QOTD, I do not agree with Ningauble that the quote should not span both columns.  Given that quotations is what this Wiki project is all about, it just makes sense that we have a different quote prominently displayed each day.  As long as it is limited to a single quote with a single accompanying image, I do not share Ningauble's feeling that it pushes everything else below the fold (although I do agree with Ningauble that, insofar as we continue to employ the cluttered "Main Page today" format, it does push everything else below the fold).  I especially feel that BD2412's "another idea" approach does not push everything else below the fold as the new-pages image helps to draw one's eye downward past the proverbial fold.

      allixpeeke (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Vote on Main Page Image Policy[edit]

DanielTom and BD2412 have suggested in a recent thread here, that the Main Page of Wikiquote ought to be reformatted.

The current model is as so:

The alternative model would appear thus:

The differences being that:

  • The alternative model restricts the number of images for the Quote of the day section to one, and introduces a single image to accompany the New pages section
  • The current model maintains the policies and practices now in place

This proposal authored by IOHANNVSVERVS

Please place your statement of support in the appropriate section below:

Current model[edit]

*I am NOT presently going to VOTE on such a thing at this time, believing it is FAR too stark, simplistic and rushed a framing of alternatives.

Though I can acknowledge and to some extent respect the desirability of some revisions to the options on the part of some people, I object entirely to this RUSH to vote to MANDATE an imposition of new restrictions with a choice of ONLY TWO models, based upon just a few recent remarks, when there has yet been little discussion of MANY of the practices and principles that are involved in making decisions of various types here. I believe that there should be MUCH further discussion and debate on what type of practices should be promoted, BEFORE any sort of BINDING vote is even ATTEMPTED, and I believe too many people have too little awareness and respect for the actual PRINCIPLES of MINIMAL mandates with which the Wikimedia wikis were founded, and I will attempt to address that issue among many others as soon as possible.
I personally have as yet had very little time to get very much involved in the discussions here in recent days. After being gone much of the day, I just rushed home, surveyed the options available for quotes, did a very swift gathering of a couple of new suggestions for the list, did a layout, and have no time to discuss layout options further right now, as I once again must be leaving — but I expect to have a bit more time within the next couple of days to address things here than I have had in the last couple, and will attempt to make clear some of the reasons for my objections to this attempt at voting on a new MANDATE within the next day or so. ~ Kalki·· 00:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • As the statement which I had made just below the leading assertions of another of the desirability of such measures and procedures was moved to a lower position of less prominence on the page, I have struck out the initial statement, and am now voting with protest, and beginning to state some of the case for preserving many options. IF further efforts to constraint of options of editors here do succeed (primarily of myself, in this particular instance), I of course will abide with whatever constraints others might see fit to begin to impose in such ways as I will continue to strongly protest. Whatever the outcome of this particular vote, which thus far 2 others than the initiator seem to see fit to proceed with without any further considerations, I will not refrain from commenting in what I believe will be increasingly frank and revelatory ways, in coming weeks and months, as to the extent I believe these efforts, though not as thoroughly and obviously disgraceful as some incidents in the past, to be unfortunate, and if they succeed, detrimental for a time to the options available to this wiki.
THUS, in contrast to new attempts at MANDATED and SEVERE constraints on options, I support the preservation of more malleable practices, which present wider range of presentation options. There are numerous omissions about the fact that the new alternatives, as presented, provide a rather poor example of the layout options as currently employed (and NOT one which I would have chosen), and WRONGLY presents such contrasts with such new options as I did not and do not contest — I asserted when it was suggested that an ADDITION of an image in the new page section would be a good idea.
Many of the previous discussions on this page and some of the points which might have been worth making about many things involving them would become rather irrelevant if this attempt to initiate a vote against the diversities of options now available should succeed, and I might not bother to attempt to address some of them, until perhaps after decisions made here are resolved. That is about all I have time to note right now. I might radically alter some of my activities tonight and tomorrow to provide more time to deal with some aspects of this issue, and perhaps a few others, sometime tomorrow. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 23:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Alternative model[edit]

  • I support the alternative model for neatness and simplicity. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support—For the professional appearance.  allixpeeke (talk) 07:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. This proposal offers a cleaner, clearer look that is not confusing of overwhelming. BD2412 T 14:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I completely agree with the thrust of this proposal, but specific language (rather than an illustrative example) will need to be adopted for inclusion in the Image use policy or other pertinent project page.

    There are a couple other changes that I would like to see someday, but this is a huge improvement over the status quo where a large montage or photo-essay dominated the page – a terribly unbalanced layout that has proven itself fertile ground for all manner of editorializing and soapboxing that would be inappropriate in any proportion. Restoring other important sections to visibility without scrolling and adding interest to the New Pages section would be the most beneficial changes to the Main Page in the seven years since I joined Wikiquote. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Support, for similar reasons as cited above (the clean look of the main page that greets users and the removal of POV from the selection of images for the QOTD). ~ UDScott (talk) 13:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I'll leave it to others to determine how much weight this vote should carry, but this is a torch I carried for a while, and I feel correct in trying to "edit" this compendium in this way. TreeRol (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Absolutely yes, and I'm sorry I was away so long and didn't vote earlier.- Macspaunday (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


  • Above, I have issued my support for the "Alternative model" proposed by BD2412Kalki's concern about the proliferation of mandates is a reasonable concern generally, but in this instance, I do not believe the proposed policy is unreasonable.  Besides, it can always be amended or even rescinded in the future.  Kalki is also frustrated that "ONLY TWO models" are being discussed.  But, even if the "Alternative model" were mandated this very second, that would in no way impede Kalki from suggesting more models a few days from now—or even years from now.  If these hypothetical other models are popularly deemed superior to the "Alternative model," then they can replace the "Alternative model" once they are eventually proposed.  In the meantime, I see no problem with stating my preference between the "ONLY TWO models" listed nor with adopting one of the two.  allixpeeke (talk) 07:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Kalki's objection that there has yet been little discussion made me laugh out loud because the issue has been much discussed for years and years. Regarding meta-discussion of "practices and principles that are involved in making decisions" I will remark here that the common practices of filibustering, stonewalling, and obfuscation, while often effective in thwarting decision making, at least temporarily, hardly reflect the core principle of seeking consensus. Whatever PRINCIPLES of MINIMAL mandates may inhere in Wikimedia's founding, they surely do not include a MANDATE that a any project's Main Page be set aside as a soapbox.

    On the esthetics of page layout, it boggles the mind that the same user who, at a time when a single small image with the QotD was customary, objected to including a citation as clutter that "detracts from the simple observations of the statement in the quote" is the selfsame user who now habitually piles on inordinate quantities of extraneous materials without, it seems, recognizing it as clutter that detracts from simply observing the statement in the quote – or anything else on the page. Clearly, one person's clutter is another person's treasure. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

  • In Ningauble's vote in support of the change, she/he pointed out that "specific language" will need to be developed.  In an effort to develop said language, I have started a section below titled Vote on Quote-of-the-Day Image Policy (Specific Language).  Please feel free to rank your preferences and to add more options for consideration.  Please note that this vote pertains only to the Quote-of-the-Day image policy, and shall not effect the New-Pages image policy.  allixpeeke (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • In response to the concerns of Ningauble and allixpeeke that this proposal lacks "specific language" I answer that I consider this language to be sufficiently specific:

"The alternative model restricts the number of images for the Quote of the day section to one, and introduces a single image to accompany the New pages section"

Additionally, I politely ask allixpeeke to abolish the poll recently begun here. I object that it nullifies this poll in progress unnecessarily. Although additional polling may be necessary, I think it is proper to wait until this vote is completed and it's results observed before further polling be initiated. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Respectfully hidden.  allixpeeke (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Kalki, you say in your statement of support for the current model the following:

IF further efforts to constraint of options of editors here do succeed (primarily of myself, in this particular instance), I of course will abide with whatever constraints others might see fit to begin to impose in such ways as I will continue to strongly protest.

I ask would you please clarify whether you intend to comply with or to protest the community's consensus. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
It seems a perfectly clear statement of intention to do both. They are not necessarily inconsistent, so the point of your question escapes me. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I considered that; you may be right. One may abide by a rule while voicing protest against it. Is this your meaning, Kalki? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I believe that is quite clear enough. I have not yet responded to many of the assertions made about many things, but whatever the outcome of this current effort to suppress the options of myself and potentially others in the future, (though it has usually been I alone who has been addressing the tasks involved for many years), I can defer to the apparent consensus of those most willing to get involved at this time. I have my own ideas on how to make many points far clearer, when I get the time to do so, but I have had many other concerns of probably greater importance demanding my attention with a bit more urgency, thus far, this month. ~ Kalki·· 23:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC) + tweaks
Kalki, I am glad to hear this collaborative response. When shall the alternative model be adopted? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I think the standard time for a discussion is seven days. I think the appropriate thing, therefore, is to hold this open until the 11th, and assess consensus at that time. BD2412 T 03:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I firmly believe that it not proper to swiftly close this sudden manifestations of new discussions, and new drives to create rules which would effectively and radically reduce the amount of information and thought which CAN go into presentations on the main page, and believe MANY considerations of this should be extended at least to the end of this month, but I can agree that ranges of actual RESULTS of ANY rules that come to be agreed should BEGIN to be considered more vigorously, as allixpeeke has begun to present options for doing in a section below. In partial appeasement of the will of some, I can agree to presently BEGIN to comply with the apparent consensus of commentaries upon the issue until that time, applying that to whatever quotes are selected, whether or not the apparent consensus remains in its current state, or begins to shift into ranges I would consider more competently rationally and ethically coherent, and NOT so rigorously and absolutely constrained in such ways as several seem to presently favor. ~ Kalki·· 17:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC) tweaks
  • Having two and only two options from which to choose is better than having one and only one option. I strongly support the alternative model, but don't feel qualified to officially vote. I also strongly support the idea that the voting on this proposal does not preclude the suggestion of other options later. TreeRol (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC) + tweak
    • "Having two and only two options from which to choose is better than having one and only one option" is something I can actually agree with, generally — which is actually why I oppose the effort to reduce the options of presenting relevant and related images from several to one, rigorously prescribed in accord with the wishes of a few to limit the options of other editors. ~ Kalki·· 17:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
      • I will note that the "only two" paradigm was presented by you, on 5 September. It is potentially disingenuous to now state that one of those "only two" options is, in fact, a plethora of options in itself, and thus needs to be maintained. Although perhaps upon further reflection, you have decided it so, which is fine.

        However, while this current model from your standpoint appears to be without limit, to this user (and, I suspect, to others), it is extremely limited: a dozen or so images, every day, that cause a huge amount of clutter. In this case, it is not the NUMBER of images that appear ("one" is more limiting than "one to infinity"), but the APPEARANCE OF THE PAGE (clean versus garish and cluttered) that is the dichotomy we're choosing here. (Alternatively, it could be said the effective dichotomy is "one image" versus "a dozen images", since the latter is, more or less, how it appears every day. If the current model were truly limitless in practice, I'd expect it to actually change now and again. The fact that it doesn't just shines a bright light on the fact that the current model is, truly, one option with its own limits.) TreeRol (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I was under the impression that Kalki had recently agreed to only use two pictures, one on each side. Not four. And certainly not six.  Kalki has only himself to blame. Had he kept his promise, I myself would support such a layout + New Pages pic.  Well, at least now, maybe Kalki will finally start selecting quotes for their merit, and not the ones he thinks he can best illustrate with irrelevant pictures (which invariably happen to be very long and boring quotes, IMO). The final nail in the coffin for me was seeing Kalki selecting quotes merely to prove a point – inappropriately using the QOTD as a fighting tool in his personal disputes, against all those editors who do not share his extravagant aesthetic preferences. If Kalki wants to continue wasting his valuable time in this way, he is of course free to set up a personal blog, where he can keep presenting a wide selection of pictures along with the QOTD – and call it, Kalki's QOTD. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Implementing language[edit]

  • To implement the emerging consensus for the alternative model, I suggest adding a fourth item to WQ:IMAGE in the Illustrating topics section as follows:
4.  The Main Page should include images along these same lines relating to author or subject, limited to one image in each of the sections for "Quote of the day" and "New pages".
I think this is a good fit within the structure of the policy page. It may not capture all of the details of what may be observed in the illustrative examples, but might cover the salient main points well enough. Any other thoughts? ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that looks perfectly adequate. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • 2allixpeeke (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)  It's okay, but I think we ought to specify that the Quote-of-the-Day image is to appear to the left of the Quote of the Day.  I'm also not sure we need to develop a policy for the New-Pages image, since everyone seems to be in agreement that there ought to be one image associated therewith, and that it ought to be situated to the right of the New Pages list; but, if there is to be an official policy associated with the New-Pages image, methinks it ought to specify that the New-Pages image is to appear to the right of the New Pages list.
This is an attempt to implement the proposal we have been voting on above, characterized in the motion as "The alternative model restricts the number of images for the Quote of the day section to one, and introduces a single image to accompany the New pages section". Regarding your two specific objections to this language:
  1. I strongly oppose any motion for Division of the question between Quote of the day and New pages. A limit of one image has been proposed before but was rejected. A limit of two images has been suggested before but did not gain consensus. The novel proposal for two images in separate sections, first suggested by BD2412, is currently supported six to one. It is not two separate or separable proposals, it is a brilliant stroke to cut the Gordian Knot and finally achieve consensus on reasonable bounds.
  2. If there is consensus that policy needs to specify alignment of the images then we could add something like "aligned left and right, respectively" to the end of the suggested sentence. I do not think it is necessary: note that alignment of images in existing articles is very consistent despite not being specifically ordained in any policy.
Again, this subsection is about implementing the proposal on the table, and not anything else. If you disagree with the emerging consensus for that proposal then you may want to consider changing your vote and offering a competing proposal. (Offering more than a dozen, in multiple sections, is probably not going to change the consensus for this one.)~ Ningauble (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
In the first specific-language discussion, I suggested something along these lines:

Each Quote-of-the-Day is to be accompanied by no more and no less than a single image, situated to the left of the quote. This image shall be an image of the quote's author, except for those instances where either no such image is available or where a quote references a particular event or topic that would better be represented by another image (e.g., a quote about (or from) the Declaration of Independence would be best coupled with John Trumbull's painting Declaration of Independence, or with a picture of the engrossed copy of the Declaration).  The New-Pages template is to include no more and no less than a single image, situated to the right of the list. The image must be closely-associated with one of the persons, topics, or events listed in the template.

I still think this is best.

allixpeeke (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

P. S.  Please note that the language I have described as my preference in the first specific-language discussion conforms completely with my vote.  I have no need to change said vote.

  • I wonder is it necessary to amend the policy? The vote has shown the community's consensus to be quite strong in favour of the alternative model. Indeed Kalki himself, the sole opponent of the alternative model, has adopted it solely out of respect for the will of the community; saying this in the edit summary: "QOTD using only one image, in accord with the apparent consensus of commentators on the issue at present..." I think this shows how these discussions and votes can serve to implement change without formal policy modifications. I would like also to thank Kalki for showing such a consideration for consensus that he would implement it over his own, very strongly held, preferences. This is a great display of democratic spirit. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
    • It probably is necessary, so that we can specify which sorts of images would be appropriate for a quotation. Today's quote, on the nature of love and hate, uses an image of a painting by an unrelated artist, on an unrelated topic. (And I'm sure some art student could give me a treatise on how Gianni Schicchi and Capocchio represent the duality of love and hate, or how Bouguereau's lust for recognition led to this particular work, but that sort of analysis, though beloved by certain parties, is still not the purpose of the image.)

      I'm afraid that this language will have to be as specific as possible, because any room for interpretation will lead to results that may not be desired by the community.TreeRol (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

We already have policy regarding Relevance IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Now we're seeing an image to the right. The person putting up the QOTD seems hell-bent on ensuring we need some very specific language. This is ridiculous. TreeRol (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I, too, would like to see the language be somewhat specific.  In the first discussion section (see below), I suggested something along these lines:

Each Quote-of-the-Day is to be accompanied by no more and no less than a single image, situated to the left of the quote. This image shall be an image of the quote's author, except for those instances where either no such image is available or where a quote references a particular event or topic that would better be represented by another image (e.g., a quote about (or from) the Declaration of Independence would be best coupled with John Trumbull's painting Declaration of Independence, or with a picture of the engrossed copy of the Declaration).  The New-Pages template is to include no more and no less than a single image, situated to the right of the list. The image must be closely-associated with one of the persons, topics, or events listed in the template.

As I said there, this option is my favourite as it both gives a certain bit of leeway but also sets reasonable parameters.  This sounds like the sort of proposal you would also support.  Do you?

allixpeeke (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with this proposal, except that I would ditch the "no more and no less than" phrases. A single image is a single image, and the meaning needs no qualification. "Situated" is unnecessary for the same reasons. Also, "closely associated" does not take a hyphen when followed by "with". Cleaning up a few other instances of unnecessary verbiage, this would yield:

Each Quote-of-the-Day is to be accompanied by a single image to the left of the quote, this being an image of the quote's author, except where no such image is available, or where a quote references a particular event or topic better represented by another image (e.g., a quote about (or from) the Declaration of Independence coupled with John Trumbull's painting Declaration of Independence, or with a picture of the engrossed copy of the Declaration).  The New-Pages template is to include a single image to the right of the list, which must be closely associated with one of the listed persons, topics, or events.

Cheers! BD2412 T 03:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I love me some commas, but even I think that first sentence doesn't read well. Otherwise, I approve.TreeRol (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Is this language proposed as a new stand-alone policy (under what title?) or as an amendment to existing policy (where exactly?)? ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Where is there any policy now saying what goes on the main page? BD2412 T 17:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The language seems fine to me - what I believe Ningauble is referring to is whether or not this should be added to the general Image use policy in a section that pertains to the Main Page (that way you could leverage the already existing language about relevance of images), which I support as well. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
That sounds fine to me. I was just wondering if we had any language at all saying what should be on the main page, or has the current setup merely resulted from editor initiative and discrete talk page discussions. BD2412 T 20:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
No, we don't have a policy devoted to the Main Page. Various changes have been implemented with discussion on its talk page or here at the Village pump – like any other article. Only the images thereon have been enduringly contentious. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I was thinking of adding language about images on the Main Page to the WQ:IMAGE policy, as I suggested in the opening post of this subsection. If we include this new initiative in the existing WQ:IMAGE policy then there is no need to rehash or recapitulate issues of relevance already covered there – issues not raised in the main notion by IOHANNVSVERVS or the original suggestion by BD2412.

I think allixpeeke' counterproposal, even as amended by BD2412, is needlessly verbose, stilted, and redundant. I invite folks to reconsider my earlier proposal at the top of this subsection for an amendment to the WQ:IMAGE policy, paralleling the concise clarity of the existing language and placed in the same context. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Open call for Individual Engagement Grants[edit]

Greetings! The Individual Engagement Grants program is accepting proposals from August 31st to September 29th to fund new tools, community-building processes, and other experimental ideas that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers. Whether you need a small or large amount of funds (up to $30,000 USD), Individual Engagement Grants can support you and your team’s project development time in addition to project expenses such as materials, travel, and rental space.

I JethroBT (WMF), 09:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

There is less than one week left to submit Individual Engagement Grant (IEG) proposals before the September 29th deadline. If you have ideas for new tools, community-building processes, and other experimental projects that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers, start your proposal today! Please encourage others who have great ideas to apply as well. Support is available if you want help turning your idea into a grant request. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on Quote-of-the-Day Image Policy (Specific Language)[edit]

Please feel free to add more options to the below list.  In the spirit of the QOTD, please rank your preference below.  You are not required, but are permitted, to give a ranking to each option.  Please feel free to give as many of the options as you wish 0s, 1s, 2s, and 3s, but please only give your favourite option a ranking of 4allixpeeke (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Ranking system:

4 : Excellent - should definitely be adopted.
3 : Very Good - strong desire to see it adopted.
2 : Good - some desire to see it adopted.
1 : Acceptable - but with no particular desire to see it adopted.
0 : Not acceptable - not an appropriate quote-of-the-day image policy.


Option oneNo language, no new rule, no policy change.

  • 0allixpeeke (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)  I am not fond of this option as I believe it leaves the main page often looking unprofessional.

Option two—Each Quote-of-the-Day is to be accompanied by no more than a single image, situated to the left of the quote.

  • 3allixpeeke (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)  I give this option a ranking of three instead of two because we might wish to keep the rule simple just to see how Kalki handles it.

Option three—Each Quote-of-the-Day is to be accompanied by no more and no less than a single image, situated to the left of the quote.

Option four—Each Quote-of-the-Day is to be accompanied by no more than a single image, situated to the left of the quote.  This image shall be an image of the quote's author, except where no such image is available, in which case no image shall accompany that particular Quote-of-the-Day.

Option five—Each Quote-of-the-Day is to be accompanied by no more and no less than a single image, situated to the left of the quote.  This image shall be an image of the quote's author, except where no such image is available, in which case the image shall be an image closely associated with the event or topic referenced by the Quote-of-the-Day.

Option six—Each Quote-of-the-Day is to be accompanied by no more than a single image, situated to the left of the quote.  This image shall be an image of the quote's author, except for those instances where either no such image is available or where a quote references a particular event or topic that would better be represented by another image (e.g., a quote about (or from) the Declaration of Independence would be best coupled with John Trumbull's painting Declaration of Independence, or with a picture of the engrossed copy of the Declaration).

Option seven—Each Quote-of-the-Day is to be accompanied by no more and no less than a single image, situated to the left of the quote.  This image shall be a picture of the quote's author, except for those instances where either no such image is available or where a quote references a particular event or topic that would better be represented by another image (e.g., a quote about (or from) the Declaration of Independence would be best coupled with John Trumbull's painting Declaration of Independence, or with a picture of the engrossed copy of the Declaration).

  • 4allixpeeke (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)  This option is my favourite as it both gives a certain bit of leeway but also sets reasonable parameters.

None of the above

Actually I agree with Ningauble that this vote should not even exist yet. I was getting lost in the details while I tried to understand the different options presented (hence my comments below). But in the end, the so-called options really do not offer much in the way of choice and instead reflect the preferences of one user. And more importantly, the idea of even having such a vote was not fully discussed and determined as a next step by the community. I appreciate the attempt to move this along, but this is all premature (and not particularly well formed). ~ UDScott (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I consider MANY aspects of recent events, including several forms of the initial votings above to be rather ill-considered, but others seemed willing to support some of them to a significant extent. I could actually second the motion to proceed in developing a far more extensive and intricate assessment of this and many related issues in the days and weeks ahead, though I can agree that I consider this form of tallying of options to be somewhat premature at present, and I believe the issues involve merit much more extensive discussion BEFORE a clearly determining vote upon them. ~ Kalki·· 17:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC) + tweaks
  • 0allixpeeke (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)  Too vague.  This tells us what the policy is not, but fails to tell us what the policy is.
    This does not say what the policy is or is not. It says that voting on a bunch of straw man propositions is not the right way to go about drafting language to implement the decision of the poll at #Vote on Main Page Image Policy above. This is an objection to the consideration of a question, because calling for a vote is not the way to "get the ball rolling", it is a way to finalize a decision. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
    Surely you must understand the meaning of the option you yourself put forward.  You say that this "does not say what the policy is or is not."  "None of the above" does say what it is not: it says it is not option one, two, three, four, five, six, or seven.  Since it says it is not option one, that means it is not not a policy; in other words, it is a policy.  But since it says that it is not options two–seven, that means that it is a policy but not any of the policies previously suggested.  It doesn't tell us what it is, but it certainly tells us what it is not.  Notice, also, that to the right of your option, you don't provide any language.  I need to see what the words are going to be if I am to change my preference ranking in favour of this option.

    You write, "It says that voting on a bunch of straw man propositions is not the right way to go about drafting language to implement the decision of the poll at #Vote on Main Page Image Policy above."  No, the words "none of the above" do not say that; the words "none of the above" has always meant not any of the options listed above.  When I vote for "none of the above" for governor, I usually mean either (A) 'no one at all' or (B) 'someone else other than those listed', but in this instance, it's clear you are not suggesting (A) 'no policy at all' since a preference-ranking for "None of the above" is just as much a preference-ranking against option one ('no policy at all') as it is against the other suggestions; thus, in this instance, "None of the above" must mean (B) 'some policy other than those listed'.  I just don't yet know what that policy is.

    Respectfully yours,
    allixpeeke (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


  • As per IOHANNVSVERVS's request, I am temporarily hiding the content of this section.  We can remake it visible once IOHANNVSVERVS's poll is complete.  In the meantime, please do not delete this section or its hidden content.  Thanks.  allixpeeke (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)  As seven days have passed since IOHANNVSVERVS started her or his poll, I am now unhiding the specific-language poll I started.  Feel free to rank the various options and to add more options if they seem warranted for consideration.  allixpeeke (talk) 10:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • In the proposals above, there was another flavor suggested - one in which an image was also placed in the New pages section. To be inclusive, your presented options should include variations of that as well. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay, UDScott, at your request, I have also started a suggestion on specific language regarding the New Pages image.  You can see that here.  I don't personally think we need specific language regarding the New Pages image, since everyone seems to be in agreement that a single new-pages image situated to the right of the new-pages list is a good idea, but since you asked, I provided.  Cheers, allixpeeke (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the set of options above is a bit complicated. I'll take some time to think it over. BD2412 T 13:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I agree - but if we can agree that we always want to have an image accompanying the quote, it becomes a bit easier. The different options that Allixpeeke has presented then boil down to whether or not we want to be specific about what that image should be (e.g. an image of the author or a related, thematic image). ~ UDScott (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Also note that some of the present options say "no more than a single image" while others say "no more and no less than a single image."  And, obviously, if anyone thinks the options provided aren't good enough, she or he is free to add more suggestions, at which point we would have more variable from which to choose.  (For example, if someone were to hypothetically add a few options each of which were to say that each Quote-of-the-Day is to be accompanied by exactly two images, that would be another variable for our consideration.  I doubt anyone, with the possible exception of Kalki, will add such options, but it's theoretically possible.)  Yours, allixpeeke (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I somewhat agree with Ningauble and BD2412 who express concern that this vote is complicated. Also, Kalki mentions in a previous thread the "principles of minimal mandates with which the Wikimedia wikis were founded", and I agree that we ought to avoid excessive details in our policies. Also, I don't consider the vote I have called here to be finished yet, as the results have yet to be discussed and implemented. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I created this because Ningauble suggested we needed to develop specific language.  Here, you "express concern that this vote is complicated."  There are many different types of voting systems, but in any voting system with more than two options, first-past-the-post voting is simply unsuitable.  In political elections, I tend to favour the instant-runoff method.  For this, I thought range voting to be best.  It's not too complicated when you read about it.  (I opted to go with the 0–4 range only because that's the same range used to determine the Quote of the Day itself.)  I chose this method because, well, the whole point of this particular thread is to try to see what sort of policy we collaboratively can create (if any).  I feel like this is more of a conversation than anything else.  I put forward seven possible options to get the ball rolling, but, perhaps they are all trash.  Perhaps there are other, far better options out there.  This system of discussing the possibilities allows others to add suggestions they think are better, and it allows us to all see how each other feels about said suggestions.  I wanted this to be a collaborative effort.  (I certainly don't want to be the only person who provided options.  Those options, again, were just to get the ball rolling.)  Is it "complicated" that people are free to add other suggestions if the first seven aren't good enough?  Personally, I do not think it is.  Besides, even if it is, this wouldn't be collaborative if it were solely limited to just my suggestions.

You write, "we ought to avoid excessive details in our policies."  Ningauble suggested we needed to develop specific language (which is the only reason I bothered to start this conversation).  If you don't believe we need to develop any specific language, you should give a 4 ranking to option one.  If you do think we should have specific language, and your concern is that you want this specific language to "avoid excessive details", options two and three are both fairly basic in language.  If they are not basic enough, in your opinion, you are obviously free to add more options to the list, options that best suit your preferences.  After all, I did want this to be a collaborative effort.  (I'd hate to be the only person who provided options.)

Finally, you write that the results of the your poll have "yet to be discussed and implemented."  Alas, this is a discussion, is it not?  How are we to implement this policy without first discussing what words to include in the policy?  As Ningauble wrote, "specific language (rather than an illustrative example) will need to be adopted for inclusion in the Image use policy or other pertinent project page."  Methinks you're looking at this thread as a poll that competes with yours; I see it as a discussion that compliments yours.

Respectfully yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

  • It was stated quite honestly by BD2412 that "the set of options above is a bit complicated" — I believe that many aspects of the issue are FAR more complicated than many have yet even begun to sufficiently consider — and I myself will probably have more time to deal with it and specify at least some aspects of the complications and errors of assumptions which I perceive within a day or two. I might do a very brief layout for the QOTD along the lines of current stated preferences of a few, but I don’t have time to stick around much longer, and must be leaving soon. ~ Kalki·· 17:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I look forward to seeing the options you add when you finally get around to adding them.  allixpeeke (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I applaud Ningauble for adding to the list of options.  (Unfortunately, the eighth option (which isn't numbered) is rather vague.)  In Ningauble's ranking for option eight (in which she or he failed to actually provide the 0–4 rank), Ningauble writes, "Seriously, somebody should close this vote, which has not been seconded."  Sure, I called it a "vote" in the thread's title, but it's more of a collaborative discussion.  Ningauble actually "firsted" the idea that we should work on developing specific language for this policy by writing, "specific language (rather than an illustrative example) will need to be adopted for inclusion in the Image use policy or other pertinent project page."  I seconded the notion by starting this discussion.  I am not exactly sure what Ningauble means when she or he writes that we should "close this vote"; does that mean we should close this discussion?  If so, I can only guess that that means that Ningauble no longer believes we should develop "specific language."  After all, the only reason I started this discussion was so that we could collaborate on developing said specific language.  If we are going to opt to not to bother developing specific language, then I guess there's nothing more to discuss, and thus no reason to bother looking at this thread any longer.

    Finally, Ningauble also writes, "This complicated voting/ranking system limited to drafts by a single author, all of which fail as implementing language for the two salient features favored in the vote above, is very ill considered."  Range voting really isn't that complicated.  (Indeed, we've been using it to decide which quotes should be adopted as Quote-of-the-Day since I joined Wikiquote.)  It's not true that the options are limited to options "by a single author."  Two people, thus far, have added options.  I added the first seven options just to get the ball rolling, and Ningauble him- or herself added the eighth option (albeit a vague one).  Ningauble also links to Hobson's choice in his/her comments, which is not entirely fair.  This is not a discussion "in which only one option is actually offered" (to quote Wikipedia), but rather a discussion in which an infinite number of options are offered.  The options are limited only by the imagination of the readers here.  This is a collaborative effort where anyone and everyone is free to add more suggestions.  I certainly didn't want to be the only person adding suggestions.  I only threw those first seven options out there to get the ball rolling.  It would hardly be a discussion if I'm the only one discussing, after all.  (Is there a way to discuss specific language without doing what I did, i.e., without allowing people the freedom to suggest options?  Isn't allowing-people-the-freedom-to-suggest-options the right way to go about this discussion?  It honestly seemed like it was either this (i.e., start a discussion in which we allow people the freedom to suggest options and discuss them) or nothing (i.e., not bothering to try to develop any specific language)  It still appears to be a true dichotomy.)

    allixpeeke (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I have just noticed above that Ningauble has started a second language discussion.  I am so confused.  This one wasn't good enough?  allixpeeke (talk) 05:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
It seems some people, Ningauble in particular, still think this thread is "calling for a vote" and that "calling for a vote is not the way to 'get the ball rolling'."  It's probably my fault that these users think this, as I used the word "vote" in the title of this thread.  (In a sense, it is a "vote"; but in another sense, it is not.)  To make the matter clearer, I have changed the title of this thread from "Vote on Quote-of-the-Day Image Policy (Specific Language)" to "Discussion on Quote-of-the-Day Image Policy (Specific Language)."  Apologies to anyone who was mislead by the less-than-optimal former title.  allixpeeke (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Again, this section is about discussing the proposal on the table, and not anything else.  If Ninjauble disagrees with the emerging consensus for that proposal then she/he may want to consider changing her/his vote and offering a competing proposal.  (Offering just one option is probably not going to change the consensus for this one.)  Let the community notice that of the eight options listed in this discussion, only the first one (which conforms with what I suspected was Kalki's preference) and the eighth one (which was added by Ninjauble her-/himself) do not conform with the "Alternative Main Page September 3, 2015" image.  Every single one of the options above that I remotely supported confirm my vote.  Regards, allixpeeke (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on New-Pages Image Policy (Specific Language)[edit]

Please feel free to add more options to the below list.  Please rank your preference below.  You are not required, but are permitted, to give a ranking to each option.  Please feel free to give as many of the options as you wish 0s, 1s, 2s, and 3s, but please only give your favourite option a ranking of 4allixpeeke (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Ranking system:

4 : Excellent - should definitely be adopted.
3 : Very Good - strong desire to see it adopted.
2 : Good - some desire to see it adopted.
1 : Acceptable - but with no particular desire to see it adopted.
0 : Not acceptable - not an appropriate new-pages image policy.


Option oneNo language, no new rule, no policy change.

  • 0allixpeeke (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)  We have already begun adding a single image to the New Pages template, and I approve of this.  I am not convinced we need any specific language developed in order to keep this going.  On second thought, this option, over time, might evolve into option four, which obviously I don't want.  Therefore, I am switching my support to option three.

Option two—The New-Pages template is to include no more than a single image, situated to the right of the list.  The image must be closely associated with one of the persons, topics, or events listed in the template.

  • 3allixpeeke (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • 4Macspaunday (talk) 12:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)But I'm afraid that this will put us back in the same mess we're in now, because someone can always explain that an image of the night sky or a hexagram or anything else is "closely associated" with a quotation that has nothing to do with it - exactly what we have now.

Option three—The New-Pages template is to include no more and no less than a single image, situated to the right of the list.  The image must be closely associated with one of the persons, topics, or events listed in the template.

  • 4allixpeeke (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)  If there has to be official language, I would prefer it to be this.  It sets reasonable parameters.

Option four—No image shall be included in the New-Pages template.

  • 0allixpeeke (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)  This would have us go back to the old way of doing things.  I don't like this option.  I feel the inclusion of the image helps to draw one's eye past the so-called fold, thereby uniting top and bottom.


  • Above, UDScott writes, "In the proposals above, there was another flavor suggested - one in which an image was also placed in the New pages section. To be inclusive, your presented options should include variations of that as well."

    I didn't think we needed any specific language on the New Images policy (since everyone seemed to already agree that there should be a single New-Pages image situated to the right of the New Pages list), but since UDScott believes we do, I have created this poll discussion at her or his request.

    allixpeeke (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

  • It seems some people, Ningauble in particular, still think this thread is "calling for a vote" and that "calling for a vote is not the way to 'get the ball rolling'."  It's probably my fault that these users think this, as I used the word "vote" in the title of this thread.  (In a sense, it is a "vote"; but in another sense, it is not.)  To make the matter clearer, I have changed the title of this thread from "Vote on Quote-of-the-Day Image Policy (Specific Language)" to "Discussion on Quote-of-the-Day Image Policy (Specific Language)."  Apologies to anyone who was mislead by the less-than-optimal former title.  allixpeeke (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Again, this section is about discussing the proposal on the table, and not anything else.  If Ninjauble disagrees with the emerging consensus for that proposal then she/he may want to consider changing her/his vote and offering a competing proposal.  (Offering just one option is probably not going to change the consensus for this one.)  Let the community notice that of the four options listed in this discussion, only the fourth one (which I only included because it conformed with the less-than-worthy "Actual Main Page September 3, 2015" image) does not conform with the "Alternative Main Page September 3, 2015" image.  Every single one of the options above that I remotely supported confirm my vote.  Regards, allixpeeke (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Straw poll: When including original non-English text, would linking every word to wiktionary be overkill?[edit]

I often find myself copying and pasting from the wikiquote window to the wiktionary window, which tells me a link would be useful. Is it a good idea? Or is there a concern about "over-linking"?

It is an interesting question to me. Could you give us an example? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi IOHANNVSVERVS. Thanks for your reply. Here's an example:
Ἐγὼ γὰρ διὰ νόμου νόμῳ ἀπέθανον ἵνα θεῷ ζήσω·
Every word is linked to a wiktionary entry to help users with only rudimentary Greek understand the text.
Peter1c (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

For what it is worth, my personal opinion is favourable towards this practice. Although I know not the policies or views of other users regarding this. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I have reservations about it:
    • It looks like a lot of overlinking.
    • Not every word has a Wiktionary definition; what do we do if one is missing? Who will check this?
    • Lots of small links make it easier to mis-click.
BD2412 T 13:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I think this would be overkill, and would not be particularly useful because word-for-word translation is a recipe for confusion. Best practice is to quote and cite a reliable source that translates the original into English. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Possible glitch?[edit]

I just checked the Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, and there are suddenly many articles there that weren't there the last time I looked at it, including World War II.  Obviously, we wouldn't want to delete that page.  At first, I thought that maybe it was some vandal randomly listing pages for speedy deletion.  Then I took a closer look.

The Adventures of Pete & Pete (which obviously needs to be cleaned up and improved) is there, even though nobody has edited the page in over three years.  Clearly, this is not the case of some vandal coming in and nominating The Adventures of Pete & Pete for speedy deletion just to be disputive.  Same thing with The Critic, which hasn't been edited since December (and which actually does list the episode titles, just not in the proper format).  The list goes on.

It appears that any article that has a {{references}} tag is suddenly a candidate for speedy deletion, even if it is simply a section-reference tag.  As such, editors are now unable to put reference tags in articles without putting the entire article up for deletion—a speedy deletion, no less.

We already have the {{delete}} tag for speedy deletion nominations.  It serves its function well.  But if we don't fix this {{references}} problem, it will discourage editors from adding the {{references}} tag to sections that need it.  After all, who will want to add {{references}} to a section on the World War II page knowing that doing so may inadvertently cause the entire page to go kaplooey?

Sincerely yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Allixpeeke: It was added by an IP. Reverted. Problem solved! Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 12:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for catching it and fixing it. I have now semiprotected the template. (That IP is not here to build a compendium of quotations.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

A page for quotes on science and religion?[edit]

Hello, I'm quite new to Wikiquotes, but was looking for quotes that specially relate to science and religion (whether complementary, antagonistic, comparative, or what have you). Examples include Galileo's famous "the intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heavens go," or Einstein's "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind," as well as prominent atheists, theologians, scientists, etc. We have pages Science and Religion, but perhaps a Science and religion page or category is warranted? Note Wikisource has a convenient category Science and religion for starters. Cheers, --Animalparty (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Animalparty: To answer your question: yes, I definitely think a page on this topic is appropriate. A lot of ink has been spilled on the intersection of religion and science, so we could definitely have a page on this. If you want to get started, you can always make User:Animalparty/Religion and science. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, looks like someone's already created Science and religion. Hurrah! --Animalparty (talk) 06:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Reimagining WMF grants report[edit]

IdeaLab beaker and flask.svg

Last month, we asked for community feedback on a proposal to change the structure of WMF grant programs. Thanks to the 200+ people who participated! A report on what we learned and changed based on this consultation is now available.

Come read about the findings and next steps as WMF’s Community Resources team begins to implement changes based on your feedback. Your questions and comments are welcome on the outcomes discussion page.

Take care, I JethroBT (WMF) 17:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Who are they?[edit]

Hi, there are Jack Baker and John Carney who are linked to disambiguation pages on via Wikidata. Are there pages on Wikipedia about them? --Superchilum (talk) 10:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia does not have articles about these guys. They are just a couple of finance/business commentators of no note, who probably should not have articles at Wikiquote either. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Another question: the quotes in Beautiful Thing are related to the play or to the film? --Superchilum (talk) 10:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

As remarked on the article talk page, I suspect it is the film. Teleplays released in video format are readily available; and it is actually quite rare at Wikiquote for anyone to quote the script of a contemporary theatrical play unless a performance has been posted on yootoob or other audiovisual medium. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)