Wikiquote:Village pump

From Wikiquote
(Redirected from WQ:Village Pump)
Jump to: navigation, search
Create a new topic


Wikiquote discussion pages (edit) see also: requests
Village pump
comment | history | archive

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

Reference desk
comment | history | archive

Questions and discussions about specific quotes.

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


Archive
Archives



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

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

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

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




Contents

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)

Drama[edit]

DoNotFeedTroll.svg

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

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

VisualEditor News #1—2015[edit]

18:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikilinking within a quote[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other ways to add wikilinks to quote pages[edit]

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

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

Thank you,

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

Let's take some examples. From George Washington:
From Martin Luther King, Jr.:
These seem like usefully linked concepts in each case. How else would we achieve this effect? BD2412 T 16:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
And you choose to like Human and Nature separately in that first example - instead of "Human Nature" as a single item -- note the difference where two different choices are clearly available. And the bifurcated choice appears, on its face, to have been the wrong one. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC) .
Actually, I didn't add these links (someone else did), I just brought them to the discussion. I have fixed the link to human nature. BD2412 T 19:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Effect? Effect? We should not be thinking about creating any other "effect" other than the "effect" the original writer wished to convey! Oh my goodness! This is getting ridonkulous. -- Cirt (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Again, if that is all we were after, we would be Wikisource, since we would only present quotes in the context of their original publication. In fact, we wouldn't have any quotes from Shakespeare's plays or any public address, since these were meant by their authors to be heard and not read. BD2412 T 16:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
The bolding and wikilinking in your examples, above, is SO distracting, it's hard to even get through reading the entire quote without focusing on the bolded or linked portion and stopping, and thus, ruining the reading experience for our readers. -- Cirt (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps a viewer preference can be implemented, like a skin, where readers could choose not to see links. BD2412 T 17:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
No, our default should be the least distracting option for readers. Perhaps a viewer preference can be implemented, where those that wish to see distracting bolding and fancy blue coloring and underlining can see that interspersed all throughout quote passages. -- Cirt (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I disagree - that is again based on the premise that the consensus of our community is that these links are somehow bad and therefore should not be shown unless someone opts in. I believe it should be the other way around, because I believe these links add value to the project. They are a useful way to expose readers to other pages. If they are hidden, this goes out the window. I would rather let those few who seem to object or who deem them to be distracting to be able to hide them if they so choose. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
And there's no reason not to include such links -- just not inside quotations. But instead, there's so many other ways to add them on a page without violating the original speaker's text. -- Cirt (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: The majority of posts in this thread are not about Other ways to add wikilinks. Please try to keep these discussions focused. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I've given suggestions, above, of multiple ways we can wikilink to other pages, without wikilinking within quoted text. -- Cirt (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Generally, a well-developed guideline will suggest ways that editors can accomplish what they want, rather than merely prohibiting or discouraging one way of doing it, unless what they want is intrinsically contrary to policy. There is an example given in old revisions of the Wikipedia MOS: [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)

Survey[edit]

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

Supporting this proposal does not take a position. It recognizes that there has long been controversy over this. I do not expect this discussion, here, to resolve the issue, because there are a number of subquestions to be resolved. Most notably, there is disagreement over whether or not wikilinking is a violation of NPOV (an extreme statement) or can lead to NPOV issues (much more likely) or has no impact on NPOV at all (which has been said or implied). So a policy/guideline page should be started on the topic, that reflects consensus or the state of no-consensus. --Abd (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as proposer. --Abd (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, so long as the new page conforms with existing pages including WQ:NPOV and Wikiquote:Wikiquote. -- Cirt (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Premature at this point. Until someone articulates concrete ideas for prescribing some sort of middle ground, all this will do is call for an up or down vote on prohibiting the links entirely. The status quo is already documented, more or less, at Wikiquote:Manual of style#Free link style. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, I have not suggested a vote, except on the issue of encouraging the development of a guideline with consensus. Thanks for pointing to the existing MOS. It encourages free linking, but is not clear about linking within quotations: This guideline has yet to be discussed for Wikiquote — some feel that it may not be appropriate in the middle of quotations. That was in the original draft, taken from Wikipedia: 15:38, 23 August 2003‎‎. This is the source.. It does not mention linking within quotations. Current policy on Wikipedia: w:Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Linking. The language was introduced shortly before this edit from October 2006, which I cite because it shows an exception that is no longer shown, but that might still apply. Or not. --Abd (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support discussion that might eventually lead to a policy - but I agree with Ningauble that an up or down vote at this point is premature. And as an aside, I am still not convinced we will be able to arrive at a consensus on this - there are strong feelings on each side. But we will see. I believe such an endeavor would benefit from being led by someone not intimately involved with the arguments set forth above. As such, I will gladly participate, but I would abstain from leading such a project so that objectivity is maintained (I hope that others will do likewise). ~ UDScott (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm all for having guidelines. Whether there will be consensus for any specific elements thereof is another question. BD2412 T 21:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support guideline in congruence with existing policies and guidelines as noted by Cirt above. Collect (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with Ningauble, BD2412, and UDScott. It is woefully premature at 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)

Canvassing[edit]

Use of BC and AD[edit]

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

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

25,000 articles milestone[edit]

Wikiquote-logo-25000-articles.png

Hello, I prepared new logos to celebrate important Wikiquote milestones: File:Wikiquote-logo-25000-articles.png. We use 20k version on Italian Wikiquote, now [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.

Cheers,

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

[edit]

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

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

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

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

MediaWiki mobile

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

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

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

Greetings,

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- wikimedia.org

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)

[edit]

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 35.8.59.45 (talkcontribs) . 12:50, May 29, 2015 (edit) (undo)

There is a listing of https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:LongPages -- 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)

HTTPS[edit]

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
Ankh-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
Tetrad.svg
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.
Sam-I-Am.

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


To Kalki, from IOHANNVSVERVS;

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)

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

Hi,
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)