Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/027

American Dad!/Season 1...

Could some other administrator take a look at the recently new created American Dad!/Season 1, American Dad!/Season 2, American Dad!/Season 3, and the recent ongoing disagreement, particularly if this violates current policies and/or limits of quotations? Thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While we have no hard and fast rule on when such TV pages should be split into pages for seasons, usually it happens when the parent page becomes so large that it is unwieldy (which is often the case for shows that have 10+ seasons). In this case, I don't know that it was necessary at this point in time, given that there is not currently a ton of quotes for this show. That being said, however, I see nothing wrong with splitting it and would support the anon's work in doing so. Should someone endeavor to populate the page(s) with quotes from each episode, it would surely swell into one that could benefit from being split anyway. In the end, I do not favor a hard and fast rule in either direction. Single pages for a TV show might provide the benefit of ease of use and are preferable to some, but I would not want to preclude a user from creating season pages either. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the latter part of Mdd's original question: yes, the article(s) far exceed Wikiquote:Limits on quotations. The extent to which creating multiple pages for the same program may tend to encourage this is unclear.

I think that an excess of quotes and a superfluity of pages both tend to defeat the purpose of showcasing whatever memorably quoteworthy bits may be buried therein. The reader might as well just get the DVDs and watch the whole thing. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Ningauble's point is of course also quite valid here - as this is a half-hour show, each episode should only have 2 quotes. If the limit were properly applied, perhaps the need for pages for individual seasons would be lessened or even removed. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove interaction ban.

User:DanielTom and User:Cirt have managed to avoid being at odds for several months now, and both have otherwise contributed productively in that time (although Cirt seems to be taking a break since last month). In any case, I think it's time to lift their interaction ban. I think they have outgrown it. BD2412 T 02:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it is not so much the case that the interaction ban between these individuals is no longer necessary, as it is the case that it never adequately dealt with the ongoing long term pattern of disruption by one of them, i.e. Cirt's targeting multiple contributors with obsessive attacks and harassment (most recently, before the current break, in a campaign of harassment targeted against myself[1]) and tendentiously employing illogical, counter-factual, and duplicitous arguments ad nauseam. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, I propose to remove it. I think that Cirt has mellowed; he did support Kalki's last RfA. BD2412 T 19:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support removal of this particular ban, but I also agree with Ningauble regarding the behavior of Cirt - should such patterns resurface, that is where we should probably direct our efforts. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, BD2412 (talk · contributions), for noting that I have mellowed, and for pointing out that I did support at Kalki's last RfA. I strive to take your wise advice to heart. BD2412, your kind words are most appreciated. Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also support removal of this particular ban. Mdd (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no objection, the interaction ban is lifted. Of course, no one is required to interact with anyone else, and any interaction that does occur should be civil. To the extent that disagreements arise, please focus on the policy at issue, and not on personalities. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Also, strongly agree with the rest of the statement by BD2412 (talk · contributions), here, above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that finally someone other than myself is coming to realize that we're dealing with a dangerous and mentally disturbed individual. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for deletion

Hi, could someone delete my user page, in order to display the global user page? Thanks. --Denny (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Mdd (talk) 09:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdd: Thanks! --Denny (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse in the wikiquote sandbox header statement

Thought I should report an abusive phrase in the header which is shown on the wikiquote sandbox page. it's not in the "Edit" subpage. 2.100.232.121 21:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC) 16/06/2015[reply]

Done - I removed the offensive language. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

70Jack90/90Jack70

Would you do us all a favor and please block 70Jack90 for its false allegation against me?

Furthermore, it has been undoing all my highly-justified edits and constantly failed to comply with Wikiquote's limitations on quotes.

And recently, it had become the real sockpuppet, as its other account: 90Jack70, had proven.

And I request that all its false threats and foul language on its edit summaries (including that of its sockpuppet account) be removed immediately. WikiLubber (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Limits on quotations

It's been some time since I tried to resurrect this topic, but here goes again: this remains a proposed policy - and it also remains one on which I do not believe we have complete agreement regarding acceptable limits. Can we perhaps re-start some discussion around it? Although not truly official, it is often cited in disputes regarding the number of quotes on a page (for example see here). I for one believe that some of the limits espoused on the page are a bit stringent and would like to discuss relaxing some of these proposed limits. In the end, it would be nice if we could finally arrive at something the community can agree upon and make something official. Any thoughts? ~ UDScott (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Three quotes maximum per game." This needs to go. Some games, especially RPGs (think Final Fantasy), have more dialogue than 50 movies combined. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with both points above. BD2412 T 13:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So we rebloat back all those series articles many people worked so hard to condense?!!? --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It partly depends on copyright. Obviously, if a work is in copyright and we quote more than is reasonable fair use, that is wrong. But if a work is out of copyright and full of good quotations, say a Shakespeare play, then we should be liberal.--Abramsky (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our limitations for works in copyright are still much tighter than they need to be to meet reasonable fair use. BD2412 T 15:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

musical vandal

IP 100.38.77.254 should be blocked. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done blocked for one month page protected for three - Miszatomic (Talk)

You forgot to block him. [2] ~ DanielTom (talk) 06:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for RfA closure

If a bureaucrat or uninvolved administrator would care to close Requests for adminship/IOHANNVSVERVS, it appears to be ready. Thanks. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at it now. BD2412 T 17:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done BD2412 T 17:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TF2 page facing lots of vandalism

Request semi-protection: lots of IP vandalism. and that's A LOT. just look at its edit history and look at how much vandalism there is. at least protect for 1 month, or even half a year. --Fazbear7891 (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or just delete it for having a completely inappropriate quantity of content lacking quotability. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^^IDK, we'll have to discuss that later on. I think somebody has to protect it before we talk about deleting it. and there may be some copyright issues per the talk page box, idk if we have to clean it up. --Fazbear7891 (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotected for one month. I am minded to support deletion.--Abramsky (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]