Wikiquote:Village pump

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

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

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

Reference desk
comment | history | archive

Questions and discussions about specific quotes.

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


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

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

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

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

YouTube comment added as quote by WQ admin[edit]

Hey there folks, now I'm not a Wikiquote editor, I've stumbled upon this completely by accident, I don't have any idea about the ins and outs of this project, I'm a couple of months late, and I'm not much for internet drama, plenty of that at our local wiki, so feel free to tell me to buzz off if I'm way off base here. But I'm pretty sure basic wiki project rules and Wikiquote:Wikiquote and whatever still apply.

One of your current administrators (!?!), User:Illegitimate Barrister, has seen fit to add a YouTube comment to three pages on here about a year ago and then again in January this year, even rendering the user handle TheDreadBaron123something as "T. D. Baron" in the attribution. Here [1], here [2], and [3]. As I said, I got basically zero clue as to how you do things here, but what the hell. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

"T. D. Baron". Lol. Well, at least Illegitimate Barrister apparently recognizes that "TheDreadBaron71" doesn't sound very authoritative, or even credible. Not that that stopped him from linking to the nonexistent "TheDreadBaron71" Wikipedia page (a hallmark of his). To me it's obvious that all the articles Illegitimate Barrister has ever touched will need to be reviewed – just keep in mind, he has already made over 35,000 edits... any volunteers? ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC) P.S. Again, silver lining: if that abbreviation indeed shows Illegitimate Barrister recognizes that what he did was wrong (and I believe he is intelligent enough to understand why those additions are inappropriate by any standard), he can go back to those articles he heavily edited and remove his objectionable additions himself on his own; that would be ideal. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I posted this at the Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard as well – and added a dozen more examples. That's just unbelievable. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 02:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad CCCVCCCC has raised this issue. I also noticed that User:Illegitimate Barrister has been making edits that seem to be motivated more by a political agenda than by the intention of creating a high quality Wikiquote website. This includes quotes from non-notable and marginally notable sources. It includes quotes on theme pages that are marginally relevant to the theme.

DanielTom has raised this issue with Illegitimate Barrister before. Illegitimate Barrister responded by merely deleting the attempt to begin a discussion. This seems to me contrary to the spirit of resolving disagreements by open and civil discussion ~ Peter1c (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


I'm not sure if French and French people really need to be separated since the difference doesn't seem to be so great. I noticed the problem because I don't know how to connect them on Wikidata, since both seem to relate to the same page on en.WP -> w:French people. --Superchilum (talk) 08:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

anyone? --Superchilum (talk) 11:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we can turn the page French into a redirect, and move its first quote to France, and the last two to French people. (The second one is already in Propaganda.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Or turn it into a disambiguation page, with links to relevant pages (such as France, French people, maybe even French proverbs, etc.). ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY merged. I combined the two articles about the peoples of France at French people, without prejudice to further refinements concerning which quotes pertain to the peoples and which to the country, France. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

How often are wikiquote changes recognized by google or other search engines?[edit]

I'm new and have made some changes, additions and new pages. But when I go to search the content on google, it isn't coming up. I searched with and without quotes, and still nothing. Anyone have any information on this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2602:306:3790:df40:e09f:d13c:87b:9cf8 (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2016

I don't think Google and other search providers disclose this kind of information about their operations. They update their data as often as they think is necessary for their business to prosper. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

Hi folks, I'm wondering if the English Wikiquote has a page equivalent to Wikipedia's requested moves page. Specifically, I'm hoping to request that John Oliver (comedian) be moved over the redirect John Oliver as disambiguation doesn't appear to be required (unless it is done this way for a reason I'm not aware of as a non-regular at Wikiquote). Cheers, Graham11 (talk) 05:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done because (1) to match recently moved Wikipedia title, and (2) Wikiquote has no other John Olivers. Re. the procedural question, the Village Pump is a fine place to make this sort of request. Wikiquote is a small project without a lot of special purpose pages for requesting assistance. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much, Ningauble! Graham11 (talk) 03:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Quote listed in two places[edit]

The quote "I must follow them, for I am their leader" is listed under Leadership#L and under Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin with different citation information in each place. Probably all of it is true, but it needs to be merged or linked. I do not know how this is done on Wikiquote. Perhaps someone else can do this. Thanks. JonH (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@JonH: It's not a problem to have a quotation in more than one place (although more than five or six probably would be). This is something that could be fixed with a m:Semantic Wikiquote but we are nowhere near there yet. —Justin (koavf)TCM 14:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Gore Vidal, conspiracy analyst + Mark Twain[edit]

"Don't be a conspiracy theorist, be a conspiracy analyst (or conspiracy realist)." is frequently quoted by Lionel (radio personality) and attributed to Gore Vidal. I hope the proper attribution can be found regardless of whether Lionel is correct or not. —This unsigned comment is by JasonCarswell (talkcontribs) .

Vidal said "I'm not a conspiracy theorist - I'm a conspiracy analyst" in 2007. ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I added one but now have two more[Lionel Nation 1] alleged quotes for Gore Vidal:

  • "There will come a day where it is an article of faith to be an American to say that there are no conspiracy theories." ~ Gore Vidal
  • "Conspiracy theory has become a code word for the unspeakable truth." ~ Gore Vidal

—This unsigned comment is by JasonCarswell (talkcontribs) .

They are Vidal's, slightly altered. First quote: "Post-9/11, the American media were filled with pre-emptory denunciations of unpatriotic 'conspiracy theorists', who not only are always with us but are usually easy for the media to discredit since it is an article of faith that there are no conspiracies in American life." Second one: "Apparently, 'conspiracy stuff' is now shorthand for unspeakable truth." Both quotes are from "The Enemy Within", The Observer (London), 27 October 2002. ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 07:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

These are used here:

Can someone help source this?:

Thank you! ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

"He that hath once got the fame of an early riser, may sleep till noon." —James Howell, Epistolae Ho-Elianae (see this 1655 edition). ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Section References
  1. . Lionel and Alex Jones Globalism's Worst Nightmare. Lionel Nation on InfoWars (2014-08-12). Retrieved on 2016-08-26. from 8m44s to 9m22s
  2. . Our American Voter Ignorant, Clueless, Confused and Misinformed. Lionel Nation (2016-09-04). Retrieved on 2016-09-09. from 0m00s to 0m10s

Dispute resolution - Ecclesiastes[edit]

Kalki and I, IOHANNVSVERVS, are in an edit dispute at the page Ecclesiastes.

I object to this edit which adds many irrelevant images and significantly worsens the page overall in my opinion. There are likely some valuable additions in this edit, but the bad so outweighs the good that I believe the time and effort it would take to sort through and correct the errors is too great to be reasonable.

The dispute rests on the following comparison: Kalki's edition vs IOHANNVSVERVS'

Thanks to all,
IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

IOHANNVSVERVS has the bad habit of deleting sourced quotations for no reason (or, at best, no explicitly stated reason). His version now has:
  • "Anyone who is among the living has hope--even a live dog is better off than a dead lion!" and
  • "For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all".
This pales in comparison to the KJV translation (which was featured in Kalki's version, but in IOHANNVSVERVS's is nowhere to be found):
  • "For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion. For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing".
Kalki restored this and other translations, while retaining IOHANNVSVERVS's preferred versions. IOHANNVSVERVS needs to be warned: "Quotes should never be removed without a comment in the edit summary, and should almost always be moved to the Talk page with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning. If it is a misattribution, the quote should not be removed, instead moving to a "Misattributed" section, where explanation of the misattribution can be made in a subbullet. Thanks." ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Seeing the unexplained removal of mass quantities of quotations (except by meaningless and uncivil reference to an "editspree"), IOHANNVSVERVS should also be warned about WP:SUMMARYNO. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Bolding, again[edit]

To the point. Bolding passages serves gross distortion. I have skimmed past discussions on the subject. The arguments amounted to 'it's established practice' and 'all quotations are selective and therefore emphasis in the first place, therefore, emphasis is unavoidable'. As for the former, irrelevant. As for the latter, might be true, but we ought to minimize it where possible.

There is glaring anti-intellectual bias with respect to bolding. I've observed it in many articles, but the direct stimulus to make this section is the Feynman page. Basically every bolded passage is a thoroughly dishonest highlight of phrases which can be construed as 'science isn't everything', 'truth isn't achievable', 'there are more important things than learning'. It does the man's character gross injustice. One of the side illustrations had a religious symbol attached ffs. Wikiquote is basically overtaken by people trying to give physicists, mathematicians, et c. an ecumenic 'science and religion are complementary' spin. You have clearly noticed that yourself.

This has been putting me off Wikiquote for years, and if bolding isn't prohibited and undone by a bot -- which it isn't going to be -- then I'm no longer going to use it. User:

Bolding is useful to highlight and draw attention to the most famous quotes in long pages. When it is used in a "thoroughly dishonest" manner, it can (and should) be removed. WQ:IMAGE also allows you to remove images that you believe to be inappropriate. Be bold (no pun intended). ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Ha, well, yes, but I'm hoping for a general policy discussion. Bolding does more harm through its potential to misrepresent the author than it helps through its potential to highlight supposedly crucial sub-passages. If you're looking for a confirmation or source or details on a particular quote, literally every browser has a fast search function. And if you're just visiting, then why even visit a quote collection if you're not actually going to read them in full? We're not forcing anyone to read Wikiquote; there is no hurry, no obligation for us to spoonfeed people the important bits. And there is no counterargument to that that if so, then we should refer people to actual books for complete context, since those only are available in libraries or bookstores. Bolding does more harm than good. Wikiquote is not about subjective selections, it's about objective inclusion of as much context as possible. The subjectivity of inclusion of quotes is a sad necessity coming from author rights (we just can't quote entire works), not a justification of *further* gratuituous subjectification. User:
I also want it on record that I did not, and do not, sign my posts with my IP. An overeager user did that. There is no reason for IP to be visible beyond the page history. I sign my posts with ~~~~, which is sufficient. User:

I want this topic to be a subject of a formal consideration such as (but not necessarily) a vote. User:

@ Please sign your posts normally so someone knows who is writing. "Signing" with ~~~~ doesn't signify anything. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Per DanielTom's point above, bolding should only be used "to highlight and draw attention to the most famous quotes in long pages". There should be some empirical means of determining which quotes or portions of long quotes are the most famous. BD2412 T 14:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

As we are all aware, this has been discussed several times and, although there is general acknowledgement that boldface can be misused, there is no consensus to ban it.

I seldom use it myself (e.g. this example with reason in edit summary), and remove it more often than I add it (e.g. these examples with reasons in edit summaries). Personally, I believe boldface should be used seldom, for sound reason in exceptional circumstances.

Theoretically, we could develop guidelines on when boldface is and is not appropriate, beginning along the lines BD2412 suggests. As a practical matter, much as I would like to see more empirical objectivity around here, I suspect there are subjective aspects that are difficult to formalize. Given that the present situation is pretty awful, and unlike any other compendium of quotations, it may be worth a try. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Bold passages are for me far too reminiscent of a library book with passages highlighted by a previous borrower. When presented with a text, a reader must be free to decide for herself which passages are most important. We editors are already tasked with deciding which passages belong and which do not. This seems to me like responsibility enough. Adding yet more judgments about the relative importance of text, in my opinion, unduly exaggerates the voice of the collector, to the detriment of the autonomy of the reader. ~ Peter1c (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

koavf, I do exactly what I'm told to do: sign my posts with four tildes. BD2412, Ningauble, Peter1c, I agree completely. Just Google testing is probably inadequate to determine the most popular quotes, so the only hope would be some sort of biblographical API per which we could determine the, for instance, top 2 % quotes most cited in literature. (Or perhaps a criterion could be, say, being mentioned in at least three different anthologies.) That said, while it's still best to drop bolding completely, a transitory phase could be conditional styling: span.popular { font-weight: bold; }

And a button, 'Highlight the quotes the community has subjectively considered most popular.', triggering the body style. Also, perhaps the signifier could be something less invasive in the first place, like a subtle icon at the margin. User:

For a quick and dirty example, consider <--- . Book icoline.svg User:
I apologize for still posting here, but I owe my fellow editors an explanation. Namely, I will not be able to reply to their possible replies to my points re. bolding above (rationales, visual realizations, criteria for popularity, bots), owing to Koavf's continued disruption of my points. The exact reason for this has been concealed in the 'off-topic' section above. Again, my apologies. ~~~~—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2016
(Also, here is a copy of a comment I made in it: 'Also, I'm thinking of approximate automatization of their removal by a bot, but I can't really think of a criterion other than 'longer than (say) three words'. Any ideas? Perhaps trailing punctuation (if the bolding ends with a colon, it's not likely to be prose)? The thing to discount is e. g. titles of list items. Perhaps 'if the bolding opens more than three subsequent lines, discount it'?') ~~~~—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2016
I'm afraid that this would remove legitimate selections for bolding as readily as poor choices. This may be better accomplished as a manual task. However, we can probably get a bot-generated list of suspect pages to check. BD2412 T 22:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
It is very premature to discuss ways automate doing this before there is clear consensus on a guideline for what is to be done. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Alphabetic TOC templates with letters combined into groups vs. separate letters[edit]

Hello fellow Wikiquote editors. When alphabetic table of contents templates are used on theme pages, I wanted to offer some arguments for using templates that include separate TOC entries for each letter of the alphabet, as opposed to headings that combine letters into groups ("A-F", etc.). The reasons I offer are:

  1. I find far more alphabetization errors in theme pages that use combined alphabetic TOC entries than in pages that use separate TOC headings for individual letters.
  2. When the page grows, the combined TOC headings will have to be replaced with separate headings for each letter to maintain reasonable section sizes.
  3. On theme pages that have alphabetic TOC headings, far more pages currently have separate entries for each letter than have combined entries. For the sake of uniformity and consistency, it may be better to adopt the more common practice.

Admittedly these are not very persuasive arguments, really just a statement of preference, but I wanted to express them nonetheless. ~ Peter1c (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

My preference would also be to deprecate these letter range indexes. If a page is so long that an alphabetical index is needful, then index by individual letters. If not, then do not index it. I have many times removed indexes and their associated section headings form articles that had only a handful of quotes, and am at a loss to understand why anyone would want to clutter the page with such superfluous markup. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with avoiding the clutter, but isn't that a reason, on pages with large numbers of quotes, to group together letters that account for only a small proportion of the quotes? BD2412 T 21:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
The problem with the "TOC template", as I see it, is that it often ends up linking to sections that don't actually exist. (See Jargon for an example.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
The Jargon article, with less than a dozen quotes at present[6], is a fine example of a page that needs no index. The entire article fills less than two screenfuls, so there is no need for a navigation tool to jump around the page. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Love, on the other hand, is a page that clearly does need some kind of navigational tool - but even that page has an empty section "Q" to which someone might jump, to find nothing. I would get rid of the empty section, or merge it into a "P-Q" or the like. BD2412 T 18:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
The letter range index is as simple version of the TOC template. The objections made here seem marginal, while I think the problem with the "TOC template" not linking is a major flaw (for which a solution would be nice). An advantage of the letter range index is, that it can be implemented at once in a complete form, and gives in general (I think) a better balance. A question remains how long an article should be before any navigation template could/should be added? In (featured) Wikipedia articles sections seem no longer that one standard screen long, and this could be a guideline for Wikiquote as well. -- Mdd (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Main Page QOTD image use[edit]


Continuation of this discussion:

"Now we're seeing an image to the right. The person putting up the QOTD seems hell-bent on ensuring we need some very specific language. This is ridiculous." TreeRol (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

For a year now Wikiquote's Main Page has had an image in the "New Pages" section, on the right side of the screen. But Kalki (who likes to rebel against "authoritarian" rules) very often chooses to place the QOTD image to the right as well. Am I wrong in thinking that common sense and a basic understanding of aesthetics both require that the QOTD image appear to the left of the QOTD, for balance? ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I stand by my previous comment, although I admit that I was so relieved to see the (significant) progress we made that I didn't feel the need to argue it further. That said, I believe we agreed it would be on the left, and so it should be on the left.TreeRol (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


Birgit Müller (WMDE) 14:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Open call for Project Grants[edit]

IEG barnstar 2.png

Greetings! The Project Grants program is accepting proposals from September 12 to October 11 to fund new tools, research, offline outreach (including editathon series, workshops, etc), online organizing (including contests), and other experiments that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers. Project Grants can support you and your team’s project development time in addition to project expenses such as materials, travel, and rental space.

Also accepting candidates to join the Project Grants Committee through October 1.

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

1960 quote[edit]

I would like to propose that we change the 1960 placeholder to an actual page with the following quote:

Thoughts folks? Solomon7968 (talk) 05:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to using such pages for quotes about the years, and about the numbers designated also, as I expect significantly notable quotes relating to either will probably be rather scarce for most of them — and I believe I have used at least one or two pages in such ways myself, including one for 23 (which might be used as a model for further pages of this type). I believe such is a likely development on many more eventually, but there have been no concerted efforts to use them in this way, and I doubt if there will soon be such, though creating a cataloging tag of the ones so used would probably be appropriate. ~ Kalki·· 14:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC) + tweaks
I would suggest something like a header such as this, largely based on the Wikipedia one for the year, for now:
1960 was a leap year starting on Friday (dominical letter CB) of the Gregorian calendar, the 1960th year of the Common Era (CE) and Anno Domini (AD) designations, the 960th year of the 2nd millennium, the 60th year of the 20th century, and the 1st year of the 1960s decade. It is also known as the "Year of Africa" because of major events—particularly the independence of seventeen African nations—that focused global attention on the continent and intensified feelings of Pan-Africanism.
Further work with some Wikipedia templates might make more extensive use of these pages here more convenient, but I doubt if it would be a high priority for many people, any time soon. ~ Kalki·· 14:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure what we will ever do with these "year placeholder" pages, but I don't think this quote is it. The pertinence of being "in the midst of" to the putative topic is rather weak – it is not like the author is indicating a turning point or milestone in that year. Nor is there any evident Quotability in this remark, which does not appear to have been quoted anywhere. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I would like to quote edicts of governments about the year in a sorting table, but please talk at Wikiquote talk:Guide to layout#Sorting of quotes before I actually start any sorting tables.--Jusjih (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Grants to improve your project[edit]

Greetings! The Project Grants program is currently accepting proposals for funding. There is just over a week left to submit before the October 11 deadline. If you have ideas for software, offline outreach, research, online community organizing, or other projects that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers, start your proposal today! Please encourage others who have great ideas to apply as well. Support is available if you want help turning your idea into a grant request.

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Dante Alighieri admiring 16 religions all at once[edit]

It is no secret that Kalki devotes much of his time and energy to promoting Universalism (as any sampling of his QOTD selections will show). Before the implementation of the Image use policy, hundreds of Wikiquote pages were (and still are) polluted with irrelevant, oftentimes misleading, religious imagery. And I think it's fair to say that the many complaints about image use that Wikiquote has received over the years have been almost entirely due to Kalki. While I have great admiration for Kalki (as an extremely well-read man, and a "founding father" of Wikiquote), I am disturbed by his misleading usage of religious imagery that sometimes directly contradicts both the spirit and the letter of the quotes, or the author's whole life's work. I have come to the conclusion that to Kalki, it doesn't matter what the author thinks and says – what matters is what Kalki thinks. His POV-pushing goes to such lengths that he puts together his own images (usually bad, infantile combinations of others available on Commons) and posts them all over Wikiquote. This (pictured) is a prime example. "Dante and Beatrice gaze upon the highest Heaven" (used in today's QOTD, in Universalism, and in many other Wikiquote pages). I don't know if Kalki has ever bothered to read the Divine Comedy, but he certainly must know that Dante was a Christian. (In fact, Dante made a point of showing Muhammad cut in half in his Hell.) Of course this didn't stop Kalki from adding to the illustration of Dante's Heaven a bunch of intrusive symbols representing different religions, because again what matters to him is not what Dante believed in, but what Kalki believes in – that it goes directly against Dante's view and distorts the original illustration is not even a minor concern for him. He's trying to teach Wikiquote readers the truth of Universalism, and will not let honesty and historical integrity get in the way. ~ DanielTom (talk) 02:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. As discussed just over a year ago at Wikiquote:Village pump archive 45#Exhibiting user artworks on Wikiquote Main Page, this is highly inappropriate. Seeing that this is a persistent, ongoing problem with one user who is well aware that the community disapproves, it may be appropriate to consider imposing sanctions in the form of an editing restriction to prohibit this user from posting any self-generated images on Wikiquote. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps a good idea to require all selfmade images on Wikiquote be discussed and approved by the community before inclusion. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Agree I respect that Kalki is very active here and I don't know that I disagree with his perspective but I don't feel like images like the one above add anything to this quotation bank other than confusion. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

When we have excellent, high-quality photographs of many of the greatest artworks of history available on Wikimedia Commons, why are we still using amateur, non-notable images? I would suggest we apply the same standard of notability for images that we apply for all other content. ~ Peter1c (talk) 06:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

  • I would support such a limitation with respect to artwork other than depictions of the actual article subjects for articles on people, which can be harder to come by. BD2412 T 16:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Creative Commons 4.0[edit]

Hello! I'm writing from the Wikimedia Foundation to invite you to give your feedback on a proposed move from CC BY-SA 3.0 to a CC BY-SA 4.0 license across all Wikimedia projects. The consultation will run from October 5 to November 8, and we hope to receive a wide range of viewpoints and opinions. Please, if you are interested, take part in the discussion on Meta-Wiki.

Apologies that this message is only in English. This message can be read and translated in more languages here. Joe Sutherland (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


Hello. I'm a long-established editor on Wikipedia, but I've used WQ only occasionally. I was going through the article on Wilhelm Röntgen and was puzzled by the links to everyday terms like start, now, and appeared. My first inclination was to remove those and only leave links to either other quoted subjects (like William Crookes) or WP links to non-everyday terms like "Crookes tube", but I thought I'd better double-check first. Is that standard practice? There are other articles with similar types of links, but also ones more in keeping with what I'll call "standard" levels of linking on WP. TBH, I find them distracting, but that could well be just because (coming from WP) I would assume they were cryptic links. Are people reading quotes on Röntgen really served by linking to a page of quotes about appearance? Or vice versa. I wouldn't think so, but would like to discuss it. Matt Deres (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hypertext makes a virtue out of lack of organization, allowing ideas and thoughts to be juxtaposed at will. [...] The advent of hypertext is apt to make writing much more difficult, not easier. Good writing, that is.
Donald Norman, The Design of Everyday Things
I would not call it "standard" practice (many fine articles do not have these links), but it is tolerated. This has been discussed before without reaching any consensus on when it is and is not appropriate to link words in a quote. I think greater restraint would be better, but that's just my opinion. I will have more to say if the community wants to take the matter up again. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The criterion I use for determining if a link is relevant is:

A link is relevant if the reader might reasonably be supposed to be prompted by the quotation to seek information from the linked article.

Consider this (actual) example:

* The more one [[suffers]], the more, I [[believe]], has one a [[sense]] for the [[Comedy|comic]].
** [[Kierkegaard]]

I would argue that the link to [[belief]] here is no more relevant than linking to [[Being]] for every use of the word "is."

Specific cases will fall somewhere on a spectrum of relevance, which will inevitably be subjective, but, frankly, one gets the impression that the purpose of some of these links is more to publicize certain pet projects than to provide relevant resources for the reader. ~ Peter1c (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Editing News #3—2016[edit]

17:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Andrus Ansip and context removal[edit]

I'd like to dispute this edit, where the context I added about the quote was removed in an article about Andrus Ansip. -Mardus (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  • If you want to dispute it then you may want to offer a reason. The underlying reason I removed the extended remarks can be summarized in four words: Wikiquote is for quotes. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)