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


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

Introducing the Wikimedia public policy site[edit]

Hi all,

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

Visit the public policy portal: https://policy.wikimedia.org/

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

Thanks,

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

(Sent with the Global message delivery system)

QOTD Proposal[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Comment: I strongly agree with the comments by DanielTom, above. My thanks to DanielTom for the logical and rational way in which he has presented these most helpful ideas. -- Cirt (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – I have no problem with multiple images being used, provided they are relevant with the message and meaning of the quotation. They help to illustrate and emphasize the selected quotation better by employing visual themes. – Illegitimate Barrister, 13:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Vote on Main Page Image Policy[edit]

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

The current model is as so:

The alternative model would appear thus:

The differences being that:

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

This proposal authored by IOHANNVSVERVS

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

Current model[edit]

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

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

Alternative model[edit]

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

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

  • Support, for similar reasons as cited above (the clean look of the main page that greets users and the removal of POV from the selection of images for the QOTD). ~ UDScott (talk) 13:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I'll leave it to others to determine how much weight this vote should carry, but this is a torch I carried for a while, and I feel correct in trying to "edit" this compendium in this way. TreeRol (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Absolutely yes, and I'm sorry I was away so long and didn't vote earlier.- Macspaunday (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support alternative model. Many thanks to DanielTom for the original ideas, above, and to IOHANNVSVERVS for this proposal. Thanks very much to both of you for bringing some clarity to these issues, above. -- Cirt (talk) 21:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Implementing language[edit]

Proposal 1[edit]

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

Comment: I as well agree with this proposal, above. -- Cirt (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal 2[edit]

  • In the first specific-language discussion, I suggested something along these lines:

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

    I still think this is best.

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

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

Is it necessary to implement a policy?[edit]

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

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

We already have policy regarding Relevance IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Now we're seeing an image to the right. The person putting up the QOTD seems hell-bent on ensuring we need some very specific language. This is ridiculous. TreeRol (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Yes, I strongly believe it is necessary to implement a policy. As, unfortunately, without one the community consensus could be forgotten and/or attempted to be manipulated or debated in the future. -- Cirt (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal 2 revisited[edit]

  • I, too, would like to see the language be somewhat specific.  In the first discussion section (see below), I suggested something along these lines:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment: Strongly agree with everything in the proposed wording here by Allixpeeke in this subsection, above. -- Cirt (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Ranking system:

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


Suggestions[edit]


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

  • 0allixpeeke (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)  I am not fond of this option as I believe it leaves the main page often looking unprofessional.
  • 0— strongly agree with reasoning by Allixpeeke, above. -- Cirt (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

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

  • 3allixpeeke (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)  I give this option a ranking of three instead of two because we might wish to keep the rule simple just to see how Kalki handles it.
  • 0— should be strongly relevant to topic. -- Cirt (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

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

  • 2allixpeeke (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • 0— should be strongly relevant to topic. -- Cirt (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

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


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


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


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

  • 4allixpeeke (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)  This option is my favourite as it both gives a certain bit of leeway but also sets reasonable parameters.
  • 3 -- Cirt (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

None of the above

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

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

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


Comments[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ranking system:

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


Suggestions[edit]


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

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

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

  • 3allixpeeke (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • 4Macspaunday (talk) 12:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)  But I'm afraid that this will put us back in the same mess we're in now, because someone can always explain that an image of the night sky or a hexagram or anything else is "closely associated" with a quotation that has nothing to do with it - exactly what we have now.
  • 4 - no more than one image. -- Cirt (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

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

  • 4allixpeeke (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)  If there has to be official language, I would prefer it to be this.  It sets reasonable parameters.
  • 3 - no more than one image. -- Cirt (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Comments[edit]

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

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

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

  • It seems some people, Ningauble in particular, still think this thread is "calling for a vote" and that "calling for a vote is not the way to 'get the ball rolling'."  It's probably my fault that these users think this, as I used the word "vote" in the title of this thread.  (In a sense, it is a "vote"; but in another sense, it is not.)  To make the matter clearer, I have changed the title of this thread from "Vote on Quote-of-the-Day Image Policy (Specific Language)" to "Discussion on Quote-of-the-Day Image Policy (Specific Language)."  Apologies to anyone who was mislead by the less-than-optimal former title.  allixpeeke (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Again, this section is about discussing the proposal on the table, and not anything else.  If Ninjauble disagrees with the emerging consensus for that proposal then she/he may want to consider changing her/his vote and offering a competing proposal.  (Offering just one option is probably not going to change the consensus for this one.)  Let the community notice that of the four options listed in this discussion, only the fourth one (which I only included because it conformed with the less-than-worthy "Actual Main Page September 3, 2015" image) does not conform with the "Alternative Main Page September 3, 2015" image.  Every single one of the options above that I remotely supported confirm my vote.  Regards, allixpeeke (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Since the discussion on this section seems to be matured, why not go ahead to have an official vote w/ a completed draft policy which would summarize the past proposals/discussions/comments? --Aphaia (talk) 05:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I think the discussion at #Implementing language is the one to pursue for completing a draft policy summarizing the past proposals/discussions/comments and !votes.
Discussion in this section, with input from only two users, seems to be going nowhere. Language in this section fails to address the key point regarding QotD in the consensus at #Vote on Main Page Image Policy above. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

  • I have reservations about it:
    • It looks like a lot of overlinking.
    • Not every word has a Wiktionary definition; what do we do if one is missing? Who will check this?
    • Lots of small links make it easier to mis-click.
BD2412 T 13:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I think this would be overkill, and would not be particularly useful because word-for-word translation is a recipe for confusion. Best practice is to quote and cite a reliable source that translates the original into English. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree with BD2412 and Ningauble that this most certainly be overkill. Ningauble has the exact right idea about best practices here. :) -- Cirt (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

You get better results if you use Google Translate.--Abramsky (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Reimagining WMF grants report[edit]

IdeaLab beaker and flask.svg

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

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

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

Who are they?[edit]

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

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

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

As remarked on the article talk page, I suspect it is the film. Teleplays released in video format are readily available; and it is actually quite rare at Wikiquote for anyone to quote the script of a contemporary theatrical play unless a performance has been posted on yootoob or other audiovisual medium. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svgY Done, moved page, to Beautiful Thing (film). -- Cirt (talk) 00:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Svetlana Alexievich[edit]

Could someone pls add {{wikiquote}} to the external links section of w:Svetlana Alexievich (who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature today)? Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

P.S. There are other articles which I've recently created here, that are not linked to from Wikipedia. Once again, I'll list a few here: • David Bentley HartTimothy Shay ArthurJohn Shelby SpongJörg HaiderAllegoryHenry NettleshipAl-MaʿarriJohn Rhys-DaviesSnobs (TV series)Pamela GellerRobert D. San SouciFrançois de MalherbeCharles RollinRené-Aubert VertotWilliam RobertsonYumi HottaFrançois MignetMarco Girolamo VidaChristopher PittJames D. MacdonaldSoame JenynsRichard Owen Cambridge. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Added the first ten of these (through Pamela Geller) as a thank-you for your contributions to the makeover of the front page. Thank you! - Macspaunday (talk) 02:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Thx. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if this can't be automated (or at least semi-automated). BD2412 T 22:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with BD2412 that automation or semi-automation would be the best solution here. Perhaps some collaboration with Wikidata would be helpful ? -- Cirt (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Library[edit]

A thought. You might be aware of "Wikipedia Library", specially if you visited our sister project recently. I heard it gives us a chance to access scholar materials like papers and databases. Some of those databases are actually a compendium of literature, for example, Loeb online. Working on some classic authors in these days, I'm believing in its merit for our project. Although Loeb collection can be accessible via Google, they say unlimited access costs 150 USD per year. Applying for Wikipedia Library, if I understand correctly, reduces this cost from individual volunteers. Wikiquotians who works on such literary works might get benefit from such an occasion greatly. --Aphaia (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a VERY useful service. More info, at w:WP:Library. -- Cirt (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Layout[edit]

I thought the banner at [1] looked like a good cosmetic addition to the main page, or something similar: as in, not something that varies from day to day. What are everyone else's thoughts on this? Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 17:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Our French colleagues know how to make the site pretty. I love their coloring for quotes and their source, too. --Aphaia (talk) 17:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I agree here with Rubbish computer and Aphaia that the French version is a very nice layout. -- Cirt (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

More attention appreciated at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Jim Henson[edit]

More attention appreciated at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Jim Henson, please.

  1. The deletion discussion at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Jim Henson has open open for longer than one (1) month.
  2. Allixpeeke greatly helped to improve the sourcing on the page, and I've added a fully sourced About section.
  3. Every single quote on the page is now properly cited and sourced.
  4. Aphaia asked users who had previously commented to the page to consider changing their votes, due to the improvements, per DIFF.
  5. The only user who had previously commented "delete", other than the nominator himself, was Rubbish computer, who changed his vote to "Keep", per DIFF.

Summary: It appears that after one (1) month of time for discussion, and now unanimous consent for "Keep" (excluding the nominator who has seemingly not revisited the deletion discussion after the improvement efforts by Allixpeeke and myself) — could the discussion perhaps be closed as "Keep", at this point in time ?

Thank you for your consideration in this matter,

-- Cirt (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Another week has passed since Cirt posted this.  While it's no sweat off my back that the discussion is still "open," I do have to admit that it leaves me scratching my head, especially considering that no fewer than three of the users who voted on the matter are themselves administrators.  Is it that administrators are not allowed to close discussions in which they themselves participate?  Respectfully, allixpeeke (talk) 07:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The Steve Harvey Show / Eve (U.S. TV series) / Girlfriends[edit]

(I hope this doesn't constitute canvassing.  Apologies if it does.)

Some of the people who voted here, here, and here may wish to change their votes in light of the improvements to the respective pages.  Cheers, allixpeeke (talk) 10:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

QOTD on my wikipedia user page[edit]

I was wondering is there a way(or template) to include QOTD on my Wikipedia Userpage ? I know we can do that for Pic Of The Day. I'm new here, so please help me if I don't know something obvious. Gauravsinghgehlot (talk) 11:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Good idea, but AFAIK such an option does not currently exist. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I am not aware of any current facility for doing this. The old w:Template:QOTD at Wikipedia no longer works because the bot that fetched quotes daily is no longer active. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #5—2015[edit]

Elitre (WMF), 18:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Python-Foot.png This user stamps out footnotes with interlinear citations.
The footnote tools for citations, called "Cite tools", may be perfectly fine for Wikipedia™ but are ill-suited for Wikiquote™ where citations belong in the article body and are not relegated to footnotes. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your information, Ningauble. It'll avoid annoyance in advance. --Aphaia (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Daniel Suarez / Daemon (novel series) / Freedom™[edit]

Today, someone started a page for Freedom™.  What is interesting about this is that a page already exists that has quotes for this novel: Daniel Suarez#Freedom™ (2010).  Perhaps the quotes should be moved from Daniel Suarez's page to the new Freedom™ page?  To make matters still more complicated, there exists also a page for Daemon (novel series)allixpeeke (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is a mess, but I would recommend merging them to the author page. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Those latter stubs can just be merged into the author page, if those quotes are genuine. --Aphaia (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

WQ:CITE clean-up[edit]

First I'd like to let you know now I'm granted Digital Loeb Classical Library access via Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. I'm thrilled to clean up classical author pages on this occasion.

So I visited WQ:CITE to confirm our citation policy. Surprisingly, it's still in draft status, although we've been keen to keep our quotes sourced. What do you think to clean up WQ:CITE and make it an established policy or guideline? Also, I'd ask the community to add a new part for our citation policy, using Digital object identifier (doi), which is a requirement to cite Loeb as well as other databases whose access is granted in Wikipedia Library program. (for example, see below)

Example

{{cite web|author=Archimedes|accessdate=9 April 2015|title=Mathematical Works|url=http://www.loebclassics.com/view/archimedes-mathematical_works/1941/pb_LCL362.19.xml?rskey=fIErow&result=1|doi=10.4159/DLCL.archimedes-mathematical_works.1941}} {{Subscription required|via=[[Loeb Classical Library|digital Loeb Classical Library]]}}
The cite page proposals do not seem to have ever been sufficiently adapted to the actual practices and preferences here, and like some other such pages seems primarily an import of a Wikipedia page. Whatever citations styles fulfill any requirements of the sources cited can of course be used here, and we welcome any contributions which your new status at the Digital Loeb Classical Library can permit. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 21:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll try to do my best :) Back to the WQ:CITE, so it would be then better just to write down our current convention from the scratch? --Aphaia (talk) 07:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Most of this (originally copied from Wikipedia) does not address Wikiquote's particular needs, nor the style it has evolved to meet them. See Discomfort citing this draft policy on the talk page. Since so little of this is actually reusable in our context, starting from scratch may be the best approach.

See also WQ:SOURCE, which addresses different aspects of the issue; and note 121a0012's comment on its talk page about separating the issues of what to cite from how to cite it. I like the idea of a "Policy" page about the requirement for citing verifiable and reliable sources, and a separate "Guideline" page about ways to present the the citations. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

Hi everyone!

The Community Tech team at the Wikimedia Foundation is focused on building improved curation and moderation tools for experienced Wikimedia contributors. We're now starting a Community Wishlist Survey to find the most useful projects that we can work on.

For phase 1 of the survey, we're inviting all active contributors to submit brief proposals, explaining the project that you'd like us to work on, and why it's important. Phase 1 will last for 2 weeks. In phase 2, we'll ask you to vote on the proposals. Afterwards, we'll analyze the top 10 proposals and create a prioritized wishlist.

While most of this process will be conducted in English, we're inviting people from any Wikimedia wiki to submit proposals. We'll also invite volunteer translators to help translate proposals into English.

Your proposal should include: the problem that you want to solve, who would benefit, and a proposed solution, if you have one. You can submit your proposal on the Community Wishlist Survey page, using the entry field and the big blue button. We will be accepting proposals for 2 weeks, ending on November 23.

We're looking forward to hearing your ideas!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikimania 2016 scholarships ambassadors needed[edit]

Hello! Wikimania 2016 scholarships will soon be open; by the end of the week we'll form the committee and we need your help, see Scholarship committee for details.

If you want to carefully review nearly a thousand applications in January, you might be a perfect committee member. Otherwise, you can volunteer as "ambassador": you will observe all the committee activities, ensure that people from your language or project manage to apply for a scholarship, translate scholarship applications written in your language to English and so on. Ambassadors are allowed to ask for a scholarship, unlike committee members.

Wikimania 2016 scholarships subteam 10:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It's deceiving to call all-expenses-paid trips (granted to people who are not even students) "scholarships". ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I don't think there is an intent to deceive. Using puffed up language to describe giving away free junkets probably merits the assumption of Hanlon's Razor. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Latin proverbs[edit]

Please give a look to Latin proverbs and talk:Latin proverbs. I appreciate the editor's eagerness, but his way to edit and attempt to keep his favorite revision is not productive in my opinion. I'd not like to start editwarring, so any input from the community is welcome. --Aphaia (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Is the about section for Snow White any different than the ones for Star Trek? What is art?[edit]

Ninguable doesn't seem to think that either propaganda, advertisement or robots are art, even though all three are featured as art in galleries. Also it's weird that only my Snow White about section is being reverted. I apologize for some of my categorizations, but I think they were all understandable mistakes, locks are a form of tech and witchcraft is as much art as martial arts or dance is, commonly referred to as the dark arts, idolatry is art and witchcraft and idolatry are typically associated with one another. Propaganda and advertisement are genres like sic-fi and fantasy applicable to many mediums, also common criticism words in art. Snow White's lead animator has a Wikipedia page and that background information is as relevant as the info I've added for Star Trek.

If I am wrong about these 4 edits, (Snow White, propaganda, advertisement and robot) than may it be explained to myself and others as to why, I won't be reverting these the mean mean time and I'm done adding categories, which are reverted far more often far more often than quotes dialogue and about sections. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  1. Anything and everything can be art, and can be featured in art galleries.  Yet, I think it prudent to be a tad discerning when categorising things as art or as art movements, for if we don't, we may end up categorising everything as art, thus rendering the category rather unhelpful.  Thus, I think Ningauble's edits were reasonable.
  2. I think WikiLubber is in the wrong to imply that quotes about Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs have no place in the Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs page.  Indeed, where else would meaningful quotes about Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs go?

    Yours,
    allixpeeke (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Allixpeeke. I definitely don't want everything to be labeled as art, I don't particularly like Duchamp's ready made's that barely alter and rearrange factory made objects, though I think junk sculpture is definitely art, not all junk is art [2]. Also turning everything into a found art object risks being culturally insensitive to the remnants of aboriginal societies; who may or may not consider decorated functional objects like clothes and tools to be art. I believe I am correct in stating robots have long been considered art because of the historical automatons displayed as parts of cabinets of curiosity and exhibited in museums; such as these for example[3]. —This unsigned comment is by CensoredScribe (talkcontribs) 15:52, 22 November 2015.
  • I can see no reason why we would not include notable quotes about a work on the page for that work. BD2412 T 16:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Technology films, is James Bond a tech film?[edit]

I've been wondering what the definition of this category is; and whether James Bond and most robot films would count. It had Star Trek already so it seemed to just be for tech heavy sci-fi, but is sci-fi and technology film redundant? CensoredScribe (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


I'm thinking the question would come down to this:  Are there any films that could be listed under Technology films that we would not think appropriate to also list under Science fiction films?  And the easiest place to start is by checking to see what is listed currently under Technology films.  Here's how I would categorise these:
Films Alex has seen, and would definitely class as science fiction
2001: A Space OdysseyThe AnimatrixBicentennial ManGattacaI, RobotIron ManIron Man 2Iron Man 3Jurassic ParkJurassic Park 3The Lost World: Jurassic ParkThe Matrix ReloadedThe Matrix RevolutionsThe MatrixRoboCopStar TrekStar Trek IV: The Voyage HomeStar Trek: First ContactThe Stepford Wives (1975 film)The TerminatorTerminator 2: Judgment DayTerminator 3: Rise of the MachinesTerminator SalvationTronTron: LegacyWarGames
Films Alex has not seen, but is quite sure could be classed as science fiction
Jurassic WorldStar Trek II: The Wrath of KhanStar Trek GenerationsStar Trek III: The Search for SpockStar Trek Into DarknessStar Trek V: The Final FrontierStar Trek VI: The Undiscovered CountryStar Trek: InsurrectionStar Trek: NemesisStar Trek: The Motion PictureThe Stepford Wives (2004 film)Terminator Genisys
Films Alex has seen, and would definitely not class as science fiction
Hellboy II: The Golden Army (this is fantasy or science fantasy) • The Social Network
Films Alex has seen, but that he doesn't remember well enough to say whether a classification as science fiction might be appropriate (but, that he thinks would not be classed as science fiction, assuming he is remembering well enough)
The Girl with the Dragon TattooHackers
Films Alex has not seen, but suspects would not be classed as science fiction
Apollo 13
Films Alex has not seen and knows nothing about
AntitrustBig Hero 6The Boys from BrazilCowboy Bebop: The MovieGhost in the ShellGhost in the Shell 2: InnocenceHerPaprikaThe Right StuffRobotsSilent RunningSmall SoldiersThe NetTruth in Numbers?
Suffice it to say, the overlap is clearly significant.  But, if The Social Network proves anything, not all technology films are science fiction films.

Although I shan't bother going into the various subcategories and doing the same as I've done above, I do wish to comment on the Bond films, since you brought them up, as well as robot films.  I would generally think that all robot films wherein the robot is capable of learning, independent thought, or emotions would constitute science fiction, and those robot films wherein the robot is of no greater scientific advance than are the robots of today would not; yet, all robot films would constitute technology films.  As for Bond films, I do not think it would be appropriate to class them all ipso facto as science fiction, but it may be appropriate to class certain ones as science fiction.  I've never seen any bond film more than once, and it's been some years since I've seen any, but it does strike me that technology is often important to the plots, if for nothing else the various gadgets Bond employs (but if a film's inclusion of gadgets is sufficient, then we would likewise be compelled to include all Batman films, and possibly a good many other films that are currently slipping my mind).

It would seem the following options are available to us:

  1. Do nothing.  Ignore the situation.  Let future generations of Wikiquoters handle the problem.
  2. Allow the redundancy.  Most, but not all, technology films are also science fiction films, and most, but not all, science fiction films are technology films.  (Examples of a science fiction films that are not also technology films include Evolution, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and The Faculty.)  Go through all technology films, and add the ones that are also science fiction films to the science fiction category; go also through all the science fiction films, and add the ones that are also technology films to the technology category.
  3. Keep both categories, but eliminate the redundancy.  Since it is more common to think of science fiction as involving technology than to think of technology involving fictional science, take all of the science fiction films out of the technology category, thereby repurposing the technology category, leaving in it only those films that do not involve fictional science.  Add a note at the top of both the technology and the science fiction categories noting that there is to be no overlap between the categories, and that the films that are both science fiction and technology films are to be categorised solely under science fiction.  Make it clear that the technology category is solely for films involving technology that could exist now.
  4. Allow certain overlap.  Make sure that the only films appearing in the technology category are films that also appear in wikipedia's Films about technology category.
  5. Eliminate the technology category altogether.  (The worst of the five possibilities thus far mentioned.)
  6. Eliminate the science fiction category altogether.  (Certainly the worst of the six possibilities thus far mentioned.)
  7. Eliminate both the technology and the science fiction categories altogether.  (Positively the worst of these seven possibilities.)
I would personally think the second, third, and forth options are best.  I don't personally mind the overlap, given that there are a few films in each that wouldn't be appropriate in the other, but at the same time, I understand that if a person is looking for fictional technology, the person isn't going to bother looking through the technology category; rather, such a person would go straight for the science fiction category.  So, any of these options seem reasonable to me.

Whether we choose the second or third option, though, there is still the general question of what ought to be included in the technology category beyond the specific question of whether science fiction technology should be included.  For example, although phones and calculators and vacuum cleaners all constitute technology, I don't think any of us would want to include in that category every film that happens to have phones, calculators, or vacuum cleaners.  The Social Network and Desk Set, by contrast, are good examples of films that we would want to include.  (If I had to guess, I'd guess that Apollo 13 lacks science fiction elements, and would thus be also an appropriate inclusion regardless of whether we opt for the second or the third option.)  But if someone wanted to include American Beauty on the grounds that Ricky Fitts is constantly using his video camera, we would probably agree that that's a bit of a stretch.  (Or would we?  Am I wrong to think we wouldn't?)  Obviously, it's not enough to say that the technology must be important to the plot, since Fitts's camera is pretty important to that portion of the plot revolving around his relationship with Janie Burnham.  But we also wouldn't want to be so strict that we end up eliminating all contemporary technology, since then The Social Network and Desk Set (and probably Apollo 13) would get kicked out.  I'm not exactly sure how to phrase the criteria I think appropriate for that category other than "I know it when I see it," which isn't the most useful answer since the gadgets question is iffy.

But, if we choose the fourth option, the question becomes extremely simple.

Thoughts?

Yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Your input requested on the proposed #FreeBassel banner campaign[edit]

This is a message regarding the proposed 2015 Free Bassel banner. Translations are available.

Hi everyone,

This is to inform all Wikimedia contributors that a straw poll seeking your involvement has just been started on Meta-Wiki.

As some of your might be aware, a small group of Wikimedia volunteers have proposed a banner campaign informing Wikipedia readers about the urgent situation of our fellow Wikipedian, open source software developer and Creative Commons activist, Bassel Khartabil. An exemplary banner and an explanatory page have now been prepared, and translated into about half a dozen languages by volunteer translators.

We are seeking your involvement to decide if the global Wikimedia community approves starting a banner campaign asking Wikipedia readers to call on the Syrian government to release Bassel from prison. We understand that a campaign like this would be unprecedented in Wikipedia's history, which is why we're seeking the widest possible consensus among the community.

Given Bassel's urgent situation and the resulting tight schedule, we ask everyone to get involved with the poll and the discussion to the widest possible extent, and to promote it among your communities as soon as possible.

(Apologies for writing in English; please kindly translate this message into your own language.)

Thank you for your participation!

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 21:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC) • TranslateGet help

Dispute regarding image use on page Ethics (Spinoza)[edit]

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC):

Kalki and I have become involved in a minor edit-skirmish at the page Ethics (Spinoza) regarding image use. We have discussed our contention at Kalki's talkpage here to no avail. I now ask the community to help us resolve this conflict.
I dispute the use of multiple image-quotation pairings on the page although most strongly I reject this entry:
Human infirmity in moderating and checking the emotions I name bondage.
Other image-quotation pairings I dispute include:
An emotion, which is a passion, ceases to be a passion, as soon as we form a clear and distinct idea thereof.
How would it be possible, if salvation were ready to our hand, and could without great labour be found, that it should be by almost all men neglected? But all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare.
The mind has greater power over the emotions and is less subject thereto, in so far as it understands all things as necessary.
And also this intentional sequence of swastikas:
There is no individual thing in nature, than which there is not another more powerful and strong. Whatsoever thing be given, there is something stronger whereby it can be destroyed.
Imaginations do not vanish at the presence of the truth, in virtue of its being true, but because other imaginations, stronger than the first, supervene and exclude the present existence of that which we imagined…
It is impossible, that man should not be a part of Nature, or that he should be capable of undergoing no changes, save such as can be understood through his nature only as their adequate cause.
I suggest that these images be removed or replaced, while Kalki affirms that they ought to remain.

Thanks to all, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


Human infirmity in moderating and checking the emotions I name bondage.
One and the same thing can be at the same time good, bad, and indifferent.
There is no individual thing in nature, than which there is not another more powerful and strong. Whatsoever thing be given, there is something stronger whereby it can be destroyed.
Imaginations do not vanish at the presence of the truth, in virtue of its being true, but because other imaginations, stronger than the first, supervene and exclude the present existence of that which we imagined…

In reply I will for now primarily just make a very few new comments and present some of these images as they appear on the page in question, and here rearrange a few of the remarks I had previously made on my talk page regarding this dispute, simply stating a relatively few things at this time, as I just recently checked in here to update the QOTD, and I must soon be leaving again.

I will begin by observing that Spinoza was clearly and explicitly using rational metaphors of formal mathematical and geometrical processes of exposition in many of his assertions from this work, and I thought it highly appropriate to use a couple of geometric forms which historically have come to symbolize various great and petty notions of BOTH good and bad aspects and essences of Reality and Human capacities to recognize these, in an interplay of expositions I believed most normally intelligent people would be able to appreciate to varying degrees, depending on their familiarity with many of the broad uses they have been applied to. Spinoza himself was extending his thoughts upon many of the bases which contemporary and earlier explorers of great genius in rational, ethical and mystical ranges of philosophy had provided him, and he like Giordano Bruno who has often been noted by modern scholars as an "unacknowledged" influence on him, drew upon some of the rationalities and mysticism of the Kabbala, which is used in some of the other images — and it is not Arthur Schopenhauer alone who has observed parallels in Spinoza's thought and much of the mysticism of the Hinduism and other "Eastern" traditions, though he quite notably states in The World as Will and Representation that in regard to his generally low appraisals of other western philosophers: "Bruno and Spinoza are to be entirely excepted. Each stands by himself and alone; and they do not belong either to their age or to their part of the globe, which rewarded the one with death, and the other with persecution and ignominy. Their miserable existence and death in this Western world are like that of a tropical plant in Europe. The banks of the Ganges were their spiritual home ; there, they would have led a peaceful and honoured life among men of like mind.

As in some instances of the past the objections here seem to be along the lines of presumptions and reliances upon the strength of many general prejudices that have arisen from the abuses of the Nazis and Hitler in making the swastika itself — which had long been a sacred symbol of holy reverence and serenity for millennia, among Hindus, Jains and Buddhists, and even to some extent among early Jews, long before the Nazi misuse of it — to symbolize their abhorrent traditions of genocidal insanity, which has left many millions of people intolerant and easily confused of any use of it — and some people eager to promote and magnify those confusions, and to exclude any use of it, anywhere by anyone, and THUS actually provide the Nazis of the early 20th century another victory over human traditions of virtue, by granting them eternal ownership of a long holy symbol of many diverse people and peaceful traditions. I believe that with advances and growth of human wisdom, that this can be avoided, and must not and will not occur. There is also far more significance to these images and their relations to Spinoza's general thoughts, than these, but I have not time or inclination to attempt a fuller exposition, now, and I will simply repeat some of my earlier statements, in a slightly rearranged form:

In the section of Ethics Geometrically Demonstrated "Part IV : Of Human Bondage, or the Strength of the Emotions" I simply used several images to illustrate and highlight some of Baruch Spinoza's statements, some of which I have placed in sequence, on the side here. An extensive elaboration upon the associations such images can or do have in relation to the assertions Spinoza makes is not something I have time to present right now. I might proceed with such matters, later, but hope that some indications of their relevance can be discerned without immediate specifications of many aspects of these.
I thought it quite appropriate to start a sequence of several images using or evoking both "Solomon's Seal" or "Star of David" and the Swastika in various divergent contexts, as indications of the diverse uses and applications they can have, in regard to human rationality, irrationality, and emotions which usually involve BOTH, and not merely entirely one or the other. I presented these symbols or similar images in relation to a variety of their uses, in ways generally considered indicative of either "good" or "bad" by many people.
The processes of awareness, acceptance and appreciation of all the indications and expressions of aspects of Reality which we encounter are such as impel a constant tallying of the constant interplay of impressions, imaginings and many forms of potentials and actualities within the realms of our perceptual and conceptual experiences. A "moderating and checking the emotions " and I used that symbol as a pertinent and extreme example of the necessity of doing that.
I believe that the use of ANY image, sign, or symbol, including words, to help rather than hinder the development of rational and ethical integrity involves RECOGNIZING the capacities for VARIETIES of rational and emotional associations, and not being fixated upon only some of these. To be "absolutist" or absolutely exclusive in the associations one permits or impels can be unhealthy in many ways, and in the senses of the word which have been used since the time of Francis Bacon, can be quite "idolatrous." I of course use the word in a very broad and secular sense, involving forms of absolutism, and noting that the scorn of images and the counting of them or their use as innately idolatrous and associating of them only with forms of idolatry is itself a from of extreme idolatry, and intolerance of other associations which they can have.

There are a few other comments here and on my talk page I will probably respond to further in the coming week or so, but I have to now be leaving, am remaining very busy with some local projects that I expect to continue to occupy most of my time for some days yet, at the very least, and will resume commenting, when I find the time do so, amidst many other tasks. I must be leaving now. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 00:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

  • The Raelian "Swastika of David" has no place anywhere in Wikiquote, and it certainly has no relation to Spinoza, who died long before Nazism was invented or the Swastika was associated with antisemitism. BD2412 T 05:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Agreed This symbolism is in no way related to the subject. The fact that these symbols do have specific meanings in other contexts is actually an excellent argument for removing them. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
      • I find this Swastika symbol absolutely nauseating, and urge its immediate removal, from this page and everywhere else.--Abramsky (talk) 09:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
        • Well, not from Nazism, obviously, or from Adolf Hitler or other actual Nazis. However, it has no place anywhere outside of articles on actual historical Nazis or Nazism. BD2412 T 20:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
          • Or from Jainism. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
            • Absolutely agree with all comments opposing the use of this image - and all other irrelevant images on the Spinoza page. - Macspaunday (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • During the discussion over on the talk page, Kalki said: "An extensive elaboration upon the associations such images can or do have in relation to the assertions Spinoza makes is not something I have time to present right now." That statement makes it pretty clear that such images are editorializing. TreeRol (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I must admit, I never studied Spinoza, and I know even less about Raëlism.  But, I see Wikipedia says, "Raelians believe in reclaiming the swastika by restoring its historical meaning as a symbol of peace and good luck."  So, it would seem that this Raëlian's "Swastika of David" symbol might not be anti-Semitic or pro-Nazi.  That said, even if there is nothing anti-Semitic or pro-Nazi about the "Swastika of David," that still doesn't mean it would necessarily merit inclusion on the Spinoza page.  For it to merit inclusion, it would have to be demonstrated that Spinoza's thought had a meaningful influence on Raëlism.  Kalki has not made the case that Spinoza's thought had any influence on Raëlism, and thus I'm inclined to say that it does not merit inclusion.  Regarding the other swastikas, if a quote in some way relates to Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Guiyidao, Nazism, or anti-Semitism, the Theosophical Society, Falun Gong, or the swastika itself, I could see just cause for inclusion of the symbol; if not, then not.  (An exception might be that one wherein the Swastika is being blown up, as that might be used in conjunction with quotes on explosions or any quote that is anti-statist.)  As for the Tree of Life and Chakra symbols, I don't understand them, and don't feel I'm in a position to ascertain whether they do or do not belong anywhere.  allixpeeke (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Even if Spinoza's thought had an enormous influence on Raëlism, it would still be inappropriate to include. We are not here to promote Raëlism or any other group through pages on people asserted to have influenced that group. For example, there is rhetoric out there claiming that the Nazis were influenced by Darwin, which would be no reason to add a swastika to Darwin's page. BD2412 T 14:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Very good point, BD2412.  Very convincing.  I agree.  I no longer see any even hypothetical justification for attaching that image directly to a Spinoza quote.  The image, however, might still hypothetically merit inclusion on the page if and only if there were a notable quote in the About Spinoza section by a Raëlian specifically linking Spinoza's thought to Raëlism, and only if the image were solely attached to said quote.  (Although I still know nothing about Raëlism, I have to strongly doubt that such a quote exists, so, in effect, this would mean that the image would not merit inclusion on the page.)  allixpeeke (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with IOHANNVSVERVS's proposal to remove these images. The captioned quotes are not about Kabbalism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Nazism, nor any kind of UFO cult.

    Constructing an "interplay of expositions" is not what Wikiquote is about. It is editorializing. Including images "as indications of the diverse uses and applications they can have" does not belong at Wikiquote. There are many places where such expositions are appropriate, but this is not one of them. Whatever the propriety of appropriating images having specific religious or political denotations in relation to quotes that are not about the things denoted when essaying upon whatever point is being propounded here, Wikiquote is not the place for such essays.

    Although there are indeed some points of convergence between Spinoza's thoughts and the symbolized belief systems, this is not WikiFreeAssociation or WikiStreamOfConsciousness or any other kind of hosting site for personal expression and observation. This is Wikiquote. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

Hi everyone!

We're beginning the second part of the Community Tech team's Community Wishlist Survey, and we're inviting all active contributors to vote on the proposals that have been submitted.

Thanks to you and other Wikimedia contributors, 111 proposals were submitted to the team. We've split the proposals into categories, and now it's time to vote! You can vote for any proposal listed on the pages, using the {{Support}} tag. Feel free to add comments pro or con, but only support votes will be counted. The voting period will be 2 weeks, ending on December 14.

The proposals with the most support votes will be the team's top priority backlog to investigate and address. Thank you for participating, and we're looking forward to hearing what you think!

/Johan (WMF) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, I can check a little box that allows me to edit just the introduction of pages.  I wouldn't mind having the capacity here, too.

Also (and this applies just as much to Wikipedia as it does here), I like the fact that I have the ability to use HotCat to add, remove, and change categories; but, it would be cool if I also had a way of adding, removing, and changing {{DEFAULTSORT:}}, i.e., without having to go into the actual page.

Cheers,
allixpeeke (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

On Misquotes[edit]

Hi WQ team, do we have a policy or guideline pertaining to famous misquotes? For example in the case where a quote is very frequently incorectly prased (e.g. because the original speaker actually said something else), or in the case where a saying is popularly incorrectly attributed to an individual. Does WikiQuote have a mechanism that allows us to correct the record by saying that contraray to popular belief, X did not say "Y". --Salimfadhley (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@Salimfadhley: Yes, we definitely do include them, for the sake of clarifying. See (e.g.) Oscar Wilde, which has "Disputed" and "Misattributed" sections. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
How might we deal with this one? It's a quote that has been widely and popularly been attributed to Nikola Tesla, however the only sources for this quote are in a somewhat self-serving text by a follower of Wilhelm Reich. Nobody is actually disputing this, and nobody can prove he didn't say this - on the other hand the evidence that he did say this is rather scant. It's only relevant because the quote has appeared in hundreds of books, and is believed to be an actual quotation mainly by the followers of Reich's esoteric theories. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Salimfadhley, I think that belongs to the Disputed category. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
IOHANNVSVERVS is correct.  allixpeeke (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Period films and or history films/[edit]

Wikipedia uses the title w:List of historical period drama films, while Wikiquote uses both period films and history films. This is redundant, unless historical films have to be 100% historically accurate, in which case it makes more sense to categorize it as a documentary. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I think historical films have to at least be mostly accurate, while I think period films can be completely fictitious.  I don't think anyone would regard X-Men: First Class (e.g.) to be an historical film.  Yours, allixpeeke (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
What about Black Adder, period or historical? The timeline of the English throne is slightly off, making it alternate history, yet it is mostly realistic and filled with historical figures and references. What is alternate history that has no sci-fi or fantasy? CensoredScribe (talk) 05:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I am not familiar with Black Adder, so I couldn't say.  I would put alternative-history films (e.g., C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America) under period films as opposed to history films.  But, for films where the history is inaccurate but close to accurate (e.g., Amistad), I am more likely to place them under history films.  allixpeeke (talk) 06:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Black Adder is closer to Amistad; the wikipedia page mentions fewer anachronisms in Black Adder than Amistad as well. CensoredScribe (talk) 19:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

What is the source of the quote The power was inside you all along?[edit]

I'm curious where this comes from because some version of it is repeated so often. CensoredScribe (talk) 05:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

  • This basic trope has been around for a loooong time. It probably predates the invention of writing, so there is no way to tell which nameless bard or teller of tall tales used it first: This trope has been with us all along. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Selected pages – countries[edit]

25 new pages have just been added to the Main Page Selected pages by User:Illegitimate Barrister under a new section, "Countries". The selected pages are supposed to be of very high quality and represent the best Wikiquote has. But, as far as I can tell, none of the listed country pages meet this standard. Most are very incomplete, with only a few quotes, or when they have many quotes they are mostly about race and slavery (an editor's obsession). IMO, this new Countries list should either be removed or heavily trimmed to include only the very best pages. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@DanielTom: Agreed. Feel free to prune away. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I've went ahead and trimmed a couple of countries off from the list, since their pages didn't have that many quotes on them. – Illegitimate Barrister, 04:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Let's change "Countries" to "Places"; that way we can include things like Rome, Paris, New York City, Nile, Lake District, Mount Everest, Africa, and Europe. BD2412 T 16:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
@BD2412: Also agreed: let's try to have a mix of world class cities with some regions. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I went ahead and did this. BD2412 T 02:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

What is the difference between family and children films when the MPAA age rates films per individual?[edit]

Family films conjures the image of a married man and wife with 2.5 children; which is discriminatory, or that it is a film that would appeal to everyone which is the goal of most movies. I think it is a bad category and that is why it isn't on Wikipedia but children's films is. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@CensoredScribe: I'm not seeing how that is discriminatory. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Alright that's a bit much; it isn't for fictional families. Family and kid are still basically the same thing though; aslo family isn't a tv genre.CensoredScribe (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
@CensoredScribe: I think that "family films" is a pretty common banner for categorizing and it's not identical to children's films in my mind. Something like The Andy Griffith Show might be family-friendly but not specifically marketed toward children. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Point taken, excellent example. 04:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm.  I guess if I had to distinguish between the two, I'd say that children's films are films that would only appeal to children while family films are films that would appeal to the whole family, children included.  But, assuming that is a fair description of their distinguishing qualities, it may be a bit of a judgement call as to whether any given film falls more under one category or the other.  allixpeeke (talk) 06:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I just realized there's already been a discussion about deleting the family films category; do categories ever get deleted on Wikiquote, that conversation seemed as if the majority were in approval about getting rid of the category for being too vaguely defined. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Get involved in Wikipedia 15![edit]

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

International-Space-Station wordmark blue.svg

As many of you know, January 15 is Wikipedia’s 15th Birthday!

People around the world are getting involved in the celebration and have started adding their events on Meta Page. While we are celebrating Wikipedia's birthday, we hope that all projects and affiliates will be able to utilize this celebration to raise awareness of our community's efforts.

Haven’t started planning? Don’t worry, there’s lots of ways to get involved. Here are some ideas:

Everything is linked on the Wikipedia 15 Meta page. You’ll find a set of ten data visualization works that you can show at your events, and a list of all the Wikipedia 15 logos that community members have already designed.

If you have any questions, please contact Zachary McCune or Joe Sutherland.

Thanks and Happy nearly Wikipedia 15!
-The Wikimedia Foundation Communications team

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery, 20:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageHelp

Wikimania 2016: call for proposals is open![edit]

Dear users,
the call for proposals for Wikimania 2016 is open! All the members of the Wikimedia projects, researchers and observers are invited to propose a critical issue to be included in the programme of the conference, which will be held in Italy, in Esino Lario, from June 21 to 28.
Through this call we only accept what we call critical issues, i.e. proposals aiming at presenting problems, possible solutions and critical analysis about Wikimedia projects and activities in 18 minutes. These proposals do not need to target newbies, and they can assume attendees to already have a background knowledge on a topic (community, tech, outreach, policies...).
To submit a presentation, please refer to the Submissions page on the Wikimania 2016 website. Deadline for submitting proposals is 7th January 2016 and the selection of these proposals will be through a blind peer-reviewed process. Looking forward to your proposals. --Yiyi (talk) 10:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The deadline for the call for proposals for Wikimania 2016 has been moved on 17th January 2016, so you have 10 days to submit you proposal(s). To submit a presentation, please refer to the Submissions page on the Wikimania 2016 website. --Yiyi (talk) 09:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Password Strength RFC[edit]

Hello

We have started an RFC on meta to increase password requirements for users that have accounts which can edit MediaWiki:Common.js, have access to checkuser or have access to Oversight.

These types of accounts have sensitive access to our sites, and can cause real harm if they fall into malicious hands. Currently the only requirement is the password is at least 1 letter long. We would like to make the minimum be 8 letters (bytes) long and also ban certain really common passwords.

By increasing requirements on passwords for accounts with high levels of access, we hope to make Wikimedia wikis more secure for everyone. Please read the full text of the proposal here, and make your voice heard at the RFC.

Thank you

(On behalf of the WMF security team) BWolff (WMF) (talk) 07:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Delivered using the distribution list

Community Wishlist Survey results[edit]

Hi everyone,

The 2015 Community Wishlist Survey is over, and now the Community Tech team's work begins on the top 10 features and fixes.

In November and December 2015, we invited contributors from all Wikimedia projects to submit proposals for what they would like the Community Tech team to work on, for the purpose of improving or producing curation and moderation tools for active contributors.

634 people participated in the survey, where they proposed, discussed and voted on 107 ideas. There was a two-week period in November to submit and endorse proposals, followed by two weeks of voting. The top 10 proposals with the most support votes now become the Community Tech team's backlog of projects to evaluate and address.

You can see the whole list with links to all the proposals and Phabricator tickets on this page: 2015 Community Wishlist Survey.

For everybody who proposed, endorsed, discussed, debated and voted in the survey, as well as everyone who said nice things to us recently: thank you very much for coming out and supporting live feature development. We're excited about the work ahead of us. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Was anything done about my above suggestionsallixpeeke (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #6—2015[edit]

Elitre (WMF), 00:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Responses and questions[edit]

I don't have an "Edit source" tab, just an "Edit" tab.  What is this "Edit source" tab, how does it differ from the "Edit" tab, and why might I want these two tabs combined?  allixpeeke (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Quote of the day/December 27, 2015[edit]

appropriate on the Main Page (not)

Kalki is once again behaving like a little child and "inappropriately using the QOTD as a fighting tool in his personal disputes" (see above). Now we have a silly emoji featured prominently in Wikiquote's Main Page. The chosen quote is bad enough, but the image is more than just embarrassing – it brings Wikiquote into disrepute, IMO. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

You obviously take yourself, your opinions, and your inclinations to denigrate those of others far too seriously, and the truth and others sincere efforts to contribute, and the very points of the rather perceptive quote chosen, far too lightly — as if your own shallow and narrow judgement and biased sensitivities were the epitome of human wit and wisdom — you are often quite obnoxiously opinionated, deceitful and mendacious, and have often apparently quite proud of your inclinations to sometimes troll in rather extremely insulting ways. I can and do forgive you for your inclinations, but I will not deny they are sometimes quite arrogantly provocative and mendacious.
The QOTD which is accompanied by this image was one suggested by InvisibleSun (talk · contributions) which I thought quite appropriate for today — and the image clearly relates to some of the context and specific details of the quote — and there is not an image of the author available on the Commons to use as an alternative.
It is a fallacy to think that carping is the strongest form of criticism: the important work begins after the artist's mistakes have been pointed out, and the reviewer can't put it off indefinitely with sneers, although some neophytes might be tempted to try: "When in doubt, stick out your tongue" is a safe rule that never cost one any readers. But there's nothing strong about it, and it has nothing to do with the real business of criticism, which is to do justice to the best work of one's time, so that nothing gets lost.
~ Wilfrid Sheed ~
I have MANY other things to attend to, and must be leaving SOON — so this might be the last comment I make here for tonight. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 00:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC) +_ tweaks
"as if your own shallow and narrow judgement and biased sensitivities were the epitome of human wit and wisdom" – you need to get a mirror. I (like most anyone who "dares" to disagree with you) am well familiar with your truly "extremely insulting ways" (having already lost count of how many times you've called me a "bigot"), but I'll ignore your petty insults this time. IMO = in my opinion. Of course I may be alone in thinking that your image choice hurts Wikiquote's credibility – that's why I bring it up here, to know other people's opinions. Stop playing the victim card. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I am now VERY close to the time when I MUST be going. I believe that I never attempt to criticize anyone in ways I would not permit myself to be criticized, especially if people were sincerely inclined to believe their statements — I am quite strong enough to accept both valid and invalid forms of criticism and contentions — and can respect those who permit and respect HONEST contentions. I am hardly "playing the victim card" as if I was a pissant mendacious whiner and complainer like some people tend to be. I do not call people bigots if they are not rather plainly promoting some form of bigotry — and I don’t believe in punishing people simply for their ignorant and confused opinions — beyond the punishments which might be innately related to actually pointing them out as ignorant and confused. I am glad I took one last glance in here before leaving — your assertions are quite laughable, when not contemptibly insulting — I was tempted to respond to some of your trolling a bit more vigorously recently, but restrained myself, and got on with other things, as I knew that I did not have time to get drawn into squabbles about some ridiculous and contemptible insults you made a short while back. One thing I like about wikis is that there are strong records so that "nothing gets lost." I don’t have the time to respond further right now, but as I have stated elsewhere, I will probably be making some VERY clear observations about many things within the first month or so of next year. I am sometimes as harsh as I believe just and fair with the unjustly harsh, but even to most of them I can be forgiving, and can easily say: PEACE BE WITH YOU — and with US ALL. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 01:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC) + tweaks
Ooo, scary... Lol. Do you realize how pathetic you sound? ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • It's not what I would have chosen for a quote of the day, or accompanying image, but QOTD is here one day, gone the next. BD2412 T 04:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC).
    1. I have no objection to the quote, nor any love for the quote.
    2. Regarding the image, it does fit with the quote.  Therefore, insofar as the quote is acceptable, the image, too, is acceptable, in my opinion.  This doesn't mean that there might not be better images to accompany the quote (e.g., perhaps an image of an actual human sticking out her or his tongue), only that the image is suitable insofar as the quote is.
    3. I do believe Kalki response to DanielTom was harsh, but to be fair, DanielTom's initial comment about Kalki (i.e., "behaving like a little child") was also inappropriate.  I amiably encourage both users to soften their tones.
    Respectfully yours,
    allixpeeke (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Make each separate quote a separate article[edit]

I propose a radical (and possibly foolish) re-organization of wikiquote. That is to make each separate quote a separate article. And then do the main navigating via categories. The reason is that most quotes deal with several subjects and at the moment I see no easy way of navigating in the current structure. For example the one quote by J. Gordon Melton wouild have categories J. Gordon Melton, apostasy, ramtha, credibility cults, new religious movements. The alternative in the current structure would be to copy them to all these subjects, which I think is a wrong method. Or may be I miss something? Andries (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Andries: There is a WMFlabs experiment that is basically like this: turning individual quotes into data items a la Wikidata. I am also working on a similar experiment myself. —Justin (koavf)TCM 14:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I see no issue with the current method.  Contrariwise, I see much potential problem with the suggested alternative.

With the current method, there is no difficulty in finding the quotes you wish.  If you wish to find a quote about cults, you go to cults.  It seems rather simple.

With the alternative suggestion, one goes to a cults category and, then what?  If there are fifty quotes about cults, then the individual must click on fifty separate pages to read them all.

A second problem will involve titling.  With the current method, titling is rather simple and rarely controversial, if ever.  But if each quote has its own page, what titles will we use for each quote?  Perhaps the quote itself will serve as the title, but even that 'solution' will eventuate problems.  Some quotes are rather long, and thus, when one begins looking through the categories, one will see a bunch of very long titles that will make it very difficult to read and to find that for which one is looking.  Further, since plenty quotes are rather long, plenty will invariably exceed the number of characters that Wikiquote allows its titles to include.  If we were to set a specific limit to the number of words that may appear in a given title, that 'solution,' too, will be problematic, as many quotes will invariably begin with the same first few words.

A third problem will invariably result: individual quotes will invariably be made into multiple pages.  I will use as my example a rather short quote from Spy, but imagine the the increased problem that would result if this were a particularly long quote:

Rick Ford:  What're you gonna do: bring one of your cats as a sidekick?
Susan Cooper:  I don't have any cats.

One user uploads that quote under Rick Ford: What're you gonna do: bring one of your cats as a sidekick? Susan Cooper: I don't have any cats.  Another user, not knowing the quote is already on Wikiquote, uploads it as Ford: What're you gonna do: bring one of your cats as a sidekick? Cooper: I don't have any cats.  A third uploads it as What're you gonna do: bring one of your cats as a sidekick? I don't have any cats.

Let's say a policy is made that names ought not be included in the quote titles.  We still run the risk of a second user uploading it as What are you gonna do: bring one of your cats as a sidekick? I don't have any cats., or as What're you gonna do, bring one of your cats as a sidekick? I don't have any cats., or as What are you gonna do, bring one of your cats as a sidekick? I don't have any cats., or as What're you gonna do? Bring one of your cats as a sidekick? I don't have any cats., or as What are you gonna do? Bring one of your cats as a sidekick? I don't have any cats.  (And what if someone comes along believing that the couple of lines that appear prior to these two lines ought be coupled with these lines? or the couple of lines that follow these lines? or both?)

New pages will be everywhere, and much harder to deal with as editors.  This opens us up to a fourth problem: it will be much harder to discern whether copyright infringement is occurring.

Finally, in order to transform from the current system to the new system, Wikiquote would need a complete and utter overhaul, which would probably take years to complete.

I'm sorry, I just don't think the suggestion is altogether practical.

Respectfully yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikilubber is reverting my about sections.[edit]

As of today Wikilubber has reverted Toy Story 2, Monster Inc, A Bug's Life, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Dr. Do Little, Independence Day, Wreck it Ralph, All Dog's Go to Heaven, Discipable Me 2, Lion King, and Peewee's Playhouse. In addition they also reverted Hercules 1997 film's categories of having gods and incest; which is how all the other films featuring Greco-Roman gods are categorized. If there is a problem with my about sections I would like to know so I can stop wasting my time; personally though I think these are quite informative or else I wouldn't have made over two hundred of them. Thanks for your help. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Censored Scribe - I agree that the removal of the About sections is unwarranted - and I have reverted Wikilubber's changes. That being said, if such sections contain quotes that are not so memorable or of poor quality, they could still be removed - but just removing them simply because someone does not like having them is not reason enough. As for the removal of categories for Hercules, I am less inclined to restore the incest one - I am not sure that it should be included for this film, as I do not believe that incest is a major theme of the film. I will restore the cat regarding gods however. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you; I had the feeling incest made since for clash of the titans but not Hercules, even though neither work goes into any detail about it, I'm sure Disney would argue like with most of their fair tale adaptations the darker parts were left out. For the most parts quotes I've added to about sections describe some memorable behind the scenes detail like a ground breaking special effects advance, an alternate version of the script, or an actor or directors criticism or defense of a film. Plot summaries aren't very good though, I put those in for Knights of the Old Republic and Morrowind. I've found RPG developers have the least to talk about in game interviews for some reason; probably because game play is better advertised than plot twists; and plot is more the focus than game play in most. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
UDScott, can this be considered a "quote"? ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
One can certainly make an argument that this is a bit much (but there may be something of interest if this was trimmed a bit) - and its removal would not upset me. My point was to avoid the wholesale removal of such sections just because someone doesn't like them in general. Each should be treated on a case-by-case basis and held to the same standard of quotability as other sections. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


  1. Hercules definitely has gods.
  2. I do not recall Hercules having incest.  I am highly sceptical about that notion.
  3. I agree with CensoredScribe, BD2412, and UDScott that Wikilubber is definitely wrong to remove about sections from films wholesale, that not-liking-having-them "is not reason enough."
  4. I'm not so sure I would place "alternate version[s] of the script" into the about section.  Consider, for example, the page I recently created for Limitless.  It has an about section, but this section currently only includes two quotes from the lead actor, quotes that I obtained from one of the bonus features from the Blu-ray.  I think it would also be appropriate to add quotes to that section from reviews of the film, and thus I find Rotten Tomatoes to be generally useful for helping to fill out about sections on film pages.  But, although I also included quotes from the alternative ending, I did not place them into the about section.  Rather, I gave them their own section.

    Sincerely,
    allixpeeke (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

  • I will weigh in here to restate my support for having relevant "about" sections. If we have a page on a person, a book, a film, or other comparable topic, and there are quoteworthy statements that have been made about this subject, we should include them, on that page. BD2412 T 21:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
    The problem is, most of what CensoredScribe has been adding to About sections is not "quoteworthy" in the slightest. I think he knows this, but he doesn't care – he only seems to be interested in increasing his edit count. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, WikiLubber was justified in removing those sections – not because "About" sections have no place in Wikiquote, but because the quality of the (so-called) "quotes" CensoredScribe has been adding to them (at an alarming rate) is so poor. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
If I cared about my edit count wouldn't I have a concrete number for my about count or at least list more pages to sound more impressive, concrete examples make for better arguments. Daniel Tom, which about sections have no acceptable quotes at all; be specific please, because I think Cloud being Musashi is if not notable on Wikiquote notable on Wikipedia; not so sure about Midgar being a Pizza. CensoredScribe (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, here are some examples of the unmemorable "quotes" (not quoted by anyone anywhere) added by CensoredScribe, which WikiLubber rightly removed:

About Toy Story 2
  • 'We very much had to stick to the original designs to make it look like the first one. But the technical advances helped with things like the hair on the dog and the texture of skin on human characters like the Chicken Man'.
  • It was originally intended to make the humans more caricatured, but Lee says he's happier with the way they came out, especially Al 'The Chicken Man' , the greedy owner of the Toy Barn who steals Woody.
  • Lee Unkrich [4]
About Independence Day (1996 film)
  • All of this feeds into a sliding scale of villain power. Culminating with the aliens of Independence Day. Notice, in that case, that you no longer need incompetence or corruption of our institutions. Jeopardy takes care of itself. The invaders are so badass that even the United States government and military are allowed to simultaneously be both capable and good! In order to provide spear-carrier support for the two or three point-of-view heroes.
    • David Brin [5]
About Dr. Dolittle (film)
  • I did Dolittle for a particular reason. I wanted to do an extremely commercial movie. I love animals and I love Eddie Murphy, so I thought, "Here is a really commercial movie. I would never have thought I would have done something like this. The script wasn't particularly good when I started. It got a lot better, and it allowed me to form this company and hire Jenno Topping as my producer.
    • Betty Thomas [6]

There are literally hundreds of these. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

  • The Toy Story quotes I could do without, but the Dr. Dolittle quote is passable, and the Independence Day quote is fairly insightful. BD2412 T 16:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I always expected the about sections to be trimmed somewhat; to be honest there really aren;t any memorable quotes for alotof the CGI animal movies with comedian voice actors. Mmdgar being inspired by a pizza vs. Cloud being inspired by Musashi in Final Fatasy VII is a good example of what is notable and what isn't. CensoredScribe (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Defining importance in sub cultures.[edit]

Take for example the quotes currently on the graffiti page; I tried to include a world view of the subject which can make it a bit niche. Most of the graffiti artists I listed do not have wikipedia pages; there's about 200 listed, 130 of those being American, with entries averaging one or two paragraphs, [7]. Many of the scientists and video game developers I've quoted also do not have Wikipedia pages either; but have interesting things to say on specialized topics. I believe the edits being reverted by Daniel Tom fall under the category of niche explanation through unique quotation which for the people interested in those niches will be of use. Michael C. LaBarbera is just as quotable as Kathy Castro for small, one has a PhD. in Evolutionary Biology an the other is a dominatrix inventor much like Theresa Berkley. Also the quotes from James Kakalios, like the quotes for probability are of interest for more than one page as he's explaining scientific constants; same with these obscure but scientifically and ethically interesting quotes from this article on genetically engineered chimeras. Medical Research Humans Animals Regulation CensoredScribe (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Could my edits have a revue by the community, particularly the recent ones related to transgenics and colonialism?[edit]

  • I retire; 50 reversions after months of most of those edits being there is too much for me; between Peter and Danial Tom I have slightly more enemies than allies, not like I haven't been thanked or given a barnstar or politely educated as well. On rational wiki if I asked more than one question I would be accused of gish galloping someone; which at the time I didn't understand because I like to ask a lot of questions and am impatient. I wasn't aware there were continuing formatting problems like Peter1c has mentioned, the colon than asterix combination seemed acceptable; I think it's interesting these reversions and the 3 distinct sections made on my user page by Peter were all made the day category libertarian films was deleted. The only quotes reverted by Peter1c I am going to single out as being particularly important that they stay are for colonialism humanity and cell; I'm confused what evidence of notability is; it can mean different things to different people, sone requiring every quote be quoted before it is a quote and not just be memorable, insightful and potentially quotable.

The blanket criticism made of these revisions is that they are not notable; which would be a legit criticism if I was making pages for these people or some obscure work; as right now, unlike brainy quote, there isn't even a page for the Mona Lisa, I've added a section for works under the notability page. According to the notability page, "For theme articles in particular, quotations from notable people or notable publications that discuss the theme can be especially appropriate regardless of the frequency of the material having been quoted elsewhere, especially obscure or forgotten quotations that speak directly to the theme - this is one way Wikiquote is unique as compared to conventional compendia." The about sections can be tricky; which is why a lot of people don't do them; an atmosphere of 5 mistakes and your banned encourages one does nothing rather than risk making a mistake by thinking the CGI rendering of fur was particularly difficult in Alpha and Omega, that Halle Berry's weight lifting is the most notable part of the film Cat Woman, or that in Final Fantasy VII cloud is inspired by Musashi and Midgar by a pizza. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

This is what, the 5th time you "retire"? ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I think only the second seeing as it was only ever just a template that was added and this time on the village pump, I said I would around finals. So we've determined your exaggeration factor of X2.5. I'll but I will just say X2 though. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
CensoredScribe, I had to revert your recent edit here for being irrelevant and unnotable. My advice is to be cautious when adding material and if in doubt ask another user or make an entry on the appropriate Talk Page. Better safe than sorry, especially considering that if you continue with this pattern of editing behaviour you will likely face some sort of disciplinary action. Your enthusiasm and good faith are appreciated and I think most users here would prefer to see you reform rather than be penalized and/or constrained in your freedom to contribute. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you IOHANNSVERVS; that means a lot to me. The Fullmetal alchemist is not on topic enough, the cult is just an aside. I'm done with the dialogue quotes; I'm also mostly done with adding about sections, it's just Disney movies left for me at this point, maybe another book; I can't find any J.K. Rowling interviews specific to just one book; or anything from Tolkien. I suppose I could make about sections for Shonen Jump manga as well; but that's really not that much and I don't particularly care to accidentally read a lot of spoilers. If I actually wanted to have the maximum number of edits I would basically just be spoiling everything I possibly could for myself as quickly as possible reading TV interviews. For movies, books, and video games the interviews don't reveal that much about the plot; but TV and long running manga interviews usually do. The major arcs in American comics tend to be crossover events that wouldn't really fit any one particular comic book series's page. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
CensoredScribe basically goes looking for interviews and then adds irrelevant extracts from them to Wikiquote. If everybody did this, we would soon have thousands and thousands of (so-called) "quotes" in every single WQ page. Notability is out the window. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Daniel Tom, will you ever cite an actual example of my allegedly awful about sections; this is like the 4th time I've asked and you never provide one. If you did provide an example I'm guessing it would be one o the maybe 12 I've made for a 50 hour long RPG like final Fantasy; which requires just as much collaboration as a film but without famous actors and directors to quote; and instead programmers and designers who lacking wikipedia pages, so they must not be notable. Also, feel free to lead by example and show me and everyone else here what you think a good about section should look like, there's still hundreds of pages you could start one for. I have a few more about sections in mind for Disney fantasy and horror films; but other than that I'm done; everything else I have in mind for wikiquote will just be transferring existing quotes from one page to another, which is pretty unobjectionable. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Virgil#Quotes about Virgil, [8], [9], [10], [11], etc. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Awesome work Daniel Tom; when it comes to historical, religious, philosophical and literary figures you clearly have the skills. It was my mistakes not specifying that I wanted you to show me a good about page for works of fiction. I thought that would have been inferred through the context clue that I have made 0 about sections for historical and literary figures; similar to how you apparently have made 0 about sections for pages about a specific work of (often incredibly collaborative) fiction. Of coarse determining notability is easier when your pages subject is hundreds or thousands of years old compared to a decade or two. It seems we've rather different interests which only ever converge at the theme articles; even though I also do my fair share of thousand year old religious quotes; and I'm sure there's some more recent fiction articles you've edited as well. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Remove over-broad quotes.com spam blacklist entry[edit]

Could we edit MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist to replace: quotes\.com with # Anchor start so doesn’t match domains ending with quotes.com (?<=//|\.)quotes\.com ?

Details

The entry quotes\.com in MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist (added in 1043549 by Cirt) is overbroad: it blacklists links to all domains that contain (in practice, end with) quotes.com, not just this one domain.

This is because it’s at unanchored regex, so it matches substrings, per mw:Extension:SpamBlacklist.

This can be fixed by anchoring it, prefixing with (?<=//|\.) (same MW doc).

Alternatively, could whitelist specifically ok domains, but that’s tedious.

Concretely this is due to wanting to link to fakebuddhaquotes.com (a useful site specifically for debunking supposed quotes) on Gautama Buddha, which yields the message:

  • The text you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter.
This is probably caused by a link to a blacklisted external site.
  • The following text is what triggered our spam filter: quotes.com

Specifically, fakebuddhaquotes.com/your-work-is-to-discover-your-world-and-then-with-all-your-heart-give-yourself-to-it/ discredits the loose translation “Your work is to discover your work and then with all your heart to give yourself to it.”

Can we do this? Thanks!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
BTW, see 2066346 for edit hacking around this.
—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Could I receive some dispute resolution with Danial Tom? I am pretty sure this quote is about computer models.[edit]

  • The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand.
    • Freeman Dyson, “Heretical Thoughts about Science and Society” in Edge, posted 8 August 8, 2007.

This quote was initially longer as you can see at the history for computer, but I have edited it to focus more on the computer modeling aspect; which it is also a critique of, jut as much as it is about climate change denial. I'm feeling there's some needless antagonism towards me given how frequent these wrongful deletions from Danial Tom have been; I'm not arguing about the fiction quotes here, who knows if Men in Black is notable for a theme article? I am arguing about the importance of the notability and importance of my quotes about science. I would like an apology from Danial Tom being called a 5 year old with mental health problems simply for that edit to the science page even though Kathy Cairo's description is mostly in keeping with the following quotes on genetic engineering which for all that it amazes and or terrifies, is also not notable.

  • If you start putting very large numbers of human brain cells into primates, suddenly you might transform primates into something that has some of the capacities that we regard as distinctively human – speech or other ways of being able to manipulate or relate to a human. These possibilities, at the moment, are largely being explored in fiction but we need to start thinking about them now."
  • Where people worry is when you get to the brain, the germ cells and the sentinel features that help people recognize what is a person, as opposed to a rat or a rabbit. Things like skin texture, facial shape, speech, replacing brain cells with human cells, allowing the development of human germ cells in animals. And particularly where there is any possibility of fertilisation within an animal.
  • Changing animals by putting human genes or cells into their structure is one way of making them more resemble the bit of the human condition you're interested in studying.

Daniel Tom is bad at judging the importance of scientists, and Peter1c accidentally deleted a quote from Buddha on meditation and has problems with formatting as you can see on my talk page. Peter has shown deletionist tendencies seen the page for crowdfunding; and needed reminding that this was a theme about a fairly recent phenomenon not a person. I would like DanielTom and Peter1c to both edit that page so we can see what their vision of wikiquote will look like for more recent or niche themes. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, now you trimmed the quote, but anyway, Computers and Computer simulation are not the same thing. As for the rest, please provide diffs of the specific removals you don't think were justified, I'm not even sure what you're referring to. Your edit to the Science page was not reverted by me [12] (but I agree with its removal). ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The difference between computer models and computers is like the ancient Egyptian language versus the country of Egypt.[edit]

DanielTom keeps reverting a Freeman Dyson quote I'm trying to add to the computer page which criticizes computer modeling of global warming but also apps to computer modeling. I recently added a quote from the actor who portrays The Mummy about how there is some debate among linguists over the exact sound of the ancient Egyptian and Latin languages. I think this quote if from a linguist would sadly not be notable though it is from an actor; I would like to ask that the notability guidelines be rexamined in cases where the quote succinctly summarizes a finding a major breakthrough or limit in a field, as I believe my quotes on the brain page are worth including, and that there would be no doubt if they were cited by someone with a wikipedia page, like an actor.

I'll be taking a break for a while. This has been a great, mostly low stress, chance to learn how entertainment is made; and to read the the core texts of mythologies. Outside of historical documents and cable news political names though, there some problems with determining the importance of non fiction; mostly in science and business. I'll be working on finding McDonalds quotes that meet the "notability guidelines" that seem to differ by person and page. CensoredScribe (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
That quotation you added to the Egypt page here is a very good example of an unnotable quotation. I have reverted it. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Virgil and the typo edit wars.[edit]

I'm confused why even the alphabetizing is also being reverted when at least that is undeniably an improvement. CensoredScribe (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Let us speak of this at the Talk Page of Virgil here. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Anyone interested in the Maxims of Chanakya?[edit]

I found this interesting collection of quotes attributed to Chanakya called Maxims of Chanakya. These aphorisms would seem to be applicable to a large number of theme articles in addition to expanding the Chanakya page. Just thought I'd mentioned it as I'm going to be busy for a while and won't have time to do it myself. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

2016 WMF Strategy consultation[edit]

Hello, all.

The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) has launched a consultation to help create and prioritize WMF strategy beginning July 2016 and for the 12 to 24 months thereafter. This consultation will be open, on Meta, from 18 January to 26 February, after which the Foundation will also use these ideas to help inform its Annual Plan. (More on our timeline can be found on that Meta page.)

Your input is welcome (and greatly desired) at the Meta discussion, 2016 Strategy/Community consultation.

Apologies for English, where this is posted on a non-English project. We thought it was more important to get the consultation translated as much as possible, and good headway has been made there in some languages. There is still much to do, however! We created m:2016 Strategy/Translations to try to help coordinate what needs translation and what progress is being made. :)

If you have questions, please reach out to me on my talk page or on the strategy consultation's talk page or by email to mdennis@wikimedia.org.

I hope you'll join us! Maggie Dennis via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata & GLAM 'down under'[edit]

In February, I'm undertaking a three-week tour of Australia, giving talks about Wikidata, and Wikimedia's GLAM collaborations. Do join us if you can, and please invite your Wikimedia, OpenData, GLAM or OpenStreetMap contacts in Australia to come along. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The tour has now been extended to Indonesia. I'll be in Jakarta from 25-28 Feb. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

DanielTom and article ownership over ancient Rome related articles.[edit]

DanielTom only seems to care about my Rome related edits; and doesn't seem to have used control F to find all the Borgia's related edits in the Catholic Church page. I don't think it helps that before I joined wikiquote there was a vandal on Daniel Tom's user page pretending to be me "Atan Payte"; nor do the obvious theological and political differences between us seem to help. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that Wikiquote admins haven't blocked CensoredScribe yet. Ningauble at least suggested that he be banned from Wikiquote, but then did nothing about it. CensoredScribe has already done incredible damage to WQ. It's unfortunate, but apparently he will be allowed to continue polluting WQ articles with (often off-topic) garbage "quotes" at an alarmingly fast rate, forever. And he even reverts me when I try to undo some of the damage. So, from now on, I won't bother to try to revert his non-notable irrelevant additions anymore, because he is just going to keep adding more and more. Maybe after (if) WQ admins do their job and block him, I'll consider wasting more of my limited time trying to clean up his mess. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I have to agree that CensoredScribe should reform or face disciplinary action.
Let us examine the recent controversy at the Virgil page: CensoredScribe added a quotation [13] and DanielTom reverted it [14]; an edit war then ensued, whereafter I stepped in to support DanielTom's position [15] and added a Talk Page entry to discuss the issue [16]. Some dialogue was had but then the discussion faded out. Then, almost a week later, CensoredScribe re-initiated the edit war without discussion at the Talk Page [17].
This behaviour is not acceptable and neither are the provocative/antagonistic/disrespectful comments being made primarily by user CensoredScribe. Unfortunately this appears to not be an isolated incident either, but part of a pattern of disruption caused by CensoredScribe, who has shown either a lack of respect and/or a lack of comprehension regarding Wikiquote policies. I don't think banning is the right solution however, as the user has continually shown both good faith and enthusiasm. I would support and here suggest some form of mild disciplinary action being adopted against CensoredScribe, such as a suspension or a temporary restriction of some sort on their capacity to edit the project.
Signed, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
By disrespect do you mean the one time I said Daniel Tom was lazy; I figured that was acceptable behavior here based off the time I was called a 5 year old with brain damage by DanielTom. Also, in future Daniel Tom please list the last names of the authors the are reverting in the edit summaries, seeing as I've been asked to include much more than that information. CensoredScribe (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
It is unacceptable to be disrespectful and insulting. It is unacceptable from anyone, DanielTom included. Would you please link to where this alleged "5 year old with brain damage" insult occurred. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
[18] ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
In cases where CensoredScribe wants to reinstate quotes that have been deleted by other editors, I think he owes us an explanation—in calm, clearly reasoned prose free of invective and insults—explaining why he thinks the quotes are important and the removal was unjust. I have also perceived many of CensoredScribe's edits as destructive, and I would like to better understand the motivation for them. ~ Peter1c (talk) 08:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

CensoredScribe tricked some people (including senior admins) into thinking he is a good editor by basically copying already-existing quotes from one page to another (which in itself is not a bad thing), but even there his reading comprehension is so bad that he often adds said quotes to theme pages that have nothing to do with them. Very sad to watch. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi DanielTom. I'm willing to help CensoredScribe with his reading comprehension if he agrees to stop the edit wars and engage in civil discussion with the community. ~ Peter1c (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion many of CensoredScribe's recent contributions still fail to meet relevance and notability criteria. There are also some incredibly long quotes (in one case 8,700 characters!).

For example:

  • Addition to Self says more about the characters of the story than about the page topic.
  • Addition to Dimension says more about the "dream-place" of the story than about dimension.

How can we improve the quality control on the contributions? ~ Peter1c (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The vandal (CensoredScribe) is back. How about admins start blocking him for 1 day every time he adds an irrelevant quote to a theme page? Maybe then he'll start paying attention. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
CensoredScribe has now exhausted my patience as well. ~ Peter1c (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I am just back from a longer absence today than I had intended, after doing some minor editing on a page in recent days, which I intend to work on more later today. After many months of very limited involvement in many things, I have only recently begun returning to something closer to my previous levels of activity here, after being extensively occupied with other things, and with what little I have been able to discern of current situations and the character of many edits and responses, I agree that there has come a time for more extensive intervention to begin. I will probably make more extensive comments within a few hours, but am reviewing some relevant matters at the present time. ~ Kalki·· 17:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I just recently posted a formal warning of the danger of there soon being a short-term block, and perhaps eventual longer blocks, in a section of "Blocking warning" on the talk page of CensoredScribe (talk · contributions). Other editors and admins can comment upon the appropriateness or inappropriateness of my statements and such actions here. ~ Kalki·· 19:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Let us know when you finally block him. Just so people understand, as of today CensoredScribe has made over 7000 edits, so even if we review 20 of them a day, it will take us a year to review them all. And all of his edits need to be reviewed. Of course, if he is not blocked now it might take much longer – it will actually be impossible to keep up with him. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I won't be back for a while and I've already stated what little I intend to do when I return consists of adding about sections to a few traditionally animated movies and lower budget fantasy and horror; as well as transferring religious figure quotes to theme pages (the larger and less controversial of the two tasks). This will basically amount to less than a month of editing that I'm in no rush to do. I'm estimate I've edited basically 80% of the theme page at this point; and although I do agree with my inclusion of a relatively small amount of quotes from fiction, (less than 100). I only recall doing this for Ender's Game, H.P. Lovecraft, Flatland, Dragon Ball Z,, Justice League, Batman TAS, Static Shock, Gargoyles, Farenheit 451, Brave New World, Blade Runner, and 1984. Of these, only the quotes from non books were targeted for reversion, with the exception of the Lovecraft and Flatland quotes being objected to by Peter1c; but not the Ender's Game quotes. I really don't know what's so objectionable about the writing from Bruce Timm and Dwayne McDuffie; I was even thanked for adding Gargoyles to the war page. I can understand getting rid of the comic book quotes for Earth X and Batman; as well as the video game tales of Symphonia; but again, even all together these edits don't add up to that much, just 1 video game, 2 comic books and 4 cartoons. I still think the DC cartoon quotes are at least as good as all the X-Men movie quotes scattered across theme pages by others.
Right now however I'm kind of tired of basically writing papers for fun, than writing more papers for school. It's been a while since I read any fiction, I would rather do that than look up interviews with Phillip K. Dick and Robert Heinlein. I'm not really interested in doing more science right either. I haven't found many actual news stories regarding A.I., though I've found certain kind of computer technology news coverage limited, like how the love algorithms on dating sites aren't actually open to scientific peer review as a trade secret. I don't really feel like quoting theoretical black hole physics from Michio Kaku or Stephen Hawking either. I will not be going though the wisdom of the Simpsons or any other movie, TV show or film; as I' not watching anything or reading anything new at the moment and I'm done with what I've seen before.
It shouldn't actually take you that long if you work with a partner who reviews from the other end than it would only be 10 a day which takes a lot less time than reading through 10 articles and formatting the selected quoted from them for wikiquote. I also don't think it will be worth your time just to prove you are a better reviewer of my edits than UDScott and everyone else who has spoken to me about problems since I arrived.

Could you please sign your comments? ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Goodbye everyone![edit]

I'm leaving as of now; which is fine, as I didn't have much else to add, just organize. I have learned a lot editing wikiquote, both in terms of information and interpersonal relationships/public writing. I really liked the about sections for entertainment, as well as learning more ancient religious history. I think the additions I made to theme pages lie Comics, Graffitti, Genomics, Film, Television, Small, Video Games and Animation are all improvements, even if they are quite nerdy and niche. Please let me know what you have thought of my editing here and thank you to anyone who helped me learn the ropes. I would appreciate it if someone took a look at what Peter1c DanielTom and Ninguable are doing in regards to my edits; as I don't believe there recent revisions of some of my edits actually help. CensoredScribe (talk)

@CensoredScribe: I appreciate your work and I respect that it can be difficult to collaborate. I hope that you find a way to add what you can at this project as well as at our sister sites. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm glad to hear when other people find these interviews interesting; or when I can bring interesting excerpts from history to the surface. I have a couple of practical effects monster movies in mind; as well as more interviews about traditional animation (I have barely even started television) and lastly transferring the quotes from major religious figure's pages to theme pages, but other than that I think I actually accomplished my goals. I'm not learning any other languages right now so I don't think I will be moving on to wiktionary. There were only a few people I couldn't find many interviews for, I think Rare and Katsuhiro Otomo. I was expecting the final fantasy writers to be more difficult to get something for than J.K. Rowling or Tolkien but that was not the case; I think it is because the final product for them is the writing itself, so they can't write about it as much without giving it all away. Also the more books in a series it seems the less likely you will find an interview for any particular entry; in much the same way interviews about a particular episode of a show are rare; only in that case there's more writers to choose from. I think J.K. Rowling may actually have less interviews applicable to Wikiquote, than even the research scientists in the news interviews I've been adding. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Warrant block?[edit]

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/64.183.42.97 - Seems to be a troll. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 23:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Normally this is not the place to specify anonymous IP trolls or vandals. I blocked that IP for a month, because it had been used previously for nothing other than vandalism, but the Wikiquote:Vandalism in progress page or the Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard would be more appropriate places for such notices. ~ Kalki·· 07:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm a bit rusty as I just returned. Thank you! ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 12:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)