Wikiquote:Village pump

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

Wikiquote discussion pages (edit) see also: requests
Village pump
comment | history | archive
General policy discussions and proposals, requests for permissions and major announcements.
Reference desk
comment | history | archive
Questions and discussions about specific quotes.
All Wikiquote: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 - All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5


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

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

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

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


Abuse filters[edit]

It seems that some users are creating spam articles like User:Reuben3163‎ and on Wikiquote. I suggest that you consider importing Wikibooks' edit filters into Wikiquote. For reference, the spam which I linked above will not occur on Wikibooks as the filter will catch it (and has been very successful for us) (see this). Leaderboard (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

It looks like somehow I have access to en.wb's edit filter... @Leaderboard: Is there a way to download/import--I don't see one...? —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@Koavf: You mean export the filters? It's possible to do so per-filter (from my end at least). Leaderboard (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@Leaderboard: Yeah, that would be nice to mass export but it's not necessary. If it can't be done, then it can't be done. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@Koavf: "If x, then x" I can send you the filter export by email or talk. Leaderboard (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@Leaderboard: Oh, no that's not necessary--I can do them as well. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


Does anyone have a particular request for a filter we should or shouldn't use? —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Anything that can catch these spam bots is welcome to be sure. If WB has got it, then lets get it I say. GMGtalk 22:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I just imported several. We'll see if this changes things. If anyone spots an uptick in these tags on Special:Recentchanges, please let me know. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be working; see Special:AbuseLog. Though it may be advisable to create a page where users can report false positives if you haven't already. And filter 21 has an undefined error message (which is necessary as it is what users will see when the filter trips), please add one (which should include a link to a place where false positives can be reported). Leaderboard (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I totally understand why this tripped the filter as link spamming. I assume because of the twitter links? If so that may not be appropriate for WQ, as I presume there are a large amount of legitimate links to twitter. I do find it interesting that we had three registered accounts and one IP triggering abuse filters on this one page in the span of about half an hour. That looks suspiciously like a UPE sock farm to me. Which...looking around...does WQ have no CUs?
Anyway, stuff like this is golden and exactly what is needed. GMGtalk 12:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-link-spam. It's not pretty but it's something. Thanks again! —Justin (koavf)TCM 10:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Is there a way to intentionally trigger this filter for testing without being overtly disruptive? GMGtalk 10:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Working in your sandbox would probably be a start. As far as checking the AbuseLog, I don't know that anyone is really spying it like a hawk at 6:15 a.m. UTC+4, so you could probably do a spate of test edits with no real harm. —Justin (koavf)TCM 10:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay. So just copying and pasting the last thing to trip the filter, I get this error:
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:
The following text is what triggered our spam filter:
So the summary box isn't displaying. Not sure if you were just transferring it over as a draft at this point, and intentionally hadn't enabled it. It also seems like the bit about "just hit save again" in the message isn't accurate. Doesn't matter how many times you hit save, it still prevents you from performing the edit. GMGtalk 10:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Hmm? And it doesn't seem that my intentionally triggering the filter actually got recorded in the log? GMGtalk 10:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
And (before I run out of coffee and have to wake the family up), I'm assuming since its MediaWiki: prefix that this is automatically full protected with no way to unprotect it? But it definitely still references Wikibooks twice, so we'd need to at least tweak that bit. I'm also kindof a fan of the big warning icon used on w:MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-link-spam. Even with that, last time I unintentionally tripped the filter on by trying to reference a spam black listed site, it took even me a minute to realize it wasn't a loss of session data, scroll back up to the top and notice the warning. So it might not hurt to make it pop out a bit more visually, to increase the changes of people actually noticing it.
I like that it directs users here, rather than creating a stand alone page. It may be helpful to make a very simplified version of the pre-filled form generated when someone, for example, files a new report at w:WP:ANEW, see here. Keeping in mind that this is directed at a total newbie who probably doesn't know enough yet to fill in the header box when filing a report. I can work up a draft for that later today if you know how to technically implement it (I surely don't). GMGtalk 10:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the note re:Wikibooks. Fixed. Also, it pops now more but is still pretty basic and ugly. And yes, I agree that since en.wq is pretty small, there is no need for a message board just for Abuse Log errors (yet). —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Is this specific filter still going to allow completion of the edit on the second save? Currently it doesn't seem to. GMGtalk 21:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Just spit balling, but what about something like this? GMGtalk 22:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! As far as the saving thing goes, this is all negotiable. The blacklist on en.wp won't let you save, even if the previous revision included a blacklisted domain. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Categories, part 2[edit]

Will someone kindly explain to User:Risto hot sir‎ how categories work, again. Because they don't seem to understand, and seem adamant that they're not going to listen unless it comes from a sysop. But they're apparently having a go at adding random city categories to Category:People, because...reasons... GMGtalk 18:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

RedMeansStop. In sports, for example, it's important to see the statistics by one look. Now I can't find out without much trouble which one is the first, New York City or London. And there's no need to create categories like Novelists from Alaska etc.--Risto hot sir (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I want the two of you to discuss this here and assume good faith. Please state your positions neutrally so the community can decide. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion we should have only the most important categories. Wikipedia is a bad example: People died of lung cancer... It took a long time before even the birth years were accepted at Wq. The most important thing is to make the readers able to find the information they need as quickly as possible.--Risto hot sir (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
...The issue doesn't have anything to do with what categories are important. The issue is the way that categories work on every Wikimedia project, and you've already been been told this multiple times by multiple people, to please stop adding parent categories to pages that already obviously contain child categories. If you don't understand, see w:Wikipedia:Categorization, c:Commons:Categories, or b:Wikibooks:Categories, and any number of similar pages that explain the same concept. You don't decide because of personal preference that random city categories are somehow uniquely important among the 15,653 pages currently under Category:People, and promote them to the top level parent category, because that makes no sense. GMGtalk 20:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Let's take Jay Nordlinger. When I want to see all American journalists, can't find him 'cause he's hiding in the category Journalists from Michigan. Do you really want to spread the American journalists to 51 categories?--Risto hot sir (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Then you need to nominate that category for VfD, as you are instructed to do at Wikiquote:Deletion policy. You do not need to randomly insert parent categories, as you did here, here, and here, undoing the work of three different editors. GMGtalk 21:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

This is not an encyclopedia, everything possible can't be categorized. Only the quotations are important - and the easiness to find 'em.--Risto hot sir (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Then you need to nominate that category for VfD, as you are instructed to do at Wikiquote:Deletion policy. GMGtalk 21:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Why should I? If you want to make Wikiquote unreadable, just go ahead, green means go! Besides, without my work it would have been harder for you to create harmful categories.--Risto hot sir (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Why should I? ... Because that's what the project's policy says you should do. I appreciate your work. I'm not trying to get you to stop contributing. I'm trying to get you to stop doing one very small counter productive thing, among the vast majority of productive things that you do, because that one small counter productive thing is just making more work for others to clean up. GMGtalk 21:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I think I've written enough of this subject. Let the community decide! Have you just thought how much work you must do before all the occupations etc. in every country are categorized? Journalists from Tuscany, composers from Bavaria, astronauts from Saudi Arabia (oh, that exists already!)... And you've also done mostly excellent work! I fear that Wq is going to little pieces.--Risto hot sir (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, one can certainly nominate categories for VFD (and parent categories should not just be added), but there is another point here as well: it appears that some of the categories that have been added are way too granular for this project. As was mentioned above, we are not an encyclopedia - in general categories are only added when there is a critical mass of enough pages to justify it. We generally do not add a ton of categories, hoping that they will be needed and filled at some point. Having such specific categories is really not needed, IMHO. ~ UDScott (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree that there is an issue of granularity to be settled. But when someone creates a category, the appropriate response is not to depopulate it, so that someone else nominates it for speedy deletion (and none of those diffs involve me personally). The appropriate response is to nominate for VfD, notify the creator, and find out where the boundary of that granularity lies. GMGtalk 22:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Hundreds of categories may be coming, so I'm not gonna bring 'em to VFD. I'm just a Finnish guy in New York (according to Sting)--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
That's fine--discuss it here. That's why it exists. It's far more overhead and effort to edit war and much easier to ask the community for input. If the consensus is against this level of detail, then User:GreenMeansGo and you can both save yourself some effort. I just don't understand the continuous back and fort here. en.wq is a small enough community that it is very easy to get a consensus. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Well I should say that this is right out, because obviously nominating Category:English people by location, Category:English people, Category:Britons, and Category:Europeans all for deletion is patently silly. That's kindof the point I'm trying to get at. Nominating individually overly granular categories for deletion, or even batch deletion a la Commons is perfectly fine. But we don't throw four intermediate categories to the wind because we're feeling particularly giddy about London. GMGtalk 23:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The people usually love (or hate) their own cities and want to know the notable persons from it. All memories are connected to places.--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

That's fine. Make List of people by city or List of people by European city if the community decides that such lists are appropriate here. I imagine that the inclusion of w:MOS:SEEALSO sections could also be helpful to readers. I'd support that and even help populate it. But category space is not the place to make pseudo-lists because it defies the purpose of categories and makes them useless, notwithstanding the fact that categories are mostly invisible to readers, and are mostly internal tracking mechanisms. GMGtalk 23:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay, well, Category:List of people by city was not what I meant exactly. I meant List of people by city. But Category:People by city also works nicely. GMGtalk 00:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Read-only mode for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October[edit]

13:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Link for reference[edit]

I added the link to the source in this addition to the page: Youngrmm H. 101 of My Funniest Jokes. New York: Henny Youngman, 1976. Brochure. Cited in: Essays of an Information Scientist, Vol:4, p.515-518, 1979-80, Current Comments #26, p. 516, June 30, 1980.

I can't put the link here because it is triggering the spammer filter. —This unsigned comment is by Canavalia (talkcontribs) 09:06, 7 September 2018.

Link to log. GMGtalk 10:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

External link, Dara Ó Briain[edit]

Trying to edit a page regarding Dara Ó Briain

There was a "red-link" to Mock the Week, on Wikipedia. Attempted to make that link, not allowed to. Spammer filter. I feel that it is an appropriate one.

External link - Mock the Week Thanks.

Now able to save this change.Don't really know what is happening. —This unsigned comment is by Rhynchelma (talkcontribs) .

I revised the formatting of this link. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • A abuse filter was recently added that essentially prohibits new users from posting any external links. There was discussion a few years ago about doing something like this, but I recall the decision was to filter more selectively than any link from a new user. Many newcomers begin their Wikiquote career by writing citations as external links.

    I think is is a mistake to implement a policy restriction by technical means without first discussing the policy. There was some discussion of abuse filters above but, in my opinion, "anything that can catch these spam bots" is not specific enough to formulate a policy against newcomers posting hyperlinks. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

  • To be clear, I wasn't being intentionally flippant there. I was just trusting that others involved understood the way the filters worked more than I did, and that they had already to some extent been tested and refined elsewhere before being suggested for implementation here. GMGtalk 21:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
@Rhynchelma: Thanks for writing here and adding to the quotation collection. I want to refine the filter to make it work better. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Good Faith Edit With Link To CNBC Video Interview[edit]

This is a good-faith edit, with a link to the source of the quote, which is a CNBC video interview with the person being quoted.

My submission seems to have disappeared; here it is, in full (to the page "Vivek Wadhwa" -- I had to obfuscate the URL just to post it to this Village Pump, surprisingly enough:

  • The last big thing [Apple] did was nine years ago with the iPhone. And since then they made it bigger with the iPad; they made it smaller with the Watch. All they keep doing is playing with the size. ... [Apple] needs an Elon Musk or a Zuckerberg running it. ... [iPhone] is a ten-year-old device. They've done everything they can with it. And Samsung, and even BlackBerry, have similar or even better ratings than the iPhone does. That's the biggest slap in the face you could possibly have: BlackBerry almost ranking the same as an iPhone? Time to move on.
    • leftbracket h t t p colon slash slash slash video slash 2016 slash 04 slash 27 slash vivek-wadhwa-apple-should-buy-tesla-and-make-elon-musk-ceo.html Apple should buy Tesla and make Elon Musk CEO rightbracket on CNBC (27 April 2016)
  • Yes check.svgY Done On the subject, are we getting more false positives than we're weeding out bad edits? Can we technically dial the filter back a bit? Or is it implemented as an all or nothing solution? GMGtalk 13:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
    • This is another case of the newly added Abuse Filter #21 (5 September 2018 by administrator Koavf) preventing good faith users from posting external links. I reiterate that this was done without establishing a policy prohibiting new (or unregistered) users posting hyperlinks. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm not trying to make policy by fiat, just respond to a user request on the Pump. I have now revised Special:AbuseFilter/21--it should be more reasonable now. And User:Ningauble, I have no problem with you disabling it or editing it pending some discussion or review. I trust your judgement.Justin (koavf)TCM 17:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
        • Totally agree, that if anyone takes issue with this implementation, disable it and we can discuss it. GMGtalk 01:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Attempted Addition to Jane Goodall Page[edit]


I'm a big fan of Wikiquote and just tried to update the Jane Goodall page.

Background: I read a quote by her, tried to confirm it on Wikiquote, but couldn't. I searched elsewhere and confirmed it on what I believe is her official Facebook page.

What I tried to do: So I tried to update the Jane Goodall Wikiquote page, including a link to her Facebook page, which is the only source I've aware of and which seems reliable.

Problem: However, I received this message:

Unfortunately, your edit has triggered an automated filter designed to detect and prevent spammers. It appears you are adding external links to other websites in a way that may not be appropriate, and may not conform to the purpose of Wikiquote. If you think there has been a mistake, please let us know so that we may improve the filter and prevent it from interfering with good faith editors. You may do so by following this link and leaving a message. Please be as detailed as possible to help us better understand the problem, and include a description of the website you were attempting to link to. Thank you, and again, welcome!

This is what I'm trying to add:

"What you do makes a difference, and you have to decide what kind of difference you want to make." Post on Dr. Jane Goodall Facebook page (2017-12-12) (

I'm trying to do so here:

If there's a better way for me to do this, please let me know.

Thanks! —This unsigned comment is by Reasonable Bill (talkcontribs) .

Looks like a false positive. Leaderboard (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Is there anything I can do to avoid the false positive and publish the quote -- or must an administrator do this for me? Thanks for all you do to make this such an awesome and valuable site! —This unsigned comment is by Reasonable Bill (talkcontribs) .

An admin needs to do it for you (I'm not an admin, sorry). @Koavf:, please check? Leaderboard (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
@Reasonable Bill: One work-around to this is to find the original source of the quotation, which was not this Facebook post. See for instance here. Do you know the original source? —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

external link - Robert Mueller[edit]


I'm attempting to add the source: to the article:

It is a source for: "only two types of companies: those that have been hacked and those that will be" The quote is often repeated and possibly has more than one version/source, so it is important to attribute it

However I'm being blocked by an automated filter. Please could someone whitelist for me, or advise an alternative.

--Peterxyz (talk) 04:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done GMGtalk 12:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I have tried to add one external link to the existing page and my try has been detected as harmful[edit]

Greetings, I am the author of the article which I was trying to add as an external link to the existing Wikiquote page - Star Wars and unfortunately, my try has been detected as potentially harmful. In fact, I am running the whole Space Quotations blog and I have created my last series of articles on the topic of Star Wars characters quotes. Here the list:

So, to sum up, I was simply trying to add a very topical external link to the page just the first one (25 Best Star Wars Quotes)

Here's what I've tried to put:

Space Quotations - 25 Best Star Wars Quotes and more about mysteries of endless space.

I also would like to state that my intentions were simply educational to allow people to learn more about Star Wars, as well as show them my article, in which I have put much of my efforts.

Hoping for your understanding, Kind regards, Andy —This unsigned comment is by AndriiZip (talkcontribs) .

@AndriiZip: Hi Andy. Thanks for coming to participate. As you may see above, we tried to implement this filter to cut down on spam and it sometimes catches legit edits. Can you tell me how you were thinking of using these links? E.g. this blog is not the original source of any of these quotations, correct? —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Hey, @Justin (Koavf), thanks for your reply! Well, I was hoping that my article may be of help to those looking for additional quotations from Star Wars movies, that's it. The only one link I was trying to add is the on 25 Best Star Wars Quotes because it is related. I have mentioned the other links from my blog just to show that I am currently writing on Star Wars Quotes (Emperor Palpatine Quotes article is coming up next). —This unsigned comment is by AndriiZip (talkcontribs) .
@AndriiZip: I figured that was probably where you were going but think about it from our perspective: we'd like to be the best quotation repository, so outward linking to this blog is a little... counter-productive? —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, Justin (@koavf)! Yes, I see your point very clear. May I just ask for some future perspective: so, there is nothing to be done from my side to settle this matter? Cause I was truly hoping for cooperation here, not competition:) At least, possibly, you guys consider having a look at my writings and we could elaborate further on the subject. Thanks in advance. Regards, Andy. —This unsigned comment is by AndriiZip (talkcontribs) .

@AndriiZip: Nothing is set in stone! Just make your proposal for how you can make the site better! —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Liberals and conservatives[edit]

It seems User:Rupert loup and I have a slightly different takes on what a "liberal" and "conservative" means. So...the result seems to be that both categories contains the following pages (about half of Category:Conservatives):

So...that essentially makes the categories meaningless, and it would be helpful to find some kind of solution there. GMGtalk 18:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Liberal conservativism, conservative liberalism and classical liberalism are variants of liberalism and conservativism, and people can be socially right, center or left wing and being economically liberal. The only one that is not currently in this category (I think) is Le Pen, the others still expouse one of this variants. Subcategories to different variants, like from specific regions and timelines, can be created if necessary. Rupert loup (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Then I think we need some more granular way of parsing this out with sub-categories. I personally think the easier solution is to go with the common definition, since I'm not totally sure there are enough pages to really warrant a category for something like Category:Liberal conservatism. But if we're defining a generic category so broadly that we can justify Ben Shapiro and Marine Le Pen as liberals, then we may as well just delete the categories all together, because they're broad enough to be useless. GMGtalk 19:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

VFD backlog[edit]

A lot of the votes on VFD have been closed for several months now and there is one in particular I'd like to renominate, or is Inceldom already eligible for renomination without first being removed from the page? Would someone mind helping me out with this? Hello? CensoredScribe (talk) 03:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I closed a couple now. The one you mentioned should still have some discussion since there is no consensus. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate your assistance. CensoredScribe (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello sir[edit]

I provided some links for better understand about diwali some and quotes fot diwali

The dictatorship of the proletariat[edit]

To all

Marx and others with similar views did not understand the concept the dictatorships of the proletariat as the dictatorships we know from the 20th and 21th century. Marx as a left-Hegelian held that all class societies are dictated by the class in charge of the economy and the state apparatus. According to Marx are all class societies dictated with the tool of class struggle to secure the interests of the ruling class. Marx and Engels were neither any pre-Bolsheviks nor pre-Stalinists/Maoists as some may believe due to the unfit and dogmatic concept the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Even Rosa Luxemburg used the phrase the dictatorship of the proletariat while she as early as 1904 wrote the following:

"If we assume the viewpoint claimed as his own by Lenin and we fear the influence of intellectuals in the proletarian movement, we can conceive of no greater danger to the Russian party than Lenin’s plan of organization. Nothing will more surely enslave a young labor movement to an intellectual elite hungry for power than this bureaucratic straightjacket, which will immobilize the movement and turn it into an automaton manipulated by a Central Committee. On the other hand there is no more effective guarantee against opportunist intrigue and personal ambition than the independent revolutionary action of the proletariat, as a result of which the workers acquire the sense of political responsibility and self-reliance." (Source: )

Sincerely, Bjorn-Olav Kvidal, Stockholm

Odd page creation[edit]

So anybody have any idea what's up with Category:Pages with template loops? Is this "a thing" that is useful? I don't know why we would really need a wikidata infobox on en.quote anyway. Isn't that mainly a Commons thing? GMGtalk 18:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata Infobox is very much a Commons thing. The template loop category is standard to MediaWiki: it is a tracking category for pages where templates include themselves. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Insertion of Quotations blocked ... please do it for me then[edit]

About section on film pages[edit]

I believe we have discussed this before (but I can't seem to find the discussion). There seem to be an inordinate amount of quotes being added to the About section of pages, particularly for film pages (see [1], [2], or [3]). I don't see the value in having every mention of a film from reviews or elsewhere placed on a film's page, unless said quote is very memorable or provides some unique insight into the film. Frankly I think these additions detract from the pages (and in some cases outnumber the quotes actually from the film). Anyone disagree? ~ UDScott (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree 100%. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Another example of what I believe is excess: [4]. I just don't see the value. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd be more than happy to discuss the general value of critic reviews and interviews, some are definitely more interesting than others, many reviews were little more than amusing recaps, however many of them are quoted on the corresponding Wikipedia article as well. I was trying to keep coverage from the various major newspapers and entertainment websites consistent as to not show a preference for one over the other, that was just my interpretation of neutral point of view and perhaps that was wrong and tended to make the sections excessive. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I think the issue is not about the POV, but rather that most of these quotes are not memorable in any way and provide questionable value. To me, quotes about a film only provide value if they offer a unique perspective on the film or are memorable or pithy. I do not believe these that you have added rise to that level (and I think the problem occurs again in the latest examples, found here or here). ~ UDScott (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
And another example here - more less than memorable quotes about the film than quotes from the film itself. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • CensoredScribe simply copies stuff from Wikipedia (as he readily admits above) and dumps it into Wikiquote, usually with minimal (I was going to say outrageously lazy, nearly always incorrect) formatting. He turns gold into lead confidently and unthinkingly. I've suggested many times before that all additions by CensoredScribe to "About" sections (which, it turns out, are mostly excerpts from interviews, not actual quotes) should be reverted. The problem is that he has turned so many film pages into lead, it's hard to decide where to start the cleanup. (But I'll do it myself, if given permission.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
    • CensoredScribe does this not just to About sections, unfortunately – see this! Dry academic stuff which he lifts from Wikipedia articles and dumps on Wikiquote. Clearly, CensoredScribe needs to be blocked again and "his" additions (copied from Wikipedia) reverted. Anyway, I won't be repeating myself forever anymore. I'm optimistic that someday admins here will wake up. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I see a standard approaching objectivity other than to say that if a quote isn't quoted, then we should avoid quoting it. That is to say that a review in The Rolling Stone would be considered akin to a primary source for our purposes, and when The New York Times comes back and says "In their review, The Rolling Stone said 'this movie is fan-flippin-tastic'", then we treat the NYT as akin to a secondary source, lending credence to quotability because they felt the need to quote it.
Otherwise, we are depending more on what we choose to include as editors and not on the sources themselves, which means there's nothing to discuss other than personal preference, and disagreements over inclusion of particular quotes are intractable from the start. GMGtalk 12:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
So on this subject, I agree that a secondary source can certainly lend credence for quotes from the media or recent quotes. The only issue I see (and why I would not want this to be the only criteria for inclusion) is for older quotes or quotes from a literary work for example. I doubt that many of the quotes from literature or other older works are quoted in secondary sources, but that should not disqualify them from being including, especially if they are from a notable work. It just seems in this particular case (regarding the quotes from film reviews, etc.) that we have strayed from the goal of having memorable or pithy quotes. And when such quotes outnumber quotes from the actual work, something seems out of whack to me. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
But I see no argument here saying that these reviews themselves are notable works, nor that the authors of the reviews are themselves notable. So inclusion is based only on one of the four criteria suggested at WQ:NQUOTE, and the one of the four that is the most capricious and subjective. GMGtalk 14:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I've begun trimming the quotes from some of the film pages (including Batman: Gotham Knight, The Dark Knight (film) and The Dark Knight Rises‎). ~ UDScott (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
According to Wikiquote:Wikiquote, quotations "may inspire us to seek an understanding of their creators, to consider our own lives, to laugh, or merely to admire their mastery of language. However we use them, quotations summarize the collective insights of society, a legacy of knowledge passed onward, from one generation to the next." I would argue that about sections definitely create interest in the creators given how many reviews include criticisms of the artists in general in addition to those specific to the work, and rather than cite the more often quoted "two thumbs up!", or "if you see one film this year...", or whatever other ultra condensed positive blurb that's included in the advertisements, it would be better if we include some general analyses of the works from multiple film reviews, as I think this is the best means of summarizing the "collective insights of society", rather than the collective insights of the marketing departments of the studios.
Notability mentions, "We limit ourselves to quotations which are notable. A quotation can be notable because it has achieved fame due to its enduring relevance to many people, or because it is attributed to a notable individual, or appeared in a notable work." I would argue fan sites that collect interviews with the cast and crew effectively demonstrate relevance for the interviews they quote to that fan base, even if the fan sites themselves are not notable. Again, negative reviews are less likely to be included by fans or promoters; though as the pages for Wonder Woman and Man of Steel demonstrate, negative reviews do still get quoted in secondary sources, often with line by line refutations of the points they make, such as with the reactions to the Mr. Plinkett Star Wars reviews. CensoredScribe (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: No editing for up to an hour on 10 October[edit]

12:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

robot detection false positive[edit]

was unable to make the following edit to susan collins:

Making wikiquote match wikipedia, will add a picture from wikipedia of the letter later. Fairness demands it.[edit]

How is citing wikipedia on wikiquote an outside source?

Good Faith Edit - Eric Schmidt[edit]

This edit was rejected due to its link to the source of the quote:

Is the abuse filter working?[edit]

Since we have some decent false positives reported above, we need to discuss if this abuse filter is worth it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

It's reasonable to expect that many (most) false positives are not being reported here – how many users new to Wikiquote who are blocked from making a good-faith edit can find (or care to find) the Village pump? I don't think the filter is worth it. ~ DanielTom (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
That might sadly be the case here. Maybe other filters could do the job better. You might want to temporarily set the filter to tag-only for now. Leaderboard (talk) 08:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • We keep having false positives (see below). User:Leaderboard's suggestion (setting the filter to tag-only) sounds reasonable to me. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Link spamming - false positive[edit]

I've tried to add the original sources to two quotes to this article - both are press interviews uploaded onto YouTube however my edits were rejected as "harmful". Any idea how to fix this?

"That doesn't feel like politics to me..."

"People in general, not just girls, but people who are younger..."

ElizaOscar (talk) 05:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton[edit]

At the page for Hillary Clinton, I removed a bunch of "quotes about" that are basically an arbitrary collection of attacks in the far-right media (e.g. Breitbart). There are plenty of robust criticisms of Hillary, but the Foundation mandates the equivalent of en:WP:BLP everywhere and I don't see how a dumping ground for political venom is consistent with that. The same would apply to articles on right-wing politicians and attacks on far-left websites. We should stick with notable commentary in mainstream sources, not just random spite. JzG (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

JzG has tenaciously removed quotes about Hillary Clinton by very notable people such as Julian Assange, Hugo Chavez, Bill Clinton, Chris Hedges, Jay Leno, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. This massive censorship of quotes is unacceptable. The quotes that he's removed actually are "notable commentary", quoted in various sources all over the political spectrum, not just "in the far-right media". He's removed quotes with sources as diverse as RT, Breitbart, Newsmax, Weekly Standard, Truthgig, The Gateway Pundit, World Tribune, National Report, The New York Times and Mediaite. But other secondary sources could be found for the same quotes. He's also removed quotes by Hillary Clinton herself. Take Hillary's (in)famous quote "I believe that marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman" – a quote tellingly censored by JzG, when obviously it must stay on the page. As I explained to JzG, "if you dislike the source that accurately quotes the words Hillary or others have said, replace it with a better one, just don't censor the quote itself". We can't remove notable quotes just because we don't like them. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Well we need some kind of resolution, because currently it's just a good ole fashioned edit war. GMGtalk 01:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Adding linked ref.[edit]

I'm trying to create a clickable ref to The Congressional Record that contains the speech transcription.

Hey Æthereal. What link were you trying to add and where? GMGtalk 01:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Trying to add a link to a quote source[edit]

There is a link to a quote by Penn Jillette ( that doesn't appear to lead to the content anymore. Here is the section of code with what seems to be a defunct link:

I located an alternate site hosting the video but it was not the original site or location. I was unsure if I should erase the original location as it is likely historically accurate (and maybe of some use?) So I added the alternate site using this code:

 I attempted to follow the directions to add the code and it gave me an error and invited me to this page to explain it.  I did attempt a second time to change the page thinking maybe I was at fault for error (typing the wrong button or mistyping the "CAPTCHA Security check" word but I received this message: "Error: This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed. If you believe your action was constructive, please inform an administrator of what you were trying to do. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: Link spamming"
 So, I'm not sure what the proper way to handle this change or addition.

Shamelessness quote[edit]

Hi, I am trying to add a quote. My source is a biographical site on webnode, I don't know how to leave a link properly. Sorry if it's a problem

The Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

11:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Editing News #2—2018[edit]

14:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion regarding quote policy/practice[edit]

- - - Begin text copied from Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Inceldom - - -

  • Assuming that this is agreeable (it's hard to tell since it was suggested so late), I've taken the liberty of moving the page and adding the quotes per my comment above. Ping previous participants: User:Whaledad, User:BD2412, User:Turnheew. GMGtalk 12:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I think that should be acceptable, GreenMeansGo. I would like to note that, although not a valid objection to the renaming and continued existence of this page, Wikiquote notably lacks coverage of many topics of a sexual nature, including pages the genitalia and most sexual fetishes and I feel this lack of effort is deliberate. Do we really need a page to differentiate notable quotes on hentai (assuming they exist) from animation and pornography? I'm pretty sure more people have heard about hentai than inceldom. No doubt there have been notable sources that have written on the more technologically primitive fetishes, even some of the seemingly more recently invented ones like robot and or furry fetishes which tend to have very strong conceptual parallels in mythology one would argue would warrant inclusion, (the metal maidens of Hephaestus and various zoomorphic figures like satyrs and centaurs, or the Ornithes Areioi, just to use Greek and Roman mythology as an example). More pertinently than arguing over whether love poems about pan belong next to psychological studies discussing the furry fandom, the difference (if any), between lolicon, shotacon, hentai and pedophilia is sure to be a discussion waiting to happen sometime down the line if we continue adding sexuality pages to Wikiquote. I would like to know just how many people would consider adding these nonexistent sex related pages to be an actual improvement, there's pages for individual makes of guns now, so I don't see why to exclude different varieties of sex, there's an inane amount of detail in both subjects. We should probably draw the line before creating pages for all the individual mechanical parts or genes though lest it vastly outnumber the pages for books and themes. This notably is not Wikipedia so we don't have to cover absolutely every single subject that they do. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Hmm...I guess this is getting a bit off topic, but doesn't really hurt anything to do a bit of musing, and it could be helpful to organize our thoughts. I'd say there are a whole host of human sexuality related pages that could, and probably should be created. The main issue that seems to cause more problems than anything else, is that WQ currently seems to have comparatively little in the way of objective inclusion criteria for individual quotes. This leaves entirely too much discretion up to individual editors, and means that the end-state of a WQ page has more to do with who is editing it, than it does to do with the subject of the page itself. I'm not entirely sure how to fix that, but it is a problem what we will have to deal with at some point. I wonder if other language projects have come up with a solution to it that we have not yet found. GMGtalk 22:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't want to take this off topic either, but right now I think the pages for guns, black people and vagina could very well end up mostly consisting of rap lyrics given the current lack of objective inclusion criteria to provide direction, and I take issue with the fact the self elected goal keepers of the page for guns allow all kinds of questionable rap lyrics from admittedly very high charting records, yet allow no anti-gun quotations from an an equivalently well selling Batman film, comic, or cartoon, is considered notable for inclusion. I think if this is based off number of people who have heard the quote from observing the source in it's entirety than something or rather Batman related on guns is probably notable, as are platinum record rap lyrics, that or neither source is notable simply because they are popular and there are additional criteria that exclude them. I have been sticking to movie reviews and science journals because newspaper circulation is calculated as is impact factor, though notably these are for the source as a whole not the individual quotations included in them; secondary sources are not actually provided for the vast majority of the quotes of any given page. I assume the general thesis in the introduction or conclusion is the most oft quoted part, though often it is some other aside somewhere in the middle. I assumed when I added the quotes from Fahrenheit 451 without a secondary source specifically quoting it to the the page for books that secondary sources weren't required, it's been a while since that happened, I apparently have multiple people intermittently going through my edits, and I assume that page is fairly frequently visited, including by the people who most revert me, so the lack of correction if this is indeed a problem seems a bit odd, though than again given how unclear Wikiquote can be, not really that surprising. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

- - - End text copied from Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Inceldom - - -

  • Well CensoredScribe, it does seem that this problem crops up frequently. There's related discussion above at Wikiquote:Village pump#About section on film pages (courtesy ping for User:UDScott). Then there's disputes like this one, (courtesy ping for User:JzG and DanielTom). There's also issues like this one (courtesy ping for User:JessRek6). For guidance, we are given WQ:NQUOTE as part of WQ:N, but that's just an essay. We have WQ:Q, which is a guideline. There's discussion on the talk page there going back years, but overall I find that WQ:Q lacks focus and fails to provide a clear concise standard that is easy to intuitively apply. So we end up with are quote pages that reflect the editor more than they do the subject, and that causes all kinds of problems, with no real standard for settling differences of opinion.
    My intuition was that criteria should be simplified if possible. I had considered distilling things down into exclusion criteria and inclusion criteria, where exclusion criteria are quick-fails, and inclusion criteria are matters of relative weight.
    • Exclusion criteria - If a quote fails any one of these criteria then it is not suitable for inclusion on Wikiquote.
      • The quote is verifiable - (from WQ:Q) Quotes that can be sourced only to things like personal experience or unpublished rumors are not appropriate for inclusion. (from WQ:NQUOTE) Quotes that can be verified only by low quality sources such as blogs, Twitter, or online forums are also usually not appropriate, unless they have themselves been quoted by other reliable secondary sources. (Note: this replaces the notability of the author with the use of the quote in other sources as an independent judge of notability. Notability of the author is moved to inclusion criteria.)
      • Is the quote original - (from WQ:Q) Quotes that are not original to the author or work are not appropriate for inclusion. For example, a common aphorism, even when said or written by a notable person, should not be included on the page for that person when they are themselves simply repeating a common aphorism.
      • Is the subject notable - (from WQ:Q) If the subject of a quote has not itself been the subject of sustained in-depth coverage in reliable source, then the subject should generally not have a stand-alone page on Wikiquote, meaning quotations about the subject are also not appropriate.
      • ... So on an so forth...
    • Inclusion criteria - Individual quotes that do not fail the exclusion criteria above, qualify for inclusion based on the weight given by meeting one or more of these criteria. Quotes that meet none of these criteria should generally be avoided. Quotes that meet multiple criteria should be preferred over those that meet only one or few.
      • The quote has been widely quoted - (from WQ:NQUOTE) Prefer quotes that have been widely quoted by independent sources. Quotes taken directly from the primary source, and chosen based on the preferences of individual editors, should be avoided in favor of those that sources themselves deem quotable. The wider the variety of sources, the more varied the context of their use of the quote, and the wider the time frame across which the quote is used, all lend weight to this criteria.
      • The source(s) of the quote are themselves notable - (from WQ:NQUOTE, WQ:Q) Quotes are given increased weight for inclusion if the person being quoted is themselves notable. We should, for example on the topic of Fish, prefer a quote from William Shakespeare over a quote from a fisherman in a local newspaper. We should further prefer a quote from The Merchant of Venice, as both the author and the work are independently notable.
      • The quote is quotable - (from WQ:NQUOTE, WQ:Q) Quotes themselves should be quotable, meaning they are novel and original; pithy, witty, wise, eloquent, or poignant; of particular fame or endurance. This may be a difficult and subjective determination. However, clearly mundane or routine quotes should be avoided, even from notable people, in notable works. For example, "Call me Ishmael" is an iconic quote from a notable work by a notable author. "Take the bucket", while from the same work and same author (chapter 43), is clearly routine and unremarkable.
      • ... So on an so forth...
So my intuition is that if we structure our guidance like this, then we make it more digestible, and the community can then decide what criteria should be added, while keeping it more intuitive as a whole, and avoiding meandering extended prose like is currently (IMO) a large part of the current guidance. GMGtalk 14:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
user:GreenMeansGo: Your first point above, especially, is excellent. If the "quote" hasn't been widely quoted, then it's not actually a quote, is it? WikiQuote becomes an indiscriminate collection of random stuff someone said one day. That is not the purpose of the project. The fact that we might like or dislike a thing that is said should be irrelevant, the important question is, is it widely referenced by reliable independent sources? This will have the side benefit of removing about 90% of the profoundly mundane cruft that fills up articles on living individuals. JzG (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo, I would vote for these very precise guidelines despite them calling for the deletion of a large number of references included in the about sections that I have created, simply so that the matter can be clearly defined and others won't be confused as to what to do. JzG makes a good point about living people, Wikiquote noticeably lacks pages for most actors, and the ones it does have pages for excludes dialogue taken from their films. There's a rather large problem with this proposed criteria for inclusion though, as celebrity break up related quotations have an abundance of secondary sources for them in noteworthy TV, magazine and web sources, however I think making the biographies of actors mostly about their breakups instead of their work seems odd. Unfortunately, the actual interviews they give about the movies they make, (like I've been adding) are not quoted nearly as often as the details of their love lives, or at all outside of fan pages, which are not notable. I have the strangest feeling I would not be on thin ice right now where I to add objectively more quoted quotes from artists about their love lives instead of their work, such as this quotation from a Rolling Stones interview with Rihanna about Chris Brown, "“You see us walking somewhere, driving somewhere, in the studio, in the club, and you think you know. But it’s different now. We don’t have those types of arguments anymore. We talk about shit. We value each other. We know exactly what we have now, and we don’t want to lose that.” Rihanna's page has quotes about her singing but they are in the minority compared to quotes about her appearance, friends or other subject matter, there are currently no quotes about any particular songs or albums which is the norm for most singer's pages.
There's also the question of whether or not paraphrasing counts as quoting, as scientific journals record citations for the impact factor, not the number of direct quotations, though there typically are several direct quotations of some part of the work still so I imagine most if not all of these references themselves are actually fine even if another part of the article in question must be selected and another source provided where in a direct quotation of the article is made.
Finally keep this in mind, the vast majority of pages for films, television, video games, music, and yes, even books, do not actually presently contain any indication that any of the dialogue from these works has ever been quoted. The works that do provide this are the ones that are recognized as "the literary canon", Moby Dick has obviously been quoted from before and we should have a page for it, even if that page should only be 1/10th the size of the current one, however, I'm not so sure there should even be a page for Free Willy, I mean, can anyone here tell me what "notable" work quotes it? CensoredScribe (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I'll +1 on pretty much all of that. Yes, notable movies' articles are where movie quotes should go - it was Charlie Croker who said "you're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off", not Michael Caine. Celebrity breakup crap should not be here at all IMO. It's the age old distinction between what is in the public interest and what interests the public. JzG (talk) 09:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I'll not pretend that I can foresee all the possible implications of such a policy update/reboot. Like any major legislative initiative in the real world, it's gonna be a matter of getting the principle down on paper, and tweaking it as we find test cases (read content disputes).
What I feel fairly strongly about is that we currently don't have much to settle content disputes with other than "I like it/I don't", which means they seem to most often go nowhere, and one or the other party probably goes away feeling ganged up on and unfairly treated, because we don't have a better mechanic for settling these in a way that feels even handed. If this results in shorter pages, then I'm fine with that. I think it's probably better for readers to have a shorter page with better quotes, rather than an immense page filled with forgettable content.
The question I would put out at the moment is what other exclusion/inclusion criteria should belong (assuming this is an agreeable framework). I would probably add 1) on topic (not just passing mention) and 2) unsourced or poorly sources contentious material about living persons, both to exclusion criteria. I'm not sure what else though. GMGtalk 14:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Just hoping for broader input, shotgun pinging off the top of my head: @FotoDutch: @Kalki: @Risto hot sir: @Koavf: GMGtalk 14:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
On de.wq, it is a requirement that a quotation has been reproduced in a secondary source. I think we would do well to consider that. Quotes should have to have a citation template associate with it that has 1.) original source information and 2.) secondary source quotation. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
That project is not the best reference. It has extremely low participation, almost no active admins, low article count... And their rules also reflect the difference in laws regarding copyright and other aspects (see
Well, in the example above, I'm not sure we would need to provide a secondary source for "Call me Ishmael". But we could surely provide a thousand if the quote was challenged. So that would kindof be similar to how notability for encyclopedia articles works. You might have a stub with only two sources, but when challenged at AfD, if you could provide dozens of sources, that still demonstrates notability, even if none of them are yet used in the article. So while the verifiability of a quote needs to be demonstrated with a source, if the source is independently notable as is the case with Moby Dick, then quotability is a state-of-being that can be demonstrated on the talk page if challenged. GMGtalk 13:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I know this discussion has mostly petered out, but here is a good example of what non-notable primary source quotations makes: Alex Jones. By my ctrl-F count, that 62 different citations to primary YouTube videos. Again, that's a paradigm that says more about the editor than it does about the subject. GMGtalk 22:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Open call for Project Grants[edit]

IEG IdeaLab review.png

Greetings! The Project Grants program is accepting proposals until November 30 to fund both experimental and proven ideas such as research, offline outreach (including editathon series, workshops, etc), online organizing (including contests), or providing other support for community building for Wikimedia projects.

We offer the following resources to help you plan your project and complete a grant proposal:

Also accepting candidates to join the Project Grants Committee through November 15.

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) 19:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Michael Sherman ading quote forbidden[edit]

I wanted to add this quote to Michael Shermans quotes but I was not allowed because I triggered an automated filter designed to detect and prevent spammers.

  • There’s no such thing as the paranormal or the supernatural. There’s just the normal, the natural, and the things we haven’t explained yet.

Creating pages for comic book crossover story lines for which Wikipedia has distinct pages.[edit]

I was considering whether it would be a welcome change to create pages for the many comic book crossover events Wikipedia has pages for, given the story lines for most of these are spread across series we already have pages for. For example: Wikipedia has a page for The Death of Superman which would be useful if there were such a thing as noteworthy quotes about this subject as a whole rather than the individual issues comprising the story line divided across, Superman, Action Comics, The Adventures of Superman, Superman: The Man of Steel, Justice League America, and Green Lantern. The Dark Phoenix Saga is a distinct page despite only taking place in the pages of Uncanny X-Men. CensoredScribe (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

As a side note, it would be helpful if we could use all the same images Wikipedia does under fair use like for comic book covers that aren't in the public domain, to include on the page specifically about that story line. I'm confused why the same rules that apply to Wikipedia don't apply here for equivalent pages. CensoredScribe (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@CensoredScribe: See the Exemption Doctrine Policy for English Wikipedia from summary at en:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance. The English Wikisource community could adopt a similar policy with a similar community discussion, but that kind of extraordinary consensus has not happened in 10+ years anywhere so fat as I know. User:Green Giant organizes lots of discussion on this at meta:NonFreeWiki. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Change coming to how certain templates will appear on the mobile web[edit]

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Aspects of works with their own Wikipedia pages.[edit]

I don't believe that there's any guideline or rule which specifically prohibits creating pages for aspects of a work like fictional technologies or religions, and I think we should probably make this a bit more clear that these quotes would be better located on the page for the work they are specifically from. We have a page for Daleks an various minor comic book superheroes, why not Skrulls, the Shiar, Martians or Neptunians? If Doctor Who companions that appeared on the spin offs have their own pages than I think the same would probably apply to half the cast of Star Trek: The Original Series and Star Trek: The Next Generation for the occasional episode where someone had a cameo on another show. What's the general consensus here on how many times does a character have to appear in another work to justify this? I personally don't think we should have a page for Mork separate from Mork & Mindy or have a page for John Munch.

I think we should be pragmatic. If we have huge pages for the main topic and its subsidiaries, it would be cumbersome to merge them. If we hav eonly a few quotes on each, there iis a good case for a merge.--Abramsky (talk) 10:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
I have never seen the need for these derivative pages (for characters from a TV show) and in fact I believe they open the door for copyright issues and overquoting. I believe the best place for these quotes is on the page for the work from which they came, end of story. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
I personally find the numerous pages for "Last words in ______" to be a bigger problem than noting every crossover episode on a separate page for a fictional character, given not every franchise has a character that appears in other media but many include a death in some form. We could have one of these pages for nearly every fictional work, though as it is, the "Last words in _____" tend to be for franchises consisting of more than one entry. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Although many Doctor Who character pages have had deletions or merges suggested I haven't noticed any attempt or discussion regarding consolidating the pages for the dozen some portrayals of the main character. In contrast, the page for Sherlock Holmes seems to be unquestioned even though it could be divided into pages for each individual story; whether or not an author's works get their own pages here or the book title's are just redirects to the author's page varies considerably. These two pages seem fairly popular and like they've been this way for a while, though perhaps these pages have been discussed before with a contention which does not seem to me to be present. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Is Wikiquote:Wikiquote policy?[edit]

I have recently been asked whether Wikiquote:Wikiquote is policy. Although the page clearly needs improvement, including links out to other policies, I can't see why it wouldn't be considered a policy page. BD2412 T 01:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

It's basically the organizing principle of policies as it defines what Wikiquote is in the first place. Any other policies or guidelines should really follow from the fundamental scope. (Good question and good points.) —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
The question is whether it has ever formally been adopted as policy. I see no obvious evidence for this, but maybe those with longer memories can point to something.--Abramsky (talk) 09:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
This is one of the oldest pages on the project, so it likely preceded the development of those sorts of formalities here. Examining this from the other direction, is there any reason that we should not consider this page to be policy? BD2412 T 19:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
I have no objection to putting this page into the "policy" category. (That said, I am concerned that an editor reading only WQ:WQ#What_is_Wikiquote? would think that anything "attributed to a notable individual" may appear on this site. So I am hoping the "policy" designation won't keep us from improving this page going forward.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

No one seems to object so, unless someone stops me, I'll soon put {{Official policy}} on WQ:WQ. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey vote[edit]

18:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Archive bot?[edit]

Is there an archive bot for Wikiquote? For example, ClueBot III or Lowercase sigmabot III. Thanks! Markworthen (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to revive this old thread, but answering your question, no, it doesn't seem to be any archive bot active for this project. In fact, looking at out of 23 flagged bots, just two are active (MediaWiki message delivery is a pseudoaccount, as well as others listed there) so perhaps a bureaucrat could clean the list a bit.
Back on the topic of the archiving robot, I operate a bot (MABot) that carries out that task on some projects (es.wikiquote for example) and I'd be willing to run it here should the community agrees. I operate the standard pywikibot script, which is based on MiszaBot. The code is old but it works for basic archiving. If the community expects some sort of more advanced archiving then I'd not be able to provide such service.
Regards, MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Hey MarcoAurelio. I'm like the third least tech savvy editor on any Wikimedia project, but at least on our most visible pages, like this and AN, I can certainly see how an archive bot would be helpful, and thank you for volunteering to help us out with your technical expertise. GMGtalk 12:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Advanced Search[edit]

Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 10:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Repeated reinsertion of quote[edit]

This user's (obviously the same person) only contributions have been repeatedly reinserting "Okay, this is epic" on Ben Shapiro sourced to his twitter account. I feel like it's fairly obvious that's a pretty crap quote. They appear to be of the opinion that it is "iconic" and "famous". Since they don't appear to have any interest in stopping, and have been at this since July, I suppose I'll look for a third opinion on the matter. GMGtalk 20:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppeteering: the later account indefinitely, the earlier one for a short symbolic block. MB, please justify including this quotation. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikiquote: Canvassing[edit]

Would anyone be interested in creating Wikiquote:Canvassing? I'm confused if this is a guideline or an actual rule, and why there's a rule that makes discussing discussions at the village pump forbidden, particularly when those deletion discussions end up lasting months or years because so few people contribute to them. What about for FVD discussions that have larger implications for the website as part of a trend? Would it still be acceptable to discuss this larger trend without mentioning the specific page or pages being discussed as part of it? Having a page explain canvassing in more detail would really help, it can't be canvassing just to ask people at the village pump to vote on a discussion, even if they don't agree with you, can it? CensoredScribe (talk) 04:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

(I'd note that Commons also did not have a page explaining canvassing until earlier this year when it imploded an RfA from out of nowhere.) But following the generally accepted norms across projects, no, it would not normally be considered canvassing to leave a neutral note at a neutral public forum like the Village Pump. Canvassing is generally only an issue when a notification is made, or those notified chosen in such a way that would bias the discussion unfairly. GMGtalk 13:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Triggered spam filter with[edit]

I made a small edit, using an archived version of an existing link in a page, because it has since disappeared. WQ made me fill out a captcha and then blocked me anyway. Might want to have your script check the submitted changes, and if someone is just adding*/ to a link, they are probably not a spammer. —This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) .

New Wikimedia password policy and requirements[edit]

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Link to is valid[edit]

I added a link to -- an interview with Margaret Cho on Larry King's RT show "PoliticKING" -- to cite the source of the quote added to Margaret Cho's quote page. I believe this is an appropriate use of the URL. —This unsigned comment is by 2001:978:2305:44::9d (talkcontribs) .

Hm. Thanks for this--we have been having trouble with link spam and finding an appropriate balance for legit links. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Request for discussion: Extensive definitional essays at the beginning of Wikiquote articles seem to violate WQ:NOT: "Wikiquote is not an encyclopedia"[edit]

The official policy in WQ:NOT states that Wikiquote is not an encyclopedia. Readers of Wikiquote come to the site looking for quotations, not encyclopedic content. Extensive definitional essays at the beginning of Wikiquote articles, while many of them are of excellent quality, are not in compliance with this official policy, and detract from the aim to present quotations. I propose that leads be shortened to a single sentence briefly defining the term. ~ Peter1c (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I will be blunt — mandating an intro of a single sentence AS IF such were appropriate "defining" statement, for all pages, indicates a will to impose something akin to a "Tweet" level form of IDIOCY. Readers definitely do not come here for encyclopedic articles, and should not — but neither should they be subjected to nothing but what amounts to short casually or craftily produced snippets of rather stupid, asinine absolutist propaganda and nonsense by which introductions are narrowed and confined to the most shallow, presumptive, bigoted or casual forms of expression and assumptions. I generally can agree that most articles should have no more than a short paragraph of introduction, and no more than a very few, but I have always been very averse to mandating ANY absolutist rules in regard to things, such as some people seem to gravitate towards.
As I have a short bit of time here, before leaving again, I will note that amid my relatively brief and often very rushed visits here in recent months, I have also at times noted that you seem to have taken the injunction that "Wikiquote is not an encyclopedia" AS IF it forbids quoting definitional statements from encyclopedias, dictionaries or other reference works, and taken it as your own personal task to discourage and purge many quotations of many of these — and I find that generally improper and sometimes drastically impoverishing of the articles. Short quotes from reference works have NEVER been forbidden here, and SHOULD NOT be. I have always believed that beyond purging obvious spam and vandalism, content disputes should be discussed and argued upon, with well tempered reason and with well tempered passions, and options to do so not simply obliterated by blanket rules by which much valuable material can be discouraged or discarded, and much nonsense imposed in absolutist ways.
I hope to have more time to engage in discussion on some current issues in coming weeks and months, but know that I also have many other things which continue to keep me extremely busy, and am likely to not be able to attend to many things here so much as I previously was inclined to do, in previous years. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 16:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
@Peter1c: Can you give me an example of an entry that you think is too long? I'm reluctant to say that all entries can have only one sentence at the beginning but to be sure, very few would need more than three. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
I have not surveyed many articles very meticulously in quite some time, but in the past there have been some which were very clearly too long and these were subsequently reduced, and I am not particularly aware of any existing at this time, though I am sure there could be a few which I could agree run too long.
I restored most of what Peter1c had removed from the Conspiracy intro, because what he had left was far too cursory and simplistic, and thus quite deficient, and in many contexts simply wrong, but after doing so, did see that there were at least a couple sentences which could be cut out without drastic reduction in exposition of several prominent ways the word has been used, and continues to be, and I commented out these to remove them from displaying, retaining them for expositional nuance for future editors. ~ Kalki·· 18:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Kalki, thank you for explaining your position. I understand that you are concerned about mindless application of rules, and that seems to me a legitimate concern. I also understand that you would permit inclusion of some quotations from reference works. This seems reasonable to me. I agree that disagreements about content should be discussed, and the summary field isn't an adequate space for that. Thank you for elaborating. ~ Peter1c (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Some basic information is needed at the beginning, so the readers don't necessarily have to go to Wikipedia. At German and Swedish Wikiquotes in most articles no information is given - and I think it's a problem.--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Invitation from Wiki Loves Love 2019[edit]

Please help translate to your language

WLL Subtitled Logo (transparent).svg

Love is an important subject for humanity and it is expressed in different cultures and regions in different ways across the world through different gestures, ceremonies, festivals and to document expression of this rich and beautiful emotion, we need your help so we can share and spread the depth of cultures that each region has, the best of how people of that region, celebrate love.

Wiki Loves Love (WLL) is an international photography competition of Wikimedia Commons with the subject love testimonials happening in the month of February.

The primary goal of the competition is to document love testimonials through human cultural diversity such as monuments, ceremonies, snapshot of tender gesture, and miscellaneous objects used as symbol of love; to illustrate articles in the worldwide free encyclopedia Wikipedia, and other Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) projects.

The theme of 2019 iteration is Celebrations, Festivals, Ceremonies and rituals of love.

Sign up your affiliate or individually at Participants page.

To know more about the contest, check out our Commons Page and FAQs

There are several prizes to grab. Hope to see you spreading love this February with Wiki Loves Love!

Kind regards,

Wiki Loves Love Team

Imagine... the sum of all love!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Inactive administrators[edit]

Is there a process for removing administrator rights for inactive admins? I was just looking through the list for an active admin to protect a page from IP vandalism (see the admin noticeboard) and a number of them haven't edited for some time - years in a few cases. Just a query. TLPG (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Any editor can nominate an existing administrator for de-adminship. Some nominations to this effect have been made in the past. BD2412 T 22:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks. While you're about it, the issue noted on the admin noticeboard is out of hand and needs admin intervention. TLPG (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Risto hot sir adding unsourced content and personal commentary[edit]

This content which User:Risto hot sir seems intent on keeping in the article, is entirely inappropriate in my personal opinion. It's entirely unsourced, (e.g., there is no indication who Nellie Wilson is supposed to be or where the example comes from) and I see absolutely no reason why we would ever have commentary to the effect of "Thousands of these can be read at Estonian and Finnish Wikiquotes" in the quote section of any page. We don't even generally link to other language versions in the external links section. GMGtalk 18:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  • These are word plays - it doesn't matter who Nellie Wilson is. Everyone can check in one's head if those are spoonerisms or not.--Risto hot sir (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
It seems that I'm the best expert in spoonerisms, just look who has made the most spoonerisms at et- and fi-Wikiquotes - I'm the reliable source.--Risto hot sir (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
No, you are not. GMGtalk 19:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Regardless of anyone's expertise in the topic, in this case, I do not believe that the text belongs on the page - it is not a quote and such examples and advice to look at other sites is not appropriate here. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, I will publish spoonerisms books, at least for children - when the illustrator has done her job. Then you'll have printed sources. Do what you do, but some humor is neededǃ--Risto hot sir (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

External link "not appropriate" from news site/magazine?[edit]

"It appears you are adding external links to other websites in a way that may not be appropriate, and may not conform to the purpose of Wikiquote." I quoted an interview Julián Castro from Texas Monthly in the Beto O'Rourke quotes page, as the quote was about Beto O'Rourke. Why is this not an appropriate source? Booknerd0720 19:03, 12 January 2019‎ 19:03, 12 January 2019‎

I'm not seeing your edit or the revert in the Beto O'Rourke history. Hard to tell what is going on. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Your edit seems to have tripped an abuse filter. The filter isn't necessarily an indication of whether a source is appropriate or not. Hiàn (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

FileExporter beta feature[edit]

Johanna Strodt (WMDE) 09:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Server switch FYI[edit]

Just an FYI, but there is a server switch planned for tomorrow. As of right now it is not supposed to affect the English Wikiquote. If that changes, and things start to get wonky here tomorrow, here's the phab link to see what's going on. GMGtalk 18:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Swami Narendracharya[edit]

This article had a PROD added and later removed by an IP. It has never contained sourced quotes and I'm unsure as to what the appropriate cause of action is for this page on this wiki. Cheers, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 07:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Deleted. It can be recreated if there is something to put there. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Cheers Koavf. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 08:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Demonyms in category names[edit]

I expect most people don't care about this even a little bit, but it would require the semi-automated moving of I thousand pages maybe? So I figured I'd start a thread rather than moving a third of the project unilaterally. (Also ping User:koavf, since they participated in the Commons discussion that got me thinking about it.)

But we're currently super inconsistent when it comes to national people categories. Compare:

We also have Category:People by nationality, which is mostly filled with people "by country", and not "nationality", which seems to imply citizenship (Wikidata:Q42138), but is actually used to demonstrate major association without regard to citizenship (Wikidata:Q19660746).

Being super honest, I'm partial to the system used on Commons, e.g., c:Category:People of Japan, c:Category:People of the Americas (all of the Americas), diffusing into c:Category:People of North America and c:Category:People of the United States.

Anyone have any thoughts or opinions? GMGtalk 15:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

My two cents on all of this: Of course you are correct in that many of our categories related to people are inconsistent. Your suggestion (using the system employed on Commons) is probably the best course of action. I must admit I have become a bit dismayed by the plethora of new categories that have been added to our site (especially in people categories) that are driving ever more specific classification of pages (to me it seems to be much more specificity than we needed with much fewer pages in each subcategory than WP has), to the point where when I create a new page, I fear that I will become hopelessly lost in trying to identify which extremely specific categories to add to the page. That being said, your plan is a good one and I believe that is the best way to remove some of the inconsistencies we have. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, honestly this concern of categories wrt readers is in my experience a fairly unique thing to the English Wikiquote community, though you're not the first person here I've seen make the argument. But pretty much anywhere else categories are approached as a purely internal tracking mechanism, as the only native form of structured data for Media Wiki (without getting into the weeds about recent software changes on Commons). While thematic groupings for the benefit of readers is generally done via lists and navigation templates, which are usually seen as being more accessible without needing readers to get into the "back end" of a project. While having a logically consistent and semantically meaningful "back end" categorization allows editors to more easily create things like lists and navigation templates for readers, while filtering out categorization that is consistent and meaningful, but not thematically relevant. GMGtalk 17:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Your points are well taken and I get all that. My concerns are that as users create pages (I being one of those as well), the sheer amount of new subcategories makes it highly likely that the new pages will have some degree of miscategorization - which will create some effort to control. I've just seen so many things on this project over the years that have quickly spun out of control (and leave behind a lot of detritus to clean up) and just fear that things are becoming overly complicated here. Perhaps I'm just overthinking it, but I've just spent a lot of time here and the amount of cleanup that still remains to this day is mind boggling (and there are only a handful of people interested in working on this backlog) - and this could just lead to more. Sorry to be a downer - your efforts to clean up these people categories are commendable despite my tangent fears. Carry on! ~ UDScott (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
To GMG's main point (i.e. not discussing category proliferation but naming): It is no surprise that I 100% agree and I feel like a consensus is emerging here. If there are no further comments or criticisms in two weeks, I would feel very confident that this is the correct way to name categories: "[x] from/in/of [place]" rather than "[fooian] [thing]". Thanks again for the ping and the thoughtful proposal. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Some notes: Wikipedia has many odd categories, like Male actors is as silly as Women actresses would be. And there's 4740 American male novelists to categorize more specifically. In my opinion we should not create categories containing only one person (like Saudi Arabian astronauts).--Risto hot sir (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused. Category:American male novelists is a red link. GMGtalk 22:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Google books[edit]

Can not insert a link to the specific page of the specific book. Guess should be allowed to linked after CAPTCHA, and probably other sites that feature online preview of paper books too. It is better to have a quote ready to read and check, than not to have. 18:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I also believe "protective" measures have gone a bit extreme when any blanket block of links to Google Books become a problem which prevents very useful links. I think I noticed that problem some time ago, but was in a rush, and did not have time to note it here. ~ Kalki·· 18:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
This is not particular to Google. The issue is AbuseFilter/21 by Koavf (a.k.a. Justin), which essentially prevents posting any external links by newcomers and unregistered contributors. The situation is confusing because there is no written policy prohibiting it, and no indication in the abusefilter message about what was prohibited or why. Even Wikiquote's administrators appear to be largely unaware of the automated enforcement of this "rule". ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Disabled. We've had too many complaints about it. We should refine it but until I have the time to do that, I've just turned it off. Anyone else who is w:regex-savvy can refine it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


response to a whales ping and or pong ? —This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) .

Sure. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Time to adopt WQ:BLP as a policy?[edit]

This came up a little while ago in the debate about the article for Jonathan Mitchell, which centered around whether it was appropriate to cite an attack blog for quotes about a living person. I suggested then that we should adopt this as a policy, but it looks like the response when it was first proposed in 2007 was that it was already treated as a policy, so there's no point in officially adopting it. The problem is, that for anyone who is well versed in Wikimedia projects, it's simply impossible to enforce in any serious way so long as it is merely an essay. We can't really warn or sanction someone for disregarding an essay, and at the extreme end we get articles like Alex Jones, which includes some 40k worth of quotes that are sourced only to YouTube.

To be clear, I'm not saying that WQ:BLP can't be improved, or that it is perfect in it's current state, but this kindof thing has wound up in lawsuits before, and it is the official stance of the Wikimedia Foundation that all projects should adopt policies governing content about living persons. I'm not sure I see a compelling reason not to do so here as well. GMGtalk 22:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Let's do it. Keep up the good work, GMG. Anyone object? I find it unlikely that anyone is going to sue us based on what we host but better safe than sorry. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Well in the case of Mitchell, the attack blog was by someone who was already fairly litigious. So even though the risk may be low, it's not necessarily irrelevant. GMGtalk 23:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
No objection. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I think the recently added paragraph "This applies on any page..." should be moved farther down the page; giving prominence to the paragraph beginning "All quotes attributed to a living author or about a living subject...", which appears to be the main meat of the issue. Apart from any issues of structure or style, I approve of the substance of the current draft as policy. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I support having this as a Wikiquote policy. BD2412 T 20:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I support having such a policy - but I do have one reservation: the language includes the following "All quotes attributed to a living author or about a living subject must be verified by a reliable source. This is both to protect living persons from having statements falsely attributed to them, and to insure that such quotes have been deemed sufficiently notable for an independent secondary source to print." I get the intent, but I fear that it might be a bit limiting in some circumstances. For example, when Stephen King writes his next novel and one wishes to quote from it, this might be a problem if said quote is not also quoted by another party (outside of the novel itself). Assuming the quote in question meets standards for being memorable, the fact that it is written by an undoubtedly notable person may not be enough, given the proposed language for this policy. I just wonder if in all cases, we need for a quote to be also quoted by a secondary source. Thoughts anyone? ~ UDScott (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Ping User:BD2412, since they're the one that originally proposed the language in 2009.
I'm not sure I have a better idea when it comes to dealing with the issue in a systematic policy based way. In a situation where content is both 1) apparently chosen to cast the speaker in an intentionally bad light, and 2) is arguably libelous (with the only real legal defense being sheer ridiculousness), we really should have some rationale for inclusion other than "an anonymous user saw it on YouTube and found it particularly inflammatory". Of course, in this particularly egregious example, we're also talking about content we're hosting on Wikiquote from a person who is literally being sued right now for defamation by multiple people (see w:Alex_Jones#Controversies). But I'm not sure how you can the best of both worlds there. GMGtalk 20:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
This is more of a choice for us than a legal necessity - we basically enjoy the reporter's privilege to repeat libelous statements published by others. However, we should take care that negative claims that we present as quotes are in fact notable quotes, i.e., quotes deriving from notable persons published in notable sources. Directly transcribing a YouTube video or a Tweet or a blog post should not be allowed. BD2412 T 21:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, "we" as a project, but not "we" as individuals. For example, I've identified to the WMF I think three separate times, four maybe? If I as an individual added egregiously libelous information then someone could absolutely seek a subpoena for my identity. Same for anyone who can be traced back to their real identity through technical or other means. We as a project do however have to balance the obligation to not do active harm, and not allow a platform that can be used to do so. GMGtalk 22:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
For this particular project, I think we as individuals would receive the same protection as individual reporters if all we are doing is faithfully reporting that others have published quoted text. BD2412 T 17:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that is my understanding also. If a reliable source publishes something and we repeat it, then the fault is mainly theirs. GMGtalk 17:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

It seems like everyone is on board with this. (Subject, as always, to editing the article to improve it.) One last chance for an objection before I add the "policy" tag. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I've mostly just been waiting to see if someone besides me would move for a close. I didn't feel comfortable enacting the change as the person who proposed it. But after a month of open invitation to discussion, I don't know that anyone can really call foul on not having an opportunity to weigh in. GMGtalk 17:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Like UDScott in his remarks above, I recognize and accept the aim of minimizing the wanton spreading of largely derisive, disparaging and denigrative remarks about ANY persons, living or dead, but I do not accept that any provisions actually requiring citations of secondary sources actually diminishes that particular problem, of itself. In the cultural climates which currently exist in many realms of social discourse, there is very probably actually MORE likelihood that various derisive and denigrating remarks about many people or groups will find their way to a host of secondary sources, and even generally reliable ones, than generally complementary and constructive comments will. Thus I would find the policy page fully acceptable if the statement "This is both to protect living persons from having statements falsely attributed to them, and to insure that such quotes have been deemed sufficiently notable for an independent secondary source to print" is simply altered to "This is to protect living persons from having statements falsely attributed to them." I recognize that some people whose aims actually are to spread disparaging remarks about various individuals or groups would then have less of an absolute barrier in spreading relatively obscure remarks, but I believe that most unworthy of these could be removed, after discussion, without making a requirement of secondary sources something implicitly or explicitly imposed upon ANY statements of ANY kind. ~ Kalki·· 18:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I could probably also accept wording as makes clear that such limitations as requiring "secondary sources" applies specifically to ONLY derisive or denigrating remarks of some kind. ~ Kalki·· 18:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I wonder whether this is a separate discussion, more appropriate to the WQ:BLP talk page. Or, perhaps, a bold edit to the BLP page itself and then a discussion if anyone disagrees. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, I think the moral imperative to not actively cause harm with our content covers all content on living persons, and not just content attributed to living persons, keeping in mind the age of the internet where content may be verifiably about a living person, but attributed to an organization or some anonymous person online. This seems to be in line with the Foundation's official stance. I also think that "some secondary source" is a very low bar, and most of the things you're going to be filtering out are things like blogs, youtube and social media. I don't think those are really sources that are terribly helpful on any project, for much of any purpose, most of the time.
If we added language saying that this only applies to derogatory information, then I fear we would be opening ourselves up to lawyerly debates about whether content is subjectively derogatory. And at the end of the day, all that garbage secondary sourcing is still going to be out there whether we rule out primary sources or not. I can see how this could be turned back on itself, and have someone argue that because it is in a secondary source then it must be included. I would be sympathetic to adding some type of language to the effect of verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, in order to head that off.
But I tend to agree with BWDIK, in the sense that can be a productive discussion about how to best write the policy, and not a fundamental discussion about whether we should have one. The policy as written can certainly be improved, but that should be an ongoing discussion based on real examples of how it has been applied and failed. GMGtalk 21:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Policy templates added. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I also simplified the statement, in accord with above suggestions, and expressed reservations and objections by both myself and UDScott about implicitly or explicitly mandating secondary sources. ~ Kalki·· 02:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk to us about talking[edit]

Trizek (WMF) 15:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation re-branding discussion/planning[edit]

See the recent Foundation blog post at Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030 and the ongoing discussion on Meta at m:Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 research and planning/community review. Just dropping a few public notifications since I'm not sure this project has been otherwise notified. GMGtalk 15:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Read-only mode for up to 15 minutes on 19 March 15:00 UTC[edit]

Hi everyone, a short notice. On 19 March 15:00 UTC your wiki will briefly be in read-only mode. That means that you’ll be able to read it, but not edit. This is because of network maintenance. It will last up to 15 minutes, but probably shorter. You can read more on Phabricator (phab:T217441, phab:T187960), or write on my talk page if you’ve got any questions. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for bot flag[edit]

Hello. I am not sure if it is custom on this project to notify the VP about ongoing bot flag requests, but I have initiated Wikiquote:Bots#MABot to have my bot approved. Thank you, --MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

You may now become 'Wikiquote — A Wikipedia project'[edit]

According to this discussion at Meta, Wikimedia Foundation is considering rebranding. This means for you, that rather than Wikiquote being a Wikimedia project, it would become a Wikipedia project.

The proposed changes also include

  • Providing clearer connections to the sister projects from Wikipedia to drive increased awareness, usage and contributions to all movement projects.

While raising such awareness in my opinion is a good thing, do you think classifying you as a 'Wikipedia' project would cause confusion? Do you think newcomers would have a high risk of erroneously applying some of Wikipedia principles and policies here which do not apply? If so, what confusion? Could you please detail this. I have raised a query about that HERE in general, but I am looking for specific feedback.

Please translate this message to other languages. --Gryllida (talk) 23:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Question about space between quotes[edit]

Is there a 'rule' about that? Seems that double spacing between quotes is more palatable than single spacing sometimes. Om777om (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

No specific rule, per se, but the templates on which the pages are based do not contain such double spacing. It's not that it is a bad idea, but the point of the templates is to have a fairly uniform appearance to the pages. If you would like to suggest a change, I would recommend that you start a discussion about the templates and seek to have them changed if community consensus favors it. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Om777om (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice: Admin activity review[edit]


A policy regarding the removal of "advanced rights" (administrator, bureaucrat, etc. ) was adopted by global community consensus in 2013. According to this policy, the stewards are reviewing administrators' activity on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis with no inactivity policy. To the best of our knowledge, your wiki does not have a formal process for removing "advanced rights" from inactive accounts. This means that the stewards will take care of this according to the admin activity review.

We have determined that the following users meet the inactivity criteria (no edits and no log actions for more than 2 years):

Administrator Last edit Last log action
Fys 2017-03-04 14:42 2007-11-19 16:43
Jaxl 2016-10-25 01:34 2007-02-26 04:37
Rmhermen 2016-05-09 21:42 2005-10-25 16:26
Aphaia 2015-12-02 14:00 2015-12-02 13:45
LrdChaos 2015-02-20 02:57 2009-06-01 18:25
Cbrown1023 2014-08-07 22:35 2010-10-08 22:46
EVula 2014-01-08 20:42 2014-01-08 20:41
MosheZadka 2010-09-03 17:33 2007-10-06 15:38
Iddo999 2010-07-12 19:56 2008-07-10 17:32

These users will receive a notification soon, asking them to start a community discussion if they want to retain some or all of their rights. If the users do not respond, then their advanced rights will be removed by the stewards.

However, if you as a community would like to create your own activity review process superseding the global one, want to make another decision about these inactive rights holders, or already have a policy that we missed, then please notify the stewards on Meta-Wiki so that we know not to proceed with the rights review on your wiki.

-- MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikiquote: experimentally organizing quotes blog[edit]

Over the past 2 years, I've been collecting and organizing quotes from Wikiquote. I have tried to organize quotes into experimental projects. Here are some below:

List of person posts

Explanation of person posts

List of fundamentals posts

Belief analysis method

Example of belief analysis

Explanation of organizing quotes

Please let me know your thoughts and if you have any suggestions. I also want to thank editors for making Wikiquote an awesome website. --Mcnabber091 (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Nice! Thanks for sharing this. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Veeery fineǃ Could the people be in alphabetical order? - Something like that I've done in Most notable people. The problem with it is who is notable. The list works best at fi-Wq where it contains ALL the quoted persons. Danish and Estonian versions have so far mostly red links. Et- and fi-Wikiquotes also have list of all subjects.--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Risto hot sir for the suggestion to alphabetize the person list. That's a good idea. --Mcnabber091 (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

et- and fi-Wikiquotes also have a list of opinions alphabetically in the form X = Y (like Love is blind) (Arvamuse and Käsitteiden määritelmiä).--Risto hot sir (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Read-only mode for up to 30 minutes on 11 April[edit]

10:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Medium-Term Plan feedback request[edit]

Please help translate to your language

The Wikimedia Foundation has published a Medium-Term Plan proposal covering the next 3–5 years. We want your feedback! Please leave all comments and questions, in any language, on the talk page, by April 20. Thank you! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Elevate Wikiquote:Quotability to a policy?[edit]

Policy pages say they have "wide acceptance among editors and [are] considered a standard that all users should follow." Is that not a fair characterization of WQ:Q? If so, any objection to making it a policy page? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

So far, no objection. I'll elevate it unless someone chimes in against it within the next week. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted the above changes. There remains far too little participation on this wiki, and interest in carefully and fairly crafted procedures for the expanding mandates here, and I have an intense objection to the casual "elevation" of generally accepted guidelines, which have persisted as such for years, to "official policy" by which they can be portrayed as MANDATED RULES binding upon all editors, on the whims of those most prone to prefer simplistic impositions of mandates to such guidelines as remain subject to further debate and discussion. ~ Kalki·· 01:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I am disappointed that you waited until now to express your concern (the substance of which I discuss below). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, we all know how you hate rules. BD2412 T 01:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I definitely have an intense hatred of casually imposed MANDATES. I will clarify that I have had no objection to this page as a strongly suggested GUIDELINE — but there are definite elements to it that I do not seek to casually shift into becoming mandated policies. IF there were one policy mandate that I would easily agree to, it is that guidelines and suggestions should NOT be casually or easily shifted into becoming mandates, simply because there is generally little interest or participation in creating, developing, imposing, or even taking much note of such rules as have been undesired or unnecessary for over a decade. ~ Kalki·· 01:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC) + tweak
Kalki, does WQ:Q contain any mandates? To quote from that page: "There is no absolute test for the inclusion of either a page or a specific quote." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
MANY years of experience here have provided abundant examples of people very often treating even suggestions presented as non-binding guidelines AS IF they were absolute mandates, and when another entire page which hardly anyone ever even looks at can be actually cited as "POLICY" AS IF it was fully supportive of some removal of material that someone simply for some reason does not like, I fully expect such abuses to be even more abundant, and people treated as "violating" policy or advocating violation of policy, if they so much as disagree. ~ Kalki·· 10:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Am I correctly understanding you to say "no, WQ:Q does not contain any mandates, but 'people' will use it to claim that someone else has violated a non-existent rule that they read into it"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
No, NOT at all — that would actually BE reading a non-existent assertion into what I actually stated. I simply observed that there WERE such elements that could be treated as such — I did NOT say that there were NOT assertions which WOULD effectively BE mandates were the page as a whole given the status of "official policy", rather than official guidelines. There are actually many assertions which are stated in such imperiously presumptive ways as could easily be interpreted or properly understood as imposed or obligatory mandates — were the status of the entire page simply changed from guideline to policy. And it is definitely such casual "elevation" of definite suggestions into definite obligations which I find most objectionable. ~ Kalki·· 01:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Are there "assertions which ... could easily be interpreted as ... mandates" in WQ:Q that you find objectionable on substantive grounds? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
One of the MANY reasons I, who am in an extreme minority in that I have been involved in this project from its very first months, and never totally abandoned it as many have, have myself in recent years become far less actively involved with it, are promptings to utterly time-wasting REPETITION or expansion of such arguments as I have made very extensively and thoroughly years before, and the propensity of some to create nearly unceasing and endless argumentations on many diverse subjects, no matter how definite, extensive and rational the arguments have been which are presented against whatever intentions they embrace.
You began this section with the statement:
Policy pages say they have "wide acceptance among editors and [are] considered a standard that all users should follow." Is that not a fair characterization of WQ:Q?
IF you had so much as simply browsed through the discussion page for that page I believe that you would have found that such was NOT a "fair characterization" of the page you have sought to elevate — and I had stated extensive SUBSTANTIVE objections to it YEARS ago, in 2010 and 2012, and clearly indicated that I did NOT consider it to be entirely nor primarily a presentation of policies anything close to being "considered a standard that all users should follow."
At this point I have no intention of extensively expanding on my past arguments, but to simply return to a summary statement I made in 2012:
My general view regarding "official rules" is that though a few simple ones, (ALWAYS explicitly provisional and open to discussion and revision), are usually necessary in most groups, the growth of MANY of them and their devolution into MANDATED strictures, USUALLY serves the more clever of the DEVIOIUS, DECEITFUL, and MALICIOUS far more than the genuine interests of the weakest or strongest of the honorably honest and benevolent.
So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 07:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Suggestion: To avoid the need to repeat your past arguments regarding rulemaking you may want to create a sub-user page with your arguments laid out. Then you can simply say "I oppose this for the reasons set forth [[subpage title|here]]." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I have not asked you to expand "arguments as [you] have made very extensively and thoroughly years before" in opposition to official rules. I am trying to open a discussion with you regarding the provisional WQ:Q guideline. With that in mind, I again ask that you let me know whether you have any concerns regarding the specific recommendations in the current content of the WQ:Q guideline. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • By the way, I support the proposed elevation to policy. Notwithstanding Kalki's objection he would be as quick as any administrator to remove content that clearly was not quotable within the meaning of this guideline. We obviously need some floor of standards. BD2412 T 20:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War: duplicate categories[edit]

Hi, I noticed Category:Participants in the Spanish Civil War and Category:Participants of the Spanish Civil War are duplicate categories with the same meaning. Cheers, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 09:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done Thanks Rubbish computer. Sorry for the delayed response. GMGtalk 17:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Cheers GreenMeansGo. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

New categories?[edit]

New categories like Lawyers from Illinois have been created. I think that the community should discuss whether we need 'em. If somebody wants to find the lawyers from U.S. states it's easy to do at Wikipedia. The already existing categories have 0 - 10 visitors per day. And eventually we might have categories like Musicians from Essex, Philosophers from Bavaria etc. You wouldn't see the whole picture anymore...--Risto hot sir (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I actually believe we have been almost overrun with very specific categories over the last few months. I don't see the need for many of them (and some have very few pages within them). It's not that they are incorrectly categorized, but I just fail to see the value of having such granularity in our categories. I have argued this before, but there did not seem to be any consensus that these are unnecessary. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • If we are taking issue with the creation of a category that aligns Wikiquote with the English Wikipedia, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Commons, in addition to projects across six different languages, and where a search via Wikidata indicated there were 50 existing pages on this project linked to corresponding pages on other projects already in the category...then I struggle to find a basis for the objection.
It's not entirely clear what "seeing the whole picture" is supposed to mean exactly. If you want to explore any combination of depth, breadth and overlap of categories, that's what PetScan is for. If you want to create tools for readers to navigate the project, then you should be creating navboxes, see also sections, and lists. If you want to create internal and cross-wiki tracking tools, then you should be creating categories. That's what categories are for. GMGtalk 19:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Let's look at the statisticsǃ Executed people 2, People from New York City 2, Lawyers from Kentucky 0 visits a day. It's impossible to remember the categories now, so usually you must to search 'em, like Italians > Italians by occupation > go back to make the edit.--Risto hot sir (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I get it - categories are best used to classify pages, not as a navigation tool. But that may very well be how some users use them anyway. Also, at sites like WP, they do have more lists that bundle similar topics, etc. but we do not generally encourage many here (as they are not pages of quotes. I also fear that we have some areas where the granularity of the categories (e.g. Category:Deputy Magistrates of the Republic of China on Taiwan, with only two pages within it) are just a bit much. Where do we draw the line? The extreme form would be to end up with so many specific categories as to have some with only a single page in them. I realize I am likely more old school with this, but we used to do it more where a subcategory wasn't created until there were a decent amount of pages that would fit into it (I know, I know very subjective). Again, it's not that the additional categories are wrong, but whether or not we actually need them. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
With the strength of the tool you are using, there is no meaningful difference between two and zero. There is no way to differentiate hits from a reader and hits from an automated tool or an editor. Moreover, "views" are not "unique views". Tracking unique views requires tracking IP addresses and this is disabled across projects for privacy reasons. In other words, in having this discussion and investigating the number of views that these pages have had, along with my editing and compiling data about these pages using automated tools, we may likely comprise the entirety of the views you are using as an argument.
Whether we permit things like lists and navboxes, or employ them on a large scale if they are permitted is a separate issue. If you are concerned about internal integration and ease of navigation, then I think that's where you should buy stock, because that's what those things do best, not just on the English Wikipedia, but on other projects as well. Commons has been trying for months if not years to integrate some non-category-based navigation system, principally because categories are so notoriously bad at user navigation, even though they are powerful as the only form of structured data native to the Mediawiki software.
Category:Deputy Magistrates of the Republic of China on Taiwan doesn't appear to exist on any project other than here. If you nominated it for deletion I would support. Because it is not a cross-wiki category, it is not useful for things like compiling information about articles we are missing, or subjects not covered by other projects that we may have here. It doesn't link anything here to anything else, and it doesn't link anything else here. That's all in addition to being underpopulated, but because it's not a cross-wiki category, there's no way to tell what the potential population is. GMGtalk 22:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

SUBJECT: Complaint against an ADM or an Adm's assistant.[edit]

I wish to file a comlaint against an apparent assistant to an Administrator that placed negative, insulting, innuendo on my talk page without a shred of evidence that his allegation had any valid factual basis.

In addition, I discovered that assitant and/or his Adm was conducting a Sock Puppet investigation against me, only after I found that vile innuendo posted on my talk page. I checked it out and found that investigation was closed. I had never been properly notified; Thus, no chance to defend myself against that totally false allegation.

I went to the Administrators' Notice board. It says: "Please feel free to report incidents, a complaint about an administrator, or anything you want administrators to be aware of."

However, it also says: "Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content, reports of abusive behavior..." I am mystyfied as to how I am to go about filing any complaint at all. It then suggested I contact the Village Pump for advice.

Question: Do I have any right at all to file a complaint about abusive conduct of an Adm (or one who is assisting an Adm)? If I do, HOW can I accomplish that task? Any advice will be appreciated, thank you. EditorASC (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey EditorASC. This is the English Wikiquote, and not the English Wikipedia. It does not appear that you are involved in any dispute here, and there is nothing we can do here to affect your dispute on Wikipedia. If you are looking for the village pump on the English Wikipedia, it can be found here. GMGtalk 10:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages consultation: Phase 2[edit]

A proposal for WikiJournals to become a new sister project[edit]

Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group has been building and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:

  • Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and feedback (example)
  • From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to Wikipedia (example)
  • Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia (example)

Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project

From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to Featured article review, but bridging the gap with external experts, implementing established scholarly practices, and generating citable, doi-linked publications.

Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! Evolution and evolvability (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


What's en.Wikiquote's policy on paid editing?

It occurs to me that I should probably mention that I created (and plan to expand) Frederick W. Lanchester in my role as Wikimedian in Residence at Coventry University (which holds the Lanchester archives.). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey Andy. There is no local policy, or even policy draft as far as I am aware. You would, of course, be expected to comply with the Wikimedia Terms of Use on all projects, regardless of local policy. But I'm fairly sure you would already be well aware of that. GMGtalk 14:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, but on the contrary, WMF explicitly allows projects to opt out of their ToU on paid editing, as Commons and Wikidata, for example, have done. Nonetheless, my declaration of my (paid, of course) Wikimedian in Residence role is now made. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Hmm? Well, TIL. At any rate, we'd still default to the TOU with no local policy at all. and WiR has always been the long-running exception to the norm regarding paid editing anyway. GMGtalk 15:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
(1) Actually, there is no provision to "opt-out" entirely, rather, a project can establish an alternative paid contribution policy. English Wikiquote has not done so and is not officially listed at Alternative paid contribution disclosure policies, so the standard ToU applies here.

(2) On the contrary, declaration of your paid role does not yet appear at any of the three locations required under the Terms of Use (also elaborated at Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure). Any one of the three is sufficient. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

(1) seems to be a case of pot-ay-to/per-tah-to. Any project that creates an alternative policy has de facto opted out of the standard policy. As for (2), you are correct in as much as only three venues are listed in the policy, but wrong in that no declaration is required for the edits I made today, per the "How does this provision affect teachers, professors, and employees of galleries, libraries, archives, and museums ("GLAM")?" section of the latter page to which you link. Nonetheless, and for the avoidance of doubt, I have updated my user page accordingly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I can't imagine how anyone could engage in paid editing to any lucrative degree on Wikiquote. If an editor is adding quotes that stand the tests of notability and quotability, their motivations are no concern. BD2412 T 04:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
This could be very lucrative politically, whether openly, by covert operatives, or by nation states with large secret agencies and budgets for cultural engineering. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 11:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Heh. BD2412, if you think this right here doesn't trace back to paid editing, then I've got a sandbox in Florida to sell you. But we should probably figure out what to do with it I suppose. GMGtalk 18:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that's not great. However, if anyone imagines that having a Wikiquote page is going to drive business their way, they are wasting their money. In any case, the subject of this page is notable, so the issue is more about making the header reflect what is on Wikipedia and fixing the formatting. BD2412 T 19:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Partial blocks[edit]

It looks like everything has been worked out with the implementation of partial blocks, and the Foundation is implementing them on a project-by-project basis where there is a community consensus to do so. Any thoughts for or against about implementing them here? I don't personally feel that they're strongly needed, or will be terribly often used, but I don't know that I see a reason not to enable them since they've been developed. GMGtalk 19:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  • I do not see any need for this feature. People who demonstrably cannot be trusted to behave responsibly should just go away from the site for the duration of the block. We have occasionally (rarely) used "partial bans" (e.g. interaction bans), and people who refuse to follow a ban should just be blocked until they can behave responsibly. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, the one area that I can see this being useful is broad range blocks from user space to prevent LTAs from repeatedly spamming user talks, which has been a theme lately. So that much could be used as an anti-harassment tool while lessening the potential for collateral damage where a range block might need to cover several million IPs in order to be effective. GMGtalk 13:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Does the Roy Batty dialogue in Blade Runner that concerns slavery and living in fear have the necessary "endurance factor" for either the pages for slavery or fear?[edit]

It seems to be a well regarded film and I can provide examples of the line of dialogue in question being quoted. If film quotes inherently shouldn't be added to theme pages, I was wondering if I could be advised on whether I should delete all film quotes from the theme pages. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems absurd that film quotes don't count. Not only were they usually first written as screenplays, but they're a part of our culture. Further, this is Wikiquote, not WikiquoteTheWrittenWordOnly. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I see no reason why film quotes would not be included in theme pages, if the quote is relevant to the theme. BD2412 T 21:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I suggest the following criteria for quotations to be included in theme pages:

  • Does the quotation meet Wikiquote's standard of quotability?
  • Does the quotation provide the reader with valuable information and insight on the page topic?
  • Is the quotation comprehensible standing alone, outside the context from which it is quoted?
  • Is the article topic also the primary topic of the quotation? Or is the article topic mentioned only incidentally in the quotation?
  • What fraction of words in the quotation are included to provide necessary context, and what fraction to provide information and insight on the page topic?
  • Quotations that require very lengthy preambles to provide context before reaching the portion relevant to the page topic may not be suitable for inclusion in theme pages.

I will revise as decided by consensus.

The quotability standard raises the bar for recent productions. The reasoning is that something cleverly said in a recent production is not very quoteworthy if it has been said before, even if less cleverly. The problem I see with many quotations from fiction and film is that they aren't comprehensible without knowledge of the fictional universe of the film. On a page about the film, we can assume readers are interested in the film. On theme pages, however, I think we have to presuppose reader has no interest in the fictional universe of the film, since she came to learn about the theme. ~ Peter1c (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

"Myth is much more important and true than history"[edit]

"Myth is much more important and true than history. History is just journalism and you know how reliable that is." ~ Joseph Campbell - ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Did you mean to post this on this page? If so, why? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Red links: is it a good idea to add them?[edit]

Red links: is it a good idea to add them? CensoredScribe (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Reminds editors of good opportunities to create theme pages.
  • No value to readers.
  • Color change distracts from continuity of text.

I think we have to see things primarily from the point of view of readers. We have a page for requested entries where ideas for new pages are more appropriately added. ~ Peter1c (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Another disadvantage: Editor A thinks there should be a page, redlinks it, but doesn't create it. No one else ever creates the page. It would seem Editor A was wrong, but the redlink lives on forever. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Use of ellipsis in abridged quotations.[edit]

I was just told in an edit reversion summary that, "Ellipsis at beginning of quotation is necessary only when the quoted part does not form a grammatical sentence. I understand this is part of a longer sentence, but it is a grammatical sentence on its own, so the ellipsis is unnecessary." I prefer maintaining the capitalization of the original quote through use of ellipses as otherwise we are turning commas into periods that were never in the quote originally. Is there a particular preference, or is neither "necessary"? CensoredScribe (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say that if we do not include an ellipsis to force the original capitalization, then we should at least [I]ndicate that the formatting has been altered using brackets, as one would normally when altering a quote for clarity. Which one is uglier than the other will probably be a matter of personal opinion, but I definitely don't think we should be altering direct quotes in any way without making that apparent to the reader. GMGtalk 14:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The Chicago Manual of Style has this to say:

  • Ellipsis points are normally not used (1) before the first word of a quotation, even if the beginning of the original sentence has been omitted; or (2) after the last word of the quotation, even if the end of the original sentence has been omitted, unless the sentence as quoted is deliberately incomplete.

Hope this helps. ~ Peter1c (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding capitalization of first letter of quoted sentence when quoted sentence omits words from beginning of original sentence, The Chicago Manual of Style has this to say:

  • The first word in a quoted passage must often be adjusted to conform to the surrounding text. In most types of works, this adjustment may be done silently. ... In some types of works, however, it may be obligatory to indicate the change by bracketing the initial quoted letter; for examples of this practice, appropriate to legal writing and some types of textual commentary, see 13.16.

Does Wikiquote fall into "legal writing and some types of textual commentary"? I would say no. If the meaning of the quotation is altered by omitting the beginning of the sentence, this is obviously an unacceptable practice. So long as the meaning is preserved, the Chicago Manual seems to indicate silently adjusting case of initial word is acceptable. ~ Peter1c (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm guessing APA recommends brackets, because that's how my brain wants to do it intuitively, and I was broken on APA. But I can't actually find a definite citation for it. GMGtalk 20:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Quotes about dress code on the pages for religions.[edit]

Is it a good idea to add quotes pertaining to the dress codes meant for the laity of a religion? I've recently added quotes to the page for the Catholic Church yet have the strangest feeling were I to add quotes pertaining to the Hijab's role is Islam they would not be deleted, nor my motives questioned. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

If they meet the standards for quotability then it is a good idea. The editor's motives do not affect quotability. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate "Publish changes", "Show Preview", "Show changes" and "Cancel" Buttons?[edit]

Would it be feasible to duplicate the "Publish changes", "Show Preview", "Show changes" & "Cancel" Buttons at the top of the edit screens, in addition to those at the bottom? It is so much easier to locate an item in the "Show Preview" mode, but to get to this mode, it takes extra keystrokes to arrive at the bottom of the page, where these buttons are located. After locating an item, I highlight it and Ctrl-F, Ctrl-G until arriving at the same item in the edit screen. Saves a lot of frustration. ELApro (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to this but perhaps by posting I'll draw out someone who does. I think this suggestion should be brought to those who code Wiki sites generally. How do you do that? I have no clue. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Is this a feature that exists on other projects and needs to be enabled here, or is it a new feature that needs to be wholly designed? GMGtalk 15:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't appear on Wikipedia or Wiktionary. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Hmm...Then this is probably a better fit for the m:Community Wishlist Survey, when it comes out for next year, since it would require changes in the basic Mediawiki software. GMGtalk 01:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
@ELApro: Keyboard shortcut is ALT+SHIFT+p, at least for me. Try hovering the mouse pointer over the preview button in case this key combination doesn't work for you. Let me know if it doesn't work at all. I can probably cook up a few lines of JavaScript that do the trick. Paradoctor (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The bar for quotability and notability as it pertains to recent subject matters unimagined by authors of antiquity.[edit]

These quotes were recently deleted from the page for South Africa with the reason given that the authors were not notable, not that the quotes didn't pertain to the subject sufficiently, I did not think it was a requirement that every author of a quote have a Wikipedia page, and this is from a book from a respectable publisher. Knowing if this source is sufficiently notable, or why not, would help me better edit Wikiquote and avoid adding quotes of similar quality in the future. It has a book review from JSTOR, for what that's worth.

  • Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, South Africa's apartheid leaders increased their support for and involvement in counterinsurgency programs in several neighboring states. These experiences influenced the direction that South Africa's chemical and biological warfare development took in the 1980s. Involvement in neighboring counterinsurgency programs provided training opportunities, strategies, and tactics that the SADF and covert special police units used against political opponents as unrest increased at home in the 1980s and 1990s. After the political transition in Zimbabwe in 1980, personnel from several Thodesian military units, including the Special Air Service and Selous Scouts, Thodesia's elite counterinsurgency force, moved to South Africa. Many individuals in these units were experienced users of chemical and biological warfare, and some of them played key roles in incidents where South African Special Forces and police used chemical and biological warfare agents against opponents during the 1980s and early 1990s.
    In the 1960s and early 1970s, South Africa's response to developing guerrilla movements and a changing regional security environment was to increase security-force cooperation with Portuguese forces who were fighting guerrilla insurgencies in the former colonies of Angola and Mozambique; Portuguese tactics influenced the South African military and police.
    • Helen E. Purkitt; Stephen Franklin Burgess (2005). South Africa's Weapons of Mass Destruction. Indiana University Press. p.89
  • Informal norms had become entrenched by the mid 1970s that permitted an extensive level of corruption within the Afrikaner-dominated bureaucracies. The corruption was an important precondition that allowed Wouster Basson and other top officials to use the chemical and biological warfare program in the late 1980s and early 1990s as a cover for their alleged personal gain.
    As mentioned in previous chapters, in the wake of these regime-shaking events, Defence Minister P.W. Botha became prime minister in 1978 and initiated his "total strategy." Because Botha was oriented toward the military (and special forces), he initiated a range of reforms to ensure the survival of the regime that included the widespread use of coercive power. Power was increasingly consolidated in the hands of the military and taken away from civilians. Botha was an unwavering advocate of developing advanced weapons projects and covert operations that would give South Africa initiated a series of internal and external military and paramilitary operations. These included assassinations, torture, and smuggling. All were defined as "legitimate" weapons against the "total onslaught" of "red" and "black" forces. These practices were established at the top and legitimatized deviant behavior throughout the military, police and intelligence services.
    Within the "any means necessary to survive" framework, preparations began to develop the chemical and biological warfare program of Project Coast to counteract and even rival the Soviet program.
    • Ibid, p.94.

The quote from F.W. de Klerk was removed from the page for South Africa with no explanation at all given, I assume both he and The Atlantic are sufficiently notable for some portion of this dialogue to be contained, I'm guessing all of it, as he only answers the one question. Perhaps it would be better if any quotes about countries having nuclear weapons were located on a page called "X country and nuclear weapons"?

Uri Friedman: Why did the South African government, in the mid-1970s, decide to embark on a nuclear-weapons program?
F.W. de Klerk: The main motivation was the expansionist policies of the U.S.S.R. in southern Africa. They were supporting all the [African] liberation movements—they were supplying weapons and training—and it was part of their vision to gain direct or indirect control over most of the countries in southern Africa. They financed the deployment of many thousands of Cuban troops, especially to Angola, and this was interpreted as a threat first by Prime Minister John Vorster, and following upon him P.W. Botha. [The nuclear arsenal] was never intended, I think, to be used. It was a deterrent. Because of apartheid South Africa was becoming more and more isolated in the eyes of the rest of the world. There wouldn’t be, in the case of Russian aggression or invasion, assistance from the international community. It was felt that, if we have nuclear weapons, and if we then would disclose in a crisis that we have [them], it would change the political scenario and the U.S.A. and other [Western] countries might step in and assist South Africa.

I'm sorry if the specific examples I mention distract from the conversation over quotability and notability for recent topics in general, I find they help. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the issue is here. The title talks about "subject matters unimagined by authors." The text talks about whether "authors [are] notable" (not clear whether this refers to the author of the quote or the author of the secondary source). The text also talks about whether the "author of a quote ha[s] a Wikipedia page." Please clarify. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)