Wikiquote:Village pump

From Wikiquote
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


Archive
Archives

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

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

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

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



Contents

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 dunno...like...10 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 books.google.com 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. 85.90.116.114 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)

subquotes[edit]

response to a whales ping and or pong ? —This unsigned comment is by 12.27.66.8 (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]

Hello,

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.

Thanks,
-- 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)

Thanks! Blessings, ♞♞♞♞♞, Josephina Phoebe White♞♞♞♞♞ (talk♞♞♞♞♞) 04:33, 28 August 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)

[edit]

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)

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)

Advantage:
  • Reminds editors of good opportunities to create theme pages.
Disadvantages:
  • 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)

Posting images on the talk pages of other users.[edit]

I have not reached my final form.

I was wondering what the community thinks of this practice and if anyone has any advice regarding it. Thank you. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any problem in principle. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't suppose you'd like to consent to let me attempt to decorate yours by chance, anything would be annoying, wouldn't it? CensoredScribe (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
No clue what you're going on about here but if you posted a message to my talk page and had some graphic that in some way enhanced it, that would be fine. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm putting in the added image for context. The quote from Dragon Ball Z was intended to convey that we are all evolving. I don't know anything about the fictional universe of Dragon Ball Z, so I might have conveyed something unintentional with either the character or the image. If so, sorry about that. Regarding images on talk pages, I was thinking it would be OK if it goes into a section created by same user. ~ Peter1c (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

You'll let no more conversation out of me on this issue unless asked to comment by an administrator, this is a waste of my time, wub a lub a dub dub. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • There's nothing as far as I am aware on any project that disallows this. It's sometimes done in jest and was likely done so here also. I don't see it as inherently disruptive, but if you find it off putting, then you are well within your right to ask the other party not to do so and they should in good faith not put any more images on your talk page. GMGtalk 00:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Medicine in Star Trek? Really?[edit]

"It's on Wikipedia" must have been the justification for all those fictional character pages that repeatedly get merged or deleted because this isn't Wikipedia and we don't need to be that specific, I think performing vandalism to address what you think is vandalism doesn't send a very good message for anyone, but particularly for someone claiming to be a theology student as it makes them a bad ambassador of whatever religion they claim to represent. CensoredScribe (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

You keep on starting threads without any links, diffs, or context as to what you're complaining about. Please be less obscure and coy or else no one can help you. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
+1. Additionally, do not accuse anyone of vandalism without demonstrating clear evidence. Being "obscure and coy" is not protection against consequences. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Appears to refer to Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Medicine in Star Trek, and in particular this edit by User:Peter1c. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I was not aware that including links to the edits in question was a strict requirement when the page in question has less than three edits, obviously with a larger history page further specification is needed beyond just page and user names; my apologies, it will not happen again. Also, I'm sure you already know this, however I believe you meant to say "It" appears and specify the subject of the sentence to which you are referring, "Looks to me" is not proper English, rather it is colloquial, Andy Mabbett, if these alleged English teachers are to be believed, as if, would also be a good addition. Cheers! CensoredScribe (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

There's no bad weather, only bad clothes[edit]

I've been aware of this quotation for several decades. It's not mentioned in WQ:VP Archives, and doesn't have an article (unless under some different wording). A preliminary search, turns up various sources, including w:Ranulph Fiennes, or a Norwegian (sometimes, 'Swedish') outdoor life organization or concept called w:Friluftsliv. The earliest claimed origin I've seen, is to Alfred Wainwright, supposedly in his 1973 book A Coast to Coast Walk.[1][page needed] Terry Marsh's 2017 reference to it is here,[2] but he calls it "a saying—something of a cliché now". Is Wainwright the originator? Do we include unverifiable folk sayings, if that's what it turns out to be? I always heard it with the nicely parallel, "bad weather... bad clothes", and not "inadequate clothing", as Marsh would have it. Mathglot (talk) 07:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Notes

  1. Wainwright, Alfred (6 July 2017). Wainwright's Coast to Coast Walk: From St Bees Head to Robin Hood's Bay. Quarto Publishing Group UK. ISBN 978-0-7112-3919-7. Retrieved on 21 July 2019. 
  2. Marsh, Terry (22 February 2017). The Coast to Coast Walk: St Bees to Robin Hood's Bay. Cicerone Press. p. 37. ISBN 978-1-78362-439-3. Retrieved on 21 July 2019. "There is a saying—something of a cliché now — that there is no such thing as bad weather, just inadequate clothing."" 
Butwhatdoiknow, Is that allowable, before an Alfred Wainwright page exists? Mathglot (talk) 07:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Allowable, yes. Possible, no. Either start a Alfred Wainwright page or put the quote on the Weather talk page. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

URL to diff[edit]

Please would someone import Template:URL to diff from en.Wikipedia or Wikidata? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: "No wikis from which to import have been defined and direct history uploads are disabled." I recommend copy/pasting, which is cumbersome but doable. Alternately, we could file a ticket at phab:. What say you? —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Koavf: Thank you. For the long term benefits, I suggest filing a ticket to fix that. At a minimum, we ought to be able to to import from en.Wikipedia; Wikidata and Commons would be good as well. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: phab:T228607. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
As Justin will have seen, but for others' benefit: that ticket has now been closed as "resolved". I assume we have to wait for the next scheduled Mediawiki deployment, before we can take advantage of it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
@Koavf: Any joy? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: {{URL to diff}} is local now from d:. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
@Koavf: Thank you, but it's throwing an error due to a missing child module. Also, please import the documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: frustrating. I chose "Include all templates". Anyway, let me know what you need now. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Koavf: Seems to work now; here's a test diff. Many thanks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I'm working on the phab task configuration, and was wondering: when would importing from wikidata be useful? --DannyS712 (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
For templates or user scripts that do not exist on en.Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Sukavich Rangsitpol[edit]

Hello. I am writing with respect to the author Sukavich Rangsitpol. I have a concern that many of these quotes are lifted through two sources, either from the UNESCO Report in 1996 (up to four paragraphs of his speech, seen in pages 53-56. This can be seen as use beyond the safe habour, and the UNESCO copyright permits personal-noncommercial use only), or the article by Pimpan Dachakupt (which discusses his policy, not his life, and it cannot be inferred that he said it). I request experienced editor to help me deal with this issues. Thanks. --G(x) (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I removed the last issue as a straightforward misattribution. The rest of the article is a little harder to figure out because the references are misnamed/confusing. Considering that the article contributors are globally locked/blocked for cross-wiki sockpuppetry and COI abuse regarding this subject, I would not mind if somebody proposed deleting the whole thing. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Editing News #1—July 2019[edit]

18:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

can not create user talk page[edit]

Hi! I can not create user talk page Error: ⧼abusefilter-warning-foreign⧽. Regards
no bias — קיין אומוויסנדיק פּרעפֿערענצן — keyn umvisndik preferentsn talk contribs 21:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@קיין ומוויסנדיק פּרעפֿערענצן: {{done}}Justin (koavf)TCM 21:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Koavf! Now I can not edit the user talk page. Regards no bias — קיין אומוויסנדיק פּרעפֿערענצן — keyn umvisndik preferentsn talk contribs 23:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Both logged in and logged out, I do not seem to be able to reproduce this problem. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Abuse filter #22, "Title in another alphabet", specifically prevents creating or editing pages like this unless the user has made a qualifying number of edits. (This filter was created on 5 September 2018 by Justin (koavf), who should know what it is about and how it works.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Sarah Bradford and Cesare Borgia[edit]

There is a mention of Cesare Borgia’s unsourced quote Aut Cesar, aut nihil (Cesar or nothing) in Lucrezia Borgia: Life, Love and Death in Renaissance Italy, Sarah Bradford, Penguin UK (ISBN 9780141909493), 2005. However, I have no idea of its reliability, and Bradford does not provide any citation. Here is a Google books link where it appears. Here is the quote:

On 18 August 1498, Cesare put off his cardinal’s robes. A magnificently wrought parade sword he had made earlier that summer symbolized his new personal ambitions for it was decorated with scenes from the life of Julius Caesar with whom Cesare identified. Cesare, who always signed ’Cesar’, the Spanish form of his name and and the one closest to the Roman original, was later to adopt as his motto ’Aut Cesar aut nihil’: ’Either Cesar or nothing’.

Does anyone know whether this can be trusted? Huñvreüs (talk) 08:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Thai Politicians[edit]

Category:Thai politicians

There are 3 Thai Politicians ‘s Quote in Wikiquote . Why is the Politician with the best reliable sources from English Literature is nominated for deletion ?นโยบายเรื่องทหารเกณฑ์ (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

My discussion in the Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Sukavich Rangsitpol stands: it is not a collection of quotes. It may be arguable that the UNESCO speech can be considered a quote if only a small portion of the speech are used, but posting copyrighted materials that spans several paragraphs of the original material is not (see Wikiquote is not a place for posting substantial quotations from copyrighted works). This doesn't include the quote that was misattributed and/or the quote that was copied from other sources and used in a substantially significant manner. --G(x) (talk) 08:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Why my comment was deleted ?[edit]

Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Sukavich Rangsitpol Yosakrai (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

If you are using the Mobile view, it may be possible that you don't see that I decided to collapse the comment in that page. The materials you posted appears to be one that is either (1) better posted in the article (though this point doesn't make sense right now since we are discussing the deletion); or (2) make the page looks horrible since it doesn't have the proper line break, the agreement, or any indication as to which one is the content and source and which one is the discussed issue. In order to make the discussion easily accessible and more comfortable, I have decided to put it into the collapsible box. This may not appear on the mobile device, but will show correctly on the Desktop. --G(x) (talk) 09:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, happened to me a few tomes before. Bad comment or anything, deleted. Unappropiate for Wikiquote, deleted by administrators. Some, like mine are deleted for no reason. Don't know why. ——Blessings, Josephina (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators[edit]

Do administrators actually need to provide a reason to ban/block someone or is this wiki, or is it like California with it's "At-will employment"? Also, has anyone ever lost their position as an administrator on Wikiquote for anything other than inaction?

As a former (I haven't been to Uncyclopedia for a while, so maybe I'm still active) wiki administrator, I'm aware that having multiple administrators serves as a form of checks and balance of power, (particularly when you are the newest one), and that the idea of having everyone with the ability to preform a block/block be in unspoken consensus/collective unawareness seems incredibly unlikely, particularly when there is no discussion involved, but in theory, could this be done and has it ever on Wikiquote?
Also, has anyone ever lost their position as an administrator on Wikiquote for reasons of inaction, and if so, than who? My apologies is asking 2 questions is considered a Gish gallop or violates an unmentioned rule. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question. BD2412 T 03:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
As to the second question, if by "inaction" you mean inactivity, per the post by User:MarcoAurelio above in the "Notice: Admin activity review" section, as en.wq currently has no administrator activity requirements, we will soon fall under the global inactivity requirements set by meta. Though it's not clear when these desysops will take place, as this notification was given back in March.
As to the first question, I agree it's not entirely clear what you're getting at, but in general, across all projects, administrators do not have preferred opinions, only preferred access, and the community is perfectly able to reach a consensus overturning individual administrative actions. The only exception to this would be administrative actions to enforce global policies and the terms of use. For example, we could not reach a community consensus to reinstate blatant copyright violations, as the prohibition against these comes from the TOU, and cannot be overturned at the local level. We could similarly not reach a local consensus to overturn a global ban, as this is the result of a global consensus, and can only be overturned by another global consensus. GMGtalk 12:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: The removals took place on May 11, 2019. Thanks, -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation project[edit]

Just a note that there is currently an ongoing discussion on meta regarding the possibility of changing the way that IP editors are handled on Wikimedia projects. I don't believe this project has been otherwise notified. GMGtalk 17:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Rapid-fire vandalism from User:98.214.101.235[edit]

Wow. Looking just at his edits that are current revisions, he has hundreds that should really be reviewed and several that definitely need to be reverted. If other users like this kind of reviewing, that would be appreciated. He has a lot of sneaky vandalism or general incompetence about TV series in particular, adding that shows are still on the air that have been canceled or adding networks where they never aired. Little help out there? —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC) Yeah. Email me (You know me right) Josephina Phoebe White (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Pages about specific aspects of a person: Jesus and race and appearance of Jesus[edit]

First, does it make sense to make more of these types of niche aspect of a person pages such as Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln and Religion of Adolf Hitler, just because Wikipedia has a page for that topic? Second, is it actually improving Wikiquote to delete all quotes about these niche subjects that aren't located on the pages named after them? We have pages for specific parables of Jesus and the rich young man, conceivably this would mean we should delete instances of most bible passages from any other pages that mention them in following with Peter1c's recent example. Normally I would see no need to delete mention of notable quotes describing a person's physical appearance from that person's page, this seems to be an issue about quote organization which is a much larger issue than just this one page and currently looks to me like vandalism being done with confusion over the proper organization of Wikiquote used as the excuse for moving additions into obscurity. CensoredScribe (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I respond in the "Historicity of X" section (below). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Historicity of X[edit]

If I am to take the justification provided for numerous recent page creations consisting of "because Wikipedia did it", than should I assume it would be proper to create a page for Historicity of Jesus to quarantine any quotes pertaining to this particular subject and keep them away from the more general Jesus page? I'm trying to figure out what other figures get this treatment and at what point chronologically it is acceptable to create pages for the historical existence of a figure, the Wikipedia category for the historicity of religious figures is notably little more than a stub for Jesus and Muhammad, I'm assuming there are others that no one on Wikipedia has added yet, but which would be acceptable additions, either for Wikipedia and/or for Wikiquote. CensoredScribe (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Your comments here and in the "Pages about specific aspects of a person: Jesus and race and appearance of Jesus" section (above) raise not only issues regarding Wikiquote organization, but also regarding quotability. The pages you point to look very little like collections of notable, pithy quotes and very much like Wikipedia articles constructed with quotes, often lengthy and obscure. I'm against them. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Would you be willing to nominate it for deletion than? If you do so I will support you with my vote, but I've started enough deletion threads that never went anywhere that I've lost faith in the Vfd process on Wikiquote being effective at doing much of anything. The Racial views of Donald Trump page has similar issues, both in the subject's narrow scope and the "test of time" that Peter has chidded me for being almost non existent for the news sources used. This clearly isn't a person page, where obscure and non pithy quotes are more easily accepted so long as it's been published somewhere and can be sourced to that person, (or at least commonly misattributed), rather, it is a combination theme/person page, which I think should mean it needs to meet the much higher qualifications for inclusion on a theme page, or, better yet, it should be merged into that persons page instead of buried in obscurity. When you type Jesus into the search bar, the Race and appearance of Jesus page does not show up, only the top ten are displayed. Having pages for aspects of people is rather odd, I mean LBJ is on record talking about his "Jumbo" quite a bit, why not add a seperate page for that? If Wikiquote isn't an encyclopedia than why do we still have to follow the footsteps of Wikipedia for all pages and categories? CensoredScribe (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't know anything about the nomination for deletion process and, at present, don't have the time to learn. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I really follow the line of argument here very well. We're not necessarily beholden to Wikipedia. For example, I've argued at length that in the case of categories specifically, we should be following the example set by Wikimedia Commons and decidedly not the English Wikipedia. I agree that our criteria for inclusion, both in regard to individual quotes and for entire pages, is often a bit too nebulous, and too frequently boils down to mere personal opinion, rather than a definite set of editorially consistent standards across the project. That winds up entirely too often in protracted edit warring with no real mechanism for bringing a definite closure to the dispute.
I don't really have a solution to offer other than that discussions which might reach some consensus tend to fizzle out for lack of participation, and we do need more contributors who are willing to hash out these issues and decide what standard in particular we should be applying. GMGtalk 15:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

URL to diff is now working[edit]

The template {{URL to diff}} is now available on this wiki.

To post a diff, simply copy the diff's URL, and paste it into:

{{Subst:URL to diff|url=|label=}}

For example:

{{Subst:URL to diff|url=https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Village_pump&diff=2650162&oldid=2647897|label=some link text}}

This renders as:

some link text

with the wiki code:

{{diff|Wikiquote:Village pump|2650162|2647897|some link text}}

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Update on the consultation about office actions[edit]

Hello all,

Last month, the Wikimedia Foundation's Trust & Safety team announced a future consultation about partial and/or temporary office actions. We want to let you know that the draft version of this consultation has now been posted on Meta.

This is a draft. It is not intended to be the consultation itself, which will be posted on Meta likely in early September. Please do not treat this draft as a consultation. Instead, we ask your assistance in forming the final language for the consultation.

For that end, we would like your input over the next couple of weeks about what questions the consultation should ask about partial and temporary Foundation office action bans and how it should be formatted. Please post it on the draft talk page. Our goal is to provide space for the community to discuss all the aspects of these office actions that need to be discussed, and we want to ensure with your feedback that the consultation is presented in the best way to encourage frank and constructive conversation.

Please visit the consultation draft on Meta-wiki and leave your comments on the draft’s talk page about what the consultation should look like and what questions it should ask.

Thank you for your input! -- The Trust & Safety team 08:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

New tools and IP masking[edit]

14:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism: delete please[edit]

Hello there, sorry I don't know the admin pages on this wiki. Someone made vandalism on my talk page (happened to me a few times). I think this needs to be deleted : User talk:Wikichieuse lèche botte des admins. Regards, --Bédévore (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit : please also revert that crap : https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lomita&action=history https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Le_sp%C3%A9cialiste_des_injonctions_nord-cor%C3%A9enne,_lorsqu%27h%C3%A9sisippe_parle_vous_devez_vous_ex%C3%A9cuter,_c%27est_sa_conception_d%27un_projet_communautaire&diff=2639642&oldid=150803 and so on from https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rheastibia. I can't rollback and clean pages. Regards, --Bédévore (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Reverted, not an admin, so can't solve https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikichieuse_l%C3%A8che_botte_des_admins&diff=prev&oldid=2639640. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svgY Done At least I think I've tidied it up. I think there was just one thing that needed deleted? GMGtalk 19:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Martin Urbanec GreenMeansGo ! Yes, there is cross-wiki harassement against me and a few admins. Any French speaker will confirm the redirects were not nice nice words. Regards, --Bédévore (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Username Changes[edit]

Hi everyone. I'm a new user to Wikiquote, but...I don't know how to change my username without creating a new account! Can anyone...ANYONE help??? Josephina Phoebe White♞♞♞♞♞ (talk♞♞♞♞♞) 00:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Please see the process at m:Steward_requests/Username_changes. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
But they sent me an email saying that the process couldn't be done. Josephina Phoebe White (talk) 00:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Then it can't be done. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Did they say why it can't be done? BD2412 T 01:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Um...lemme check, alright. Josephina Phoebe White♞♞♞♞♞ (talk♞♞♞♞♞) 02:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC) Uh oh. Message deleted. Josephina Phoebe White♞♞♞♞♞ (talk♞♞♞♞♞) 02:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC) ♞♞♞♞♞

Fonts, colors, and that stuff[edit]

Hi everyone, I'm a newcomer, and seeing most of you guys have those fancy fonts, colors, and that stuff as signatures, so I wanna ask if you guys know how to do those things? A list of instructions please? Josephina Phoebe White☯☯☯ (talk☯☯☯) 05:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Josephina Phoebe White: Special:Preferences → New signature: [fill out whatever in the box] → "Treat signature as wikitext (without an automatic link)" check yes. As for what goes in the box, you can use Cascading Style Sheets. A really simple example would be something like [[User:Josephina Phoebe White|Josephina Phoebe White]] <span style="color:green; font-family:monospace; font-kerning:none; font-stretch: ultra-expanded; font-style:oblique; font-variant:small-caps; font-variant-ligatures:common-ligatures; font-variant-numeric:oldstyle-nums; font-size=120%; line-height:3em; font-variant-position:super; font-weight:lighter; ">[[User talk:Josephina Phoebe White|talk]] 2 me</span> which would look like this: Josephina Phoebe White talk 2 me Also this particular example is offensively ugly. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Justin. Also, I can't open the second link, error code ERR_CONNECTION_TIMEOUT. If my new signature working anyways? ——Blessings, Josephina (talk) 06:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
But I saw this. Edit it in source editing and you'll find out. Justin (koavf)TCM ——Blessings, Josephina (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC) Also, how to mention others? Like this? Template:Error
@Josephina Phoebe White: The second link was to Wikipedia: that should work. There are a lot of places to learn about CSS, e.g. at the Mozilla Developer Network on b:Cascading Style Sheets. If you want to get a user's attention directly, use {{Ping|USERNAME}} and make sure to sign your post. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Babel sections[edit]

Hi again. I want to ask how to create babel sections in my user page. ——Blessings, Josephina (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Josephina Phoebe White: m:User language. Use (e.g.) {{#babel:en|en-UK|es-2|de-1}}. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf:Thanks. --1001 sorrows (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, everyone should know the rules. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Something I wanna ask: what circumstances are there for vandalism?[edit]

What circumstances are there for vandalism? And also what is blocking IPs? (Just asking) ——Blessings, Josephina (talk) 02:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Vandalism. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Ibid.[edit]

Can we use the common academic citation abbreviation Ibid., and if not, would some one mind providing a link to the guideline or rule that forbids this practice. It might be a useful thing to mention the beginners guide. CensoredScribe (talk) 04:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

There probably was never any formal statement "forbidding" it in existing policy pages, but the matter of rejecting it came up very early in the project at Wikiquote talk:Templates#Ibid and other formatting problems, and for a very long time afterward, the use of the term by contributors was relatively rare, and usually rapidly addressed when it did occur, with notice of such reasons and objections as stated there, regarding the very easy and casual loss of both cohesion and accuracy which such usage can easily entail. Its potentially confusing use has clearly become more common, and have remained unaddressed and there probably should be more prominent statements on the matter, and a few others, within policy pages. Many of the objections to it's use as potentially confusing also apply even more immediately to the practice of entering of more than one bulleted quote without any interlinear citation save on the last one, which effectively presents the others without any obviously valid or clearly proper citation, whenever they are not numerous enough to be properly grouped together within a sub-section on a page. This has been one of my own objections to many of your past entries, where sometimes long series of bulleted quotes are neither clearly and properly cited individually, nor grouped in a sub-heading, and I believe I have stated that on more than one occasion, long ago, without any clear effect on the matter, and have subsequently often spent time correcting many such incidents, when I have had the time to do so, upon encountering them — but I have no doubt that they have been far too numerous for me to attend to more than small fraction of them. ~ Kalki·· 10:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

LOQ for very short collaborative works.[edit]

I was wondering what to do with video games and films that have very little dialogue in them, as I believe in addition to the 250 word limit, the limit on quotations is also supposed to be a percentage of the total words used in the work, correct? So how does that work when there aren't even 250 words to choose from? I see that the endings and taunts in various fighting games, (e.g. Last words in Mortal Kombat media, Soulcalibur II) are often included, however they are often deleted, than added again, which seems like a failure of communication on Wikiquote's part to direct newcomers as to what is welcome and what isn't. I imagine the trophy descriptions and codec calls from the Super Smash Bros. series, (which describe a wide variety of Nintendo properties) would similarly be acceptable, were their a page for that franchise? I would also like to add Roy Wood Jr.'s routine about Street Fighter II as he directly quotes Commander Guile and has an extensive analysis of the game that I've never seen done outside of G4's X-Play before. The closest it comes is comics occasionally mentioning Mario in one liners and Hillary Clinton's famous internet meme, "Pokemon Go to the polls." CensoredScribe (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

This is actually a good question as media that have very few words can still have memorable quotations (e.g. Scorpion's "Get over here!" in Mortal Kombat). Only a few words are vocalized or displayed on-screen but the code is made up of a long script and in a sense this is just an excerpt from that... —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Do I need to create separate accounts for different languages?[edit]

Do I need to create separate accounts for different languages? ——Blessings, Josephina (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

No. m:SUL. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

If the attribution for a quote isn't correct because it includes commentary should the should shabang be deleted or just have the commentary removed or isolated?[edit]

Seems a simple question with many different answers I'm guessing. CensoredScribe (talk) 03:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@CensoredScribe: I'm curious 'bout that too. ——Blessings, Josephina (talk) 04:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
If you have an example (rather than a hypothetical), that would help. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Here's an excerpt from a Smithsonian article quoting Jefferson Davis, recently added to the page for Christian views on slavery, I have another issue with the justifications provided in the revision summary that are addressed in a seperate topic, I have since restored the edit with an altered (hopefully correct now) attribution placing the article writers first and the source ff the quote they are using second.
I'm a strong proponent of fixing rather than deleting. The former approach builds up, the latter approach tears down (discouraging a good faith editor). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Christian views on slavery and pages that don't specify what they are specifically about very well.[edit]

I was told that the following quote from Paul is unacceptable to include on the page Christian views on slavery, even though neither the page nor the quote provide much in terms of clarification. Was the editor right in reverting this addition, or was the reasoning they provided flawed? "([Q]uote from Paul is not a Christian view on chattel slavery, but on slavery to the forces of the world, not the article topic)" CensoredScribe (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I can't speak to the type of slavery Paul had in mind but, assuming the reverting editor's edit summary is correct, then it seems the reversion was sound. That said, you may want to fix the "page doesn't specify" problem by adding some text to the introduction to make it clear that the page is limited to chattel slavery. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit wars over images[edit]

I recently reorganized the images on fascism and got a revert, which led me to realize images are a lot harder to justify both adding and deleting than quotes are as I'm really not sure who is right and who is wrong or why. Unless the image has nothing to do with the subject matter, which can generally be ascertained at a glance, the actual process of determining what images to include on Wikiquote is a matter of personal taste and getting community approval, and not going through a detailed checklist for notability and counting instances of a word being used, like it often is with contesting quotes. Personally I think trying to sum up fascism with one or two images at the top is a bit overly simplistic and suggests these are the definitive authorities on this subject, so leaving the top of the page blank and having images organized alphabetically comes across less reductionist in our reasoning and less POV. I think Peter1c chooses some amazing images to include on Wikiquote for the most part, it's just the placement of these images which is problematic as they often use them to create niche and misleading intros that fail to accurately summarize the subject. Other editors have noted this behavior is a problem for Peter regarding political pages, as it is being discussed on the talk page for America]. I also think that having the two dictators most closely associated with the concept displayed close to the top is better than having an image of socialist baptist minister Tommy Douglas and an image from a Super Tuesday voting sign that seems to associate America with fascism much more strongly than it does Italy or Germany, which is somewhat misleading for anyone wanting to learn more about the subject in general and not just a specific aspect of it. How well known is Tommy Douglas in America, much less Europe where fascism is generally regarded as first taking root? This page seems pretty heavily Americanized. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Given their edit summary, it's not clear that Peter1c's revert was directly related to image choice. Other than that, unfortunately, image placement on any project can be among the most subjective editorial decisions, and most difficult to establish general standards for. But generally, no I do not think that we should be editorially preoccupied with the United States, as it is neither historically unique nor does it account for the majority of English Speakers worldwide. GMGtalk 10:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Village medicines[edit]

So people don't believe that the are many medicines in the village and most of this medicines heal people from different sicknesses,so people from urban areas call people who live in rural areas witches.They call rural areas witches because they use medicines to heal sick people.So I think we should make them understand that people from rural areas are not witches they are just healing sick people.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 41.113.14.131 (talk) 09:16, 19 September 2019

Hey anon. It's not clear what this has to do with contributing to Wikiquote. GMGtalk 10:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy Deletions[edit]

I think this page needs speedy deletions. Thanks for the help ✺◟(∗❛ัᴗ❛ั∗)◞✺ ——Blessings, Josephina (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

A user blanked his user page: that doesn't require deletion. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Importer[edit]

As the only uploading importer here, I would like to quote m:Importer: "can be assigned only by stewards after a request on Steward requests/Permissions (especially the import flag which includes the importupload right which is particularly dangerous) and only on a temporary basis for a specific task, unless the project has a local process and policy to assign permanent import rights." As administrators may also transwiki-import, should we allow any more permanent uploading importer here? If not, I will resign through Meta and remain an administrator.--Jusjih (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you give us an example of when a "permanent uploading importer" might be appropriate on Wikiquote? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
No. Neither our Special:Log/import nor Chinese Wiktionary suggests the need for permanent uploading importer. Transwiki import seems good enough here? Only very few wikis need permanent uploading importer to frequently upload.--Jusjih (talk) 01:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Stewards will likely disallow new permanent uploading importers unless we have new policy allowing them with enough needs. If no more comments on this, I would like to resign as the only uploading importer soon to remain an administrator on 13 wikis. Temporary uploading importers may still be voted for.--Jusjih (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I am resigning as the importer. Remaining an administrator still allows transwiki importing.--Jusjih (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The consultation on partial and temporary Foundation bans just started[edit]

-- Kbrown (WMF) 17:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Begging Assistance for the Vandalism from Showmehowtonelikeyou[edit]

Please block Showmehowtonelikeyou; I gave him a warning on his talk page and he did the same; I reverted the edit and he did the same; it goes on and on. Help!!! ——Blessings, Josephina (talk) 07:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Kalki already blocked the user indefinitely.--Jusjih (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Citation style[edit]

This post was initially placed on Wikiquote talk:Manual of style, but moved here after I was informed that this place is more active. I am new here, but have always had quite a bit of interest in Wikiquote. The main issue I'm running into is citations. According to the Manual of Style, Wikiquote uses the same citation style as Wikipedia, but all pages on this project show that this isn't the case. GreenMeansGo (talk · contributions) explained to me on my talkpage that citations are always presented in full in the prose itself. According to I would like to discuss this issue in a more public forum such as this. In particular, I would love if multiple different citation styles could be used on Wikiquote, as I definitely understand why you wouldn't want to change all pages on this entire project. Completely disallowing footnotes for sources seems downright absurd to me, but if there is a specific reason why this is done, I would love to know it. Maplestrip (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I do not believe that UDScott (talk · contributions)'s change on a page I created today — [1] — is at all an improvement. In fact, I believe this change makes the entire page more cluttered and makes it more difficult to read. It makes it less clear who is the quoted person and who is the author of the article, and it causes some citations to be doubled and tripled. Maplestrip (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I also just found out about WQ:CITE, which also explicitly allows for sources to be placed in a separate references section at the bottom of a page. Maplestrip (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Protection of User talk:IanDBeacon[edit]

Hi. Would an admin consider protecting User talk:IanDBeacon due to ongoing vandalism? -- Tegel (talk) 13:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page for one week. Feel free to change it how you feel fit. -- Tegel (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Imran Khan quote deleted by Rupert loup[edit]

User:Rupert loup has twice deleted the following quote from Imran Khan :

  • It (standing by Kashmiris) is jihad. We are doing it because we want Allah to be happy with us... It is a struggle and do not lose heart when the time is not good. Do not be disappointed as the Kashmiris are looking towards you….
    • Imran Khan on his return from the US on Sep 29, 2019. As translated, attributed and quoted in Asian Age, Imran Khan says 'it's jihad'; asks Pakistanis not to lose heart over Kashmir [2] (and other news outlets)

This quote is quoted in numerous news outlets like Outlook India, Times of India, The Hindu.... In the news outlets, like for example Times of India The Hindu and many others it is quoted as:

“It (standing by Kashmiris) is jihad. We are doing it because we want Allah to be happy with us,” he said.
“It is a struggle and do not lose heart when the time is not good. Do not be disappointed as the Kashmiris are looking towards you,” he said.

Rupert loup claims it "is an attribution not an actual quote by him" and "the cite is too butchered and the sources that are reporting this are not neutral on the subject".

But the statement is quoted with quotation marks as a statement by Imran in many news outlets. I don't know what Rupert means with "the sources that are reporting this are not neutral on the subject", the quote is quoted by many different news outlets, is Rupert saying they are all not neutral? (This quote has been quoted in so many news outlets, that if it were a wrong quote, the news outlets would have corrected it by now or someone would have written a rebuttal.)

This seems like a clearly notable quote that is removed just because "the sources that are reporting this are not neutral on the subject", for which there is no evidence. --ΞΔΞ (talk) 05:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I re added it, however all the sources that I saw that are reporting this are from India and from their point of view, there is nothing wrong with that but it can be a conflict of interest and without the original statement in its original language we can't be sure of the accuaracy of the translation. That's why I think that at least sources that are detached from the India-Pakistan conflict should be provided. Rupert Loup 06:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for re-adding it. About your point on sources, by the same token, we should also not use American newspapers as sources for quotes about Chinese politicans because of the US-China conflict? But in Xi Jinping we do use quotes from NYT, CNN and other American news outlets. I think that the quote was reported in major Indian newspapers without any rebuttal or correction is more than enough. --ΞΔΞ (talk) 06:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

About[edit]

What do you do on wikiquote? And why can't I put non famous quotes on this wiki? Znotch190711 (talk) 10:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Here is a statement regarding what Wikiquote is all about. The site is limited to "quotable" statements because, otherwise, it would be nothing more than a depository of "things people said." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

"The" Bible[edit]

Since

  1. the word "Bible" means different things to Jews and to Christians,
  2. the word "Bible" means different things to different denominations of Christians,
  3. the Bible is not the source or author of the texts included therein
  4. all individual texts in the Bible are traditionally attributed to a specific author or source

I suggest

  1. it is problematic to use "The Bible" as a designation for the source of quotations
  2. it is more accurate and more neutral to specify as the source of quotations either (a) the traditionally designated author or source or (b) the name of the individual book
  3. it is not appropriate to group quotations from different books of "the Bible" together under a separate heading labeled "The Bible" in theme pages.

Grouping quotations that appear in the Bible under a separate heading in theme pages (1) fails to make proper attribtuion to the actual source (2) gives the impression of segregating quotations from the Bible into a separate realm of discourse (enforcing a kind of apartheid of secular and religious domains) and (3) is problematic because of the diversity of meaning in the term "The Bible."

Thank you for your consideration of these concerns. ~ Peter1c (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The essentials of a Bible citation include the Book, chapter , and verse (as everyone should know) and the translation or version (omitted by many who should know better). Anything else is uncited. Your assessment of segregating Bible quotations in theme articles appears to be sound. Don't even get me started about The Bible According to Ningauble. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Agree with the above. A citation to "the Bible" is scarecely more useful than a citation to "the dictionary". GMGtalk 19:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as a video game worth including on a theme page?[edit]

Is there such a thing as a video game quote worth including on a theme article or could it be declared this is an inherantly non memorable/quote worthy medium outside of the pages for those works, and that beyond these few obvious pages which include the name of the corporate product in the title, adding quote from these works to theme pages should be avoided? I was under the impression that we only wanted the oldest iteration of a sentiment, (based off this edit summary from Peter1c, "-1 non-notable (is this really the earliest source for the sentiment expressed?" regarding the inherent lack of quoteworthyness for atheistic commentary from the TV show True Detective citing reasons of etymology. So as I'm guessing I'm wrong, I'm thinking, why not spell this out more clearly in the intro guide somewhere that this is a project about etymology and not around the likelihood of having been exposed to quotes, so this mistake doesn't happen again, or could it be that the reasoning Peter gave is actually not a valid one and they need a different one should they revert again? Not to suggest this is an edit war, it just seems weird to give edit comments that aren't legit reasons. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)