Wikiquote:Village pump

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Community portal
Welcome
Reference desk
Request an article
Village pump
Archives
Administrators' noticeboard
Report vandalismVotes for deletion
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.
Archive
Archives

Welcome, newcomers and baffled oldtimers! This is the place if you (a) have a question about Wikiquote and how it works or (b) a suggestion for improving Wikiquote. Just 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.





Episode Quote Limit[edit]

I have taken issue with the “only two quotes per episode” rule, especially since there are so many pages that have already broken this rule and nobody has done anything about them. Can we raise the limit to something like twenty? As long as we’re not posting the entire script, it should be fine. 2603:7000:1200:825A:4511:238F:3F2C:426A 22:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can we please lift the “only two quotes per episode” rule. Two episodes per quote is too few in my opinion, and what if there’s a memorable quote someone wants to post but can’t because there’s already two quotes for the episode? People told me that it’s because there’s risk of the site being shut down if too much copyrighted material is posted, but that’s never happened as far as I can tell. Besides, there’s people who treat the Family Guy Seasons 8 and 9 pages very seriously with this rule, but every other page for the show is ignored. Either we enforce this rule consistently, or we significantly relax, if not out right abolish it. Which one is it? —This unsigned comment is by 2600:1017:b835:be2:c889:d83f:2bb:361a (talkcontribs) 13:39, 20 April 2024.

Two quotes per episode is too few.[edit]

Can we please lift the “only two quotes per episode” rule. Two episodes per quote is too few in my opinion, and what if there’s a memorable quote someone wants to post but can’t because there’s already two quotes for the episode? People told me that it’s because there’s risk of the site being shut down if too much copyrighted material is posted, but that’s never happened as far as I can tell. Besides, there’s people who treat the Family Guy Seasons 8 and 9 pages very seriously with this rule, but every other page for the show is ignored. Either we enforce this rule consistently, or we significantly relax, if not out right abolish it. Which one is it? Playland1998 (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree that we need to avoid violating copyright, but where in policy or elsewhere is there a "two quotes per episode" rule? HouseOfChange (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Please refer to WQ:LOQ (and the associated talk page). There have also been numerous discussions on this topic elsewhere (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, Wikiquote:Quality and Quantity, and I am sure there are more in the archives - I will keep looking and update if I find others). Much of this discussion originated when a sister project in France was threatened with complete shutdown.
There had been discussion about relaxing this restriction (I believe 5 per 1/2 hour episode and 10 per hour episode had been put forward), but we never got consensus. The Limits on Quotations page is a proposed guideline - it never got enough traction to become official policy. But that being said, the community consensus seemed to be that we need some limits so that we can maintain reasonable pages - there was also discussion that even if limits did not prevent bloat that appears on many TV show pages, that the criterion of quotability should also be applied and would likely limit some of the additions by applying that lens. The idea of this site is to post a selection of notable quotes - not full scripts of films or TV shows. Despite the seemingly arbitrary nature of selecting a numerical limit for quotes, it does seem to have benefitted our film and TV show pages in particular, keeping them to a manageable length and level of quality. I do feel there is some leeway we should have for film pages (especially established classics like Casablanca), but for TV shows (that have so many hours or material), it seems like it would be a bit absurd to allow an unlimited amount of quotes per episode. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
My problem is that the people in this website aren’t truly practicing what they preach, and it’s just not fair. It’s only those two specific Family Guy pages that have the most restrictions from other people, while everything else is just left alone. Long ago, I anonymously added the entire story of how Debbie Grund was killed to the page on King of the Hill's fourth season, and last I checked, no one has deleted it. Playland1998 (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Template:Wikiquotelang[edit]

Hi, is it possible to add Bengali Wikiquote (বাংলা) in there? We recently crossed 1K mark. Thanks. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@আফতাবুজ্জামান: শুকরিয়া/মারহাবা! —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Koavf, The code is wrong, should be "bn" (not bg), you can add something like this. Thanks. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
D'oh. Thanks again. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Vote now to select members of the first U4C[edit]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear all,

I am writing to you to let you know the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open now through May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 20:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Policy change proposal: More quotes per episode[edit]

I’ve been trying to add more quotes to the pages for Family Guy's eighth and ninth seasons, but people kept preaching to me that there should only be two quotes per half-hour episode, or else they will get a copyright claim. Anonymous user 100.8.243.246 said to me on UDScott’s talk page that the event it never happens is “unlikely”, but cannot disagree with him more. The page for Season 18 for example has 14 quotes for the episode The Movement, and not a single copyright claim has happened to that. I also added the entire story of Debbie Grund’s death to King of the Hill’s fourth season, and guess what people did about it? Nothing! Besides, why would anyone copyright claim this website anyway, when there are so many other quote websites that are just left alone?

So I’m coming up with a new proposal to raise the maximum number of quotes per episode, since not a single copyright claim has happened to Family Guy Season 18 or King of the Hill Season 4. The maximum number of quotes should be: five quotes for a show less than a half-hour long; 15 quotes for a half-hour; 20 quotes for an hour; 25 quotes for an hour and a half; 30 quotes for two hours; and 40 quotes for 3 hours. Because since no one is copyright claiming those pages, then why should we even care?

P.S. I expect a satisfactory response as soon as possible. I don’t like it when people ignore my words. Playland1998 (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

A slight increase might be OK but fifteen quotes per half hour seems much too high. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
How about ten? Playland1998 (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wikiquote doesn't have all that many active users, but this is an issue people might realistically vote on in mass, given how much activity on this website concerns television shows. This is just my assessment, but we seem to favor movies over TV, and video games and comic books are largely dismissed despite modern video games being comparable in length to novels in their word count and a large portion of the movies coming out being based on comics. If you think we can normally interest a group of twelve people for a vote on anything than you are sorely mistaken, but raising this issue might actually accomplish that. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
There’s nothing wrong with providing context. Just don’t post the entire script. Playland1998 (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Richard Nixon and Category:Richard Nixon[edit]

At d:Special:Diff/2134319560, I was alerted that Category:Anti-Semites is added to these pages. The main article was made first, and I made the category by copying all categories from the main article (I didn't notice about Category:Anti-Semites until the message). I'm not sure if the enwiki article supports this categorization. Should we remove Category:Anti-Semites from these pages? MathXplore (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is dating someone just because they edit Wikiquote paid editing?[edit]

I was wondering if I could go out on a date with someone without it being a violation of the rule against paid editing. I'm assuming not everyone here is single and that those who are in a relationship currently wouldn't be willing to break up with their partner just so they'd be allowed to continue to edit Wikiquote. I mean, how am I even supposed to know if the only reason someone is dating me is because I edit Wikiquote? I would prefer to date someone who sees enough value in this website that they themselves would like to contribute, but I wouldn't want to make it a necessary condition for them having a relationship with me. I would be pretty heartbroken to find out I was being objectified in a relationship just because of one of my attributes, or that someone was getting paid to date me, but there's no guarantee I'd be able to figure it out if they were.
As a follow up question, would mandatory celibacy even be a rule we could officially implement? What about a new rule that excludes editors based off their gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity or some other status that is typically protected against harassment; is that something Wikiquote could technically do, or would Wikimedia object to us promoting blatantly discriminatory values that are contrary to theirs? People often mention that we are not Wikipedia, but just how different from them are we allowed to be? I can't imagine something like that going very well with the media, and although Wikiquote might not get mentioned in the news, Wikimedia is, and it receives a lot of donations that it might not otherwise receive if one of the websites it operates starts discriminating against people. I'm just trying to follow the rules and maybe introduce someone to this cool hobby of mine that everyone here shares, but when the rules are vaguely worded and no one responds to my questions it can be kind of difficult to know what is and isn't allowed. CensoredScribe (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is this a joke? —Justin (koavf)TCM 14:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, it's fear, but I'd settle on Black comedy. Wikiquote may not be very popular, however as several of the pages I've created for the abortion category contain more references than the corresponding Wikipedia pages, it is arguably one of the most comprehensive learning resources available for abortion on the internet as it combines text from both PubMed and Google Books. As such, it is a particularly well curated data set for an LLM. Given this is a civil rights issue and civil rights advocates have a history of being unjustly targeted by both criminal and law enforcement elements, I believe my increased concern is at least somewhat plausible. I'd make for a pretty terrible civil rights activist, but I'm a halfway decent scholar if you'd like to test my knowledge of the subject, not that civil rights has ever really come down to correctly answering test questions. I like editing Wikiquote and would like to continue to do so, I'm aware that what most people consider payment is financial transactions that have to be reported to the IRS as taxable income or gifts, not the amount of food you eat during a sleepover. I've been a bit on edge recently because it's an election year. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
My interpretation is that "Paid editing" involves getting money or whatever (a promotion, a date, etc.) in exchange for something you are being asked to do in a wiki project. If you already did some work here because you thought it improved the project, that is not "paid editing," even if some third party decides to reward you for what you have already done. That said, WQ articles are not set up to be a source of balanced or reliable information about Beauty, Truth, Abortion, etc. That's Wikipedia's goal, not something we could easily achieve. Creating a reliable guide to some topic entirely by cobbling together a lot of sourced quotable quotes would be like trying to build the Eiffel Tower out of matchsticks. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
The fact that we have to have personal interpretations indicates that the rule is ambiguously worded. I wonder whether that is a communicative error on the part of the editor/editors who wrote that rule, or whether it's intentional to provide enough flexibility that essentially anything can be construed as paid editing. Is paid editing really dependent on the formation of a verbal contract? Isn't dropping a roll of cash in front of a cop as they go to arrest you still considered a bribe even if you didn't say anything? I said that most people wouldn't consider the food you eat while visiting a friend to constitute a bribe, but I don't think that most of the people here have read A Woman in Berlin either, even though the editors of Wikiquote are a particularly well-read group of people and a lot of them present themselves as being deeply concerned for civil rights and social justice. The formation of a verbal contract isn't necessarily a defining feature of bribery and the payment doesn't have to be taxable, it can be a perishable item such as food rations, or like you've mentioned HouseOfChange, a promotion, a date or some other service.
Paid editing is using the carrot, but what about using the stick? We can be blocked for using threatening language in a conversation with other editors on site, Kalki has done it to me before, but what about using threatening language off site? Isn't mentioning offsite activity that reveals details of an editor's identity usually considered doxing them? It's kind of hard to enforce a rule regarding off site behavior when our most important rule is respecting everyone's privacy. It doesn't really matter if offsite harassment is against the rules or not if talking about it is considered the worse offense. Should we be going to the police or journalists instead if that ever happens to us? It would be shameful if that was Wikiquote's first time being talked about in the news. Threats can, and usually are, vaguely worded; similarly, you can imply a bribe without specifically spelling it out for people, it doesn't have to be as obvious as "If you do X I will give you Y".
As for Wikiquote being less balanced than Wikipedia and more cobbled together, Wikipedia attempts to have a neutral point of view while Wikquote is made up of people's points of view, but they are both cobbled together from references to sources that a teacher would consider acceptable to include in a term paper, unlike Wikipedia which is not, and for good reason. Wikipedia summarizes references in much the same way that a streaming service summarizes episodes of a TV show or films. A lot of the nuance of language is lost in creating a brief synopsis of the works of others and in the case of entertainment most of the plot points are simply glossed over. There aren't a lot of Wikipedia pages that are edited solely by one person, but there are several Wikiquote pages with only one editor, I know this from personal experience being one of those lone editors. It seems that not a whole lot of people here seem to be interested in spending their time creating or improving articles about abortion, for whatever reasons those might be.
Keep in mind that Wikipedia does not actually adhere to the Fairness doctrine which stipulated giving equal airtime to both sides of an issue, Wikipedia emphasizes facts, which is a point of view, whereas following the Fairness doctrine means giving equal weight to the words of a NASA astronaut and a moon landing denier. If you look at the Wikipedia page for the moon landing you will see that is not the case. The page for Treatment and management of COVID-19 mentions Ivermectin, but it does so in a section labeled ineffective treatments. If you believe in facts, then you are biased, NPOV may not be the ideal that you think it is, it's not very well defined. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Since Poetlister case, wikiquote has engaged in enough off-wiki issues that has effect on wiki. You can date with someone, nobody disallows you to do so. However, trying to make promotion about the one you date is COI.
As for BIAS and POV, just take a look on Israel -Hamas related content, Russia -Ukraine related articles. There's something more serious always just happening on this project. -Lemonaka 22:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Koavf, HouseOfChange, Lemonaka; as the three of you are administrators, tell me what you would think of the following scenario which is neither complex nor hypothetical. I show some of my contributions to someone who believes in reproductive rights and in social media such as Wikiquote as an effective means of education and outreach, they are impressed enough by what I've done that they decide to let me stay at their house and continue to create pages about reproductive rights because they share my concerns for the future. Is that paid editing, yes or no? If you have different answers to this question, than why is there that little consensus among the Wikiquote administrators as to what paid editing even means? Anyone else can free to state their "interpretation" as well, although unless they are also administrators who are tasked with enforcing the rules here when they are broken, there opinion will not mean much to me, even if it's Jimmy Wales. CensoredScribe (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The answer to your original question is no. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Koavf by original question do you mean, "I show some of my contributions to someone who believes in reproductive rights and in social media such as Wikiquote as an effective means of education and outreach, they are impressed enough by what I've done that they decide to let me stay at their house and continue to create pages about reproductive rights because they share my concerns for the future. Is that paid editing, yes or no?" I'm still a bit confused why if someone gave me three thousand dollars to pay the rent for a New York City apartment so I can edit Wikiquote fulltime it's paid editing, but if they own their own New York City apartment and let me stay there rent free so I can edit Wikiquote fulltime, it's not paid editing. They both sound like a gift of three thousand dollars that is being given in exchange for edits that haven't happened yet, the only difference is that I don't have to report the second one to the IRS, but as HouseOfChange has made clear, they interpret paid editing to include services that lack any financial value whatsoever, like going on the world's cheapest date. I hope that HouseOfChange isn't in charge of interpreting and enforcing the legal definition of prostitution. CensoredScribe (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Justin, no. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Resolved
Justin (koavf)TCM 16:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Copyvio?[edit]

Aren't this copyvio? আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, the original source is The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians. The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians is a set of eight volumes published between 1867–1877 in London. Any book published in the 19th century is not a copyvio. It would be better to first ask on the talkpage of the article. However, some copyediting is still needed and is work in progress. -- (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. Not copyvio then but quotes should not be that long, it's very hard to follow. You know Wikisource exist for this type of book. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
The India they saw: Foreign accounts is a compendium of quotes on India, in which the same extract is quoted in full. This means that at least another published editor found this particular episode interesting, quotable and coherent enough to quote in full. Smaller parts of the episode have of course been quoted often elsewhere. But the extract could be split into smaller quotes and perhaps trimmed, to make it more readable. As I said in my last reply the article still needs copyediting and is work in progress. I will have a few more tries at the article when I find the time. Thanks for reminding me. -- (talk) 09:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sign up for the language community meeting on May 31st, 16:00 UTC[edit]

Hello all,

The next language community meeting is scheduled in a few weeks - May 31st at 16:00 UTC. If you're interested, you can sign up on this wiki page.

This is a participant-driven meeting, where we share language-specific updates related to various projects, collectively discuss technical issues related to language wikis, and work together to find possible solutions. For example, in the last meeting, the topics included the machine translation service (MinT) and the languages and models it currently supports, localization efforts from the Kiwix team, and technical challenges with numerical sorting in files used on Bengali Wikisource.

Do you have any ideas for topics to share technical updates related to your project? Any problems that you would like to bring for discussion during the meeting? Do you need interpretation support from English to another language? Please reach out to me at ssethi(__AT__)wikimedia.org and add agenda items to the document here.

We look forward to your participation!


MediaWiki message delivery 21:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Feedback invited on Procedure for Sibling Project Lifecycle[edit]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear community members,

The Community Affairs Committee (CAC) of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees invites you to give feedback on a draft Procedure for Sibling Project Lifecycle. This draft Procedure outlines proposed steps and requirements for opening and closing Wikimedia Sibling Projects, and aims to ensure any newly approved projects are set up for success. This is separate from the procedures for opening or closing language versions of projects, which is handled by the Language Committee or closing projects policy.

You can find the details on this page, as well as the ways to give your feedback from today until the end of the day on June 23, 2024, anywhere on Earth.

You can also share information about this with the interested project communities you work with or support, and you can also help us translate the procedure into more languages, so people can join the discussions in their own language.

On behalf of the CAC,

RamzyM (WMF) 02:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply