Wikiquote:Village pump archive 3

Archives

2003 2004 2005: 01–06 · 07–09 · 09–12 2006: 01–05 · 06 · 07–09 · 10–11 · 12 2007: 01 · 02 · 03 · 04 · 05–06 · 07 · 08–11 · 12 2008: 01 · 02–04 · 05–06 · 07–08 · 09–10 · 11–12 2009: 01–02 · 03–09 · 10–12 2010: 01–06 · 07–12 2011: 01–05 · 06–08 · 09–12 2012: 01–02 · 03–04 · 05–08 · 09–12 2013: 01–06 · 07–12 2014: 01–04 · 05–08 · 09–12 2015: 01–03 · 04–08 · 09–12 2016: 01–03 · 04–07 · 08–12 2017: 01–06 · 07–12 2018: 01–06 · 07–12 2019: 01–06 · 07–12 2020: 01–06 · 07–12 2021: 01–06 · 07–12 2022: 01–06 · 07–12 2023: 01–06 · 07–12

Originally posted to Wikiquote:Village pump from January 2005 till June 2005.

Village pump archive 3

Www.wikiquote.org

Hi, from the new year each Wikimedia project's toppage, www.wikiXX.org is switching to a portal shared with every language instead of a redirect for English project. I created a portal for our project, Wikiquote. Please give a look to m:Www.wikiquote.org portal and make a comment on m:Talk:Www.wikiquote.org portal. If you have a skill to improve it (I am not skillful for such a desiging work), it is also appliciated. Cheers. --Aphaia 12:02, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

en: links

I notice a template page warning of obsolete links of the form en: instead of w:. Has this conversion been systematically addressed? Is there a Special:Old Pages we could troll for these links to change them or better a "TopBanana"-style report listing them? If not, could we ask for one to be generated from the latest data dump? User:Rmhermen

There has been no systematic changing of the obsolete links; thus far there has only been advisories to alter the deficient "en:" links to "w:" links wherever they are encountered. ~ Achilles 20:11, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That is probably the most important formatting issue that exists here, but other formatting advisories include adding {{lynx}} to the bottom of pages to provide convenient links to some major directory pages, and to avoid colons (:) in section headings (and removing them from the ends of headings where they are unnecessary) because it makes directing links to those sections of pages more of a problem. ~ Achilles 22:45, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Moving the category links to the bottom of the page, as you have been doing in your recent edits is also very helpful. It prevents unnecessary white space forming at the top of pages in many browsers. ~ Achilles 23:04, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was doing that because I was having trouble finding them when adding/fixing sort keys to [[Category:Author|lastname, firstname]] to keep them all properly alphabetized.

I notice Special: Newpages works. I am surprised to not see it appear on the main page or recent changes or something. It might aid checking that new pages contain the lynx and the correct Wikipedia link. Rmhermen 23:21, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Date format preference

Why doesn't Wikiquote have an Preferences option for selecting Date Format? I imagine there are some practical concerns (e.g., the resulting links would look red unless and until someone created pages for each day of the Gregorian year and each year cited anywhere in Wikiquote articles, and what would those articles contain?), but it would help in standardizing date citations in Sourced sections of quote pages without causing unnecessary arguments. I volunteer to create the articles, work on standardizing dates, and adding links on the created date pages to speeches and such mentioned in Sourced sections, if that feature is enabled. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:50, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is there a Wiki markup for dates? How would a contributor notate 4-10-1920 so that we would know whether it referred to spring or autumn? --Eustace Tilley 10:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses a date preference system that reformates dates when they are linked day month, year or month day year. This preference setting does not appear to be available on Wikiquote. x-x-xxxx of either meaning is never encouraged. Rmhermen 14:03, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To elaborate on Rmhermen's statement, on Wikipedia, at least, dates are expected to be written either like April 5, 2005 or 5 April 2005 (and possibly slight variations on those), and they will be automatically displayed for each reader based on their Preferences settings. This avoids the ambiguity Eustace mentions, and allows people to see dates in the format they prefer, regardless of how an article writer added them. That capability does not appear to be enabled here. Are there any Wiki developers monitoring Wikiquote? Can someone describe what would have to be done to turn this feature on? — Jeff Q (talk) 02:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've enabled it now for en.wikiquote.org, en.wikibooks.org, en.wiktionary.org, and commons.wikimedia.org. (It's off by default and supported only for English currently.)

Since we've got so many wikis (over 600 including lots of small or barely-used ones) we can't really monitor them all for requests. If you can catch someone in #wikimedia-tech on irc.freenode.net, or drop a note to the wikitech-l mailing list [1] you'll have a better chance of getting something done. (Also, reports of software bugs and requests for fixes/features should go to our tracker at http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/ ) --Brion VIBBER 03:42, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Finding Long Quotes

Jeffq, I'm curious, how do you know that those pages that you mentioned are 1st and 7th-longest? And is there also a way to tell which page is the biggest when also taking into account all of the revisions history? I now also added a longish quote to the Martin Luther King, Jr. page about Vietnam, if anyone who is interested in the long quotes issue wants to take a look. But my general impression is that no one wants to formulate a policy on this issue, which is fine with me:) So the (non)-policy should be that as long as a quote is focused on a certain specific point, it's ok to include it regardless of its length, i.e. it would be determined by common sense and not by formal rules, at least for now. Sams 15:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Look under Special pages then Long pages. Rmhermen 16:42, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oops, thanks. Sams 12:10, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edits

Apparently this project has gotten really popular. My watchlist claims there have been 120,000 edits in the last 3 days. Or maybe it is a bug? Rmhermen 15:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that, too. It's gotta be a bug. I recall reviewing Recent Changes a few times in the past few days and being amused to see large chunks of time when I made 90%+ of all edits during my intense cleanup work. But this was on the order of 50-100 edits in a few hours. Even with your, Kalki, and Aphaia's similar busyness, plus the regular traffic, we could hardly have achieved 120,000 edits! I'd suspected that it had something to do with all this cleanup work, which has been rather uncharacteristic of Wikiquote editing patterns. — Jeff Q (talk) 17:59, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would count on that being a bug... mine has similar misreads. I usually just keep an eye on recent changes, so I don't know how long this has been happening. ~ Kalki 18:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It seems a bug: I list 16 pages without talk and there have been 120,000 edits on those (same number!) I noticed this message on other projects where total edit number is provided. --Aphaia 20:46, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

P.S. This bug was reported to developers as Bugzilla:1778. --Aphaia 21:06, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Subsection links broken?

Is anyone else having problems using subsection links (e.g., Blackadder#Dish and Dishonesty)? I've found that nearly all the subheadings (at least two levels down) I've tried to jump to from other pages go to the article, but fail to jump to the subsection. (I can sometimes get Blackadder#Chains to work, but haven't detected a pattern.) I first saw this when trying to fix a link from War to Politics#Iraq War, which also wasn't working for me. (When I tested it just now with this page, it worked once, then failed a second time. Neither Blackadder link is working correctly at the moment.) It happens whether I use spaces or underscores in the link. Is it just me? — Jeff Q (talk) 03:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Three links the above work for me (FireFox 1.0.0). Hmmm strange. Subsection links didn't work for you only on this project or on other s too? Or now they work for you too? (I hope so ...) --Aphaia 05:10, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was using Opera 7.23. I just tested Firefox 1.0.1, and it worked perfectly. I went back to Opera, and now only "Chains" didn't work. I'm getting closer to switching to Firefox every day… — Jeff Q (talk) 05:50, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New deletion policy discussion

I'm afraid I've been remiss in bringing an important point to the Wikiquote community. The new sysops (including myself) are working hard to fill in some gaps in Wikiquote policies and documents, now that we have more hands to do the work. One item we're working on is Wikiquote:Deletion policy, which was copied over from Wikipedia's version and edited down toward the more basic version that's been practiced here. In my zeal to get this going, I forgot that all Wikiquotians should have a chance to consider these issues. I invite everyone to drop in there and participate in codifying and possibly modifying our practices. — Jeff Q (talk) 18:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We're also working on Proposed Votes for deletion and Proposed Votes for deletion archive pages, to give a view of some of the possible changes we've been discussing at Wikiquote talk:Deletion policy. Take a look there and feel free to join in the discussions on the Talk pages. Jeff Q 10:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Latest news

There are some interesting news

• Yahoo! hosting. See Wikimedia:Home.
• Wikimania in this summer.
• Wikiquote visitors are increasing and now we are at 26,444 th in the Alexa ranking (average in three months). On April 1, we were almost at 10,000 th, and as for today, April 8, at 14,456 @_@

Now I feel our community very activated and have a good atmosphere. Keep it up together.

Aphaia 07:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I notice that that Wikimedia page contains the erroneous claim that Wikiquote is only five months old. Following the Wikiquote link on that page leds to a second page that claims that Wikiquote was started in 2004. Unfortunately you can only edit those pages with Board approval. Who do we have to notify? Rmhermen 23:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm Wikiquote started in 2003. 2004 was the year of langauge subdomain creation. Five months old should be an error. Thank you for your notice. Rmherman, could you give me those links?

Check the Latest News section on http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home. You will see "As of March 25, Wikiquote has 10,000 articles in total, 5 months after its inception." --Eustace Tilley 03:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As for who ... how about me? ;-) I'm an editor of WMF. --Aphaia 03:25, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. Please see Wikimedia:Home. --Aphaia 05:52, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are magical! You changed wikimediafoundation's Home without changing it! Is the Latest News section on that page automatically composed from Latest News sections of the various projects?

Thanks ;-) Latest news is using a separate template, like our Main Page. As for synch to other projects, it should be done manually ;-X. Your feedback about site is always welcome on m:Wikimedia site feedback by all editors! Aphaia

[2] is the one which claims Wikiquote began in 2004. Rmhermen 15:47, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

← outdent ←

Thank you for your all information; I found I misunderstand the day of inception of our project. It started on an inactive Wikipedia, and then have its own and proper site as a part of Wikipedia on July 13, 2003, and later its own domain, current "wikiquote.org". Perhaps Kaliki remember those old days. So the correct data is "21 months from its inception" ... As for the date "wikiquote.org" started, Kalki or other oldbies. do you have any information? --Aphaia 08:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No rush on this, but at some point, could somebody clue me in as to what "Wikimania" is? --RPickman 02:27, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikimania is an international meetup in this summer, in Frankfurt, Germany. Please visit the site for further information. ;-) --Aphaia 03:25, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unified user accounts?

Could someone also let us know what is the status of having a unified user account for the various wiki projects? Currently if I would like to contribute to wikiquote in another language, then I'd need to start another user account there that is completely separate? There's a comment about this here above at #Wikipedia_integration, with a link to metawiki, but that comment was made more than half a year ago... Sams 04:39, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As for single login policy, go to meta and read relevant pages like m:Single login policy; all project-wide, hence development related topics are on meta. --Aphaia 16:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

blocking of Gumba ad verbatim

Sorry for late report, I blocked Gumba ad verbatim last night to hinder his further edit. (his contribs). I appreciate hereby Jni, who reported it first, Walkingshaw and Kim Bruning, who came from English Wikipedia to revert edits of Gumba ad verbatim.

On Gumba a.v. I put 24 hours blocking And I asked him not to do so any more and if he does again, so he will be stopped again.

from log:

17:10, 8 Apr 2005 Aphaia blocked "User:Gumba ad verbatim" with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandalism)

I would like you to discuss here as follow:

• if my reaction is acceptable or not,
• what kind of blocking and banning policy we should have
  • because we seem to lack it currently; If I recall correctly English Wikiqutoe has not its own policy on this matter.

Any comments and suggestions are welcome.

Aphaia 09:53, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I propose Wikiquote community adopts and starts to follow this rule from English Wikipedia's blocking policy (slightly edited by me to combine several facets of en-wp policy into two sentences): Sysops may also block new user accounts that make lots of disruptive edits, for any length of time or permanently, at their discretion. Sockpuppets or public accounts that were created to violate Wikiquote policy should be blocked permanently. This would allow infinite blocks for Gumba ad verbatim and other user accounts that have never contributed even a single good edit. Time-limited blocks for anons are a different matter. If Wikiquote does not have its own blocking policy, then English Wikipedia has one that would make a good starting point. However, I think the en-wp policy is too long and its verbiage is too awkward for a smaller project like Wikiquote. Maybe start from the "Vandalism" and "Disruption" clauses and add other cases as need arises? jni 11:13, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your action was both just and merciful. Perhaps a vandal who uses a Latinate username may someday become a contributor.--Eustace Tilley 11:52, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We do need a policy, simple to start out with, and one that accomodates our still fairly small set of active admins while not unduly hindering potentially useful anonymous editors. However, Gumba ad verbatim, who vandalized 41 pages in as many minutes and taunts the Wikiquote community with his user page, does not fall into this category. Kalki has blocked anon vandals for 30 days for less provocation. I see no reason not to extend a similar block to Gumba. — Jeff Q (talk) 12:09, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected on one aspect above — the taunt apparently came from an anonymous user upset with the vandalism. It's great that community members chip in to revert vandalism, but it's not a good idea to respond in kind. However, the volume of vandalism still argues for a longer-term block for Gumba. — Jeff Q (talk) 12:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think Aphaia chose the briefer block in order to distinguish the registered-vandal from the anonymous-vandal. This acknowledges the mischief-maker's making the minor but not negligible acknowledgement of Wikiquote protocols.--Eustace Tilley 14:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

← outdent ←

Why did you revert 131.211.51.113's response to Gumba? "make your time" is from All Your Base and to me at least appears to be of more value than Gumba's copy-paste repetition. It's a first-class example of merciless editing.--Eustace Tilley 14:39, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Eustace, I reverted vandalism to a user's page, not a response (which belongs on their talk page, as you well know). I don't believe that committing violence against someone committing violence serves any purpose in a community project. The Wikiquote community may decide that a user page is not appropriate, but a single user replacing the content of a user page, however inane, put there by the user himself, is vandalism. (As far as the content goes, it was "you'll never win", which is exactly the same kind of taunt I've seem in some many acts of vandalism that I and the other sysops have been working to revert. It's obvious why I mistook it for a comment from Gumba, who, I will repeat, deliberately vandalized 41 pages in less than a single hour. Nevertheless, I will treat user pages as belonging to each user, and article space as community property, until the community decides otherwise or I am relieved of my adminship.) If you feel Gumba ad verbatim's user page is inappropriate for Wikiquote, why don't you nominate it in WQ:VFD? And STOP REARRANGING DISCUSSIONS! You seem to be going out of your way to create the problems you're complaining about, in order to justify your mailing list argument. — Jeff Q (talk) 07:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jeffq, I have two questions. Did you look at the other contributions of the person whose change to Gumba's page you reverted? Did you recognize his comment?

Thank you for your all feedback. I am sorry for that I left this taunt; partly I was merciless then and partly I was simply tired --- it was dawn rather than midnight in my country and it was just after some hours I cared for Yahoo! press release as translation coordnator, but for the involved parties such my situation might be irrevant. So I hereby apologize both Gamba and the community I left this page and took no action.

Now Would we separate our discussions into two, for this particular case and the general discussion on our policies?

Aphaia 07:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gamba

Though I put 24 hours blocking on Gamba, I don't oppose to expand it. He troubled at least three users; and I heard Ed Poor offered help privately to Anthere, fortunately then we hadn't to bother him. Proposed 1 month block is not merciless from my view. Specially, if Gamba will back and act on a bad faith, so I won't hesitate to block him in two weeks or a month. But I wouldn't like to rely parmanent block too much. Even he is a part of community theoretically, I would like to wait the time we set rules.

Aphaia 07:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blocking policy

I think we can start with very simple policy and adoptation from Wikipedia is also helpful. My principal ideas are:

• A sysop can block an user both registered and unregistered, if they act inproperly.
• If a sysop blocks an user without community concensus, the length of banning should be within a month except cases particular described
  • spammer, particularly commercial spam, from an registered account can be blocked parmanently.
  • open account
  • sockpuppet, in particular on voting.
• IP address, or anonymous users shouldn't be banned parmanently. Blocking on them should be within a year.
• As for banning length, the banning with agreement of the community might be less than one year. It doesn't prevent a same user is banned repeatedly.

Aphaia 07:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And scanning Special:Log/block, I found a pattern of IP addresses of spammer(s), which made me doubt if those addresses were used by a same person or group. See below:

• 07:48, 10 Apr 2005 Kalki blocked "User:221.196.195.162" with an expiry time of 7 days (spam vandal)
• 07:56, 7 Apr 2005 Jeffq blocked "User:221.196.195.231" with an expiry time of 7 days (Spam vandalism of 10 pages.)
• 07:24, 19 Mar 2005 Kalki blocked "User:221.196.99.2" with an expiry time of 30 days (spam vandal)
• 05:13, 15 Mar 2005 Kalki blocked "User:221.196.197.66" with an expiry time of 30 days (spam vandal)

Possible range blocking for them includes:

• 221.196.195.162-221.196.195.231: 221.196.195.192/27 etc.
• 221.196.195.162-221.196.197.66: 221.196.196.0/24 etc.
• 221.196.99.2-221.196.195.213: 221.196.128.0/18 etc.
• 221.196.99.2-221.196.196.66: 221.196.128.0/18 etc.

Besides if we apply range blocking to those addresses or not, range blocking policy would be better to discuss here.

Aphaia 20:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't use range blocks against isolated incidents of spam. Only when the flood of garbage is too high to deal with the rollback and with single-IP blocks and only for duration of 24 hours or less. Otherwise it is too easy to block innocent people. Even in Wikipedia, which gets tens of times more vandalism than we, range blocks are seldomly used. I recall using that feature once or twice in three months and never for a span larger than /24. jni 09:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If I miss the basic line of your thoughts, I think your introduced ideas are kind and good. We should be more prudent to place range blocks. Personally I don't hesiate to place range blocking those chinese spammers in the mid term, but I admit there is a possibility to lose potential editors. So if we follow the English Wikipedia way, it is better to state clearly range blocks are placed in case of emergency and only. Because of its emergency, the duration should be not so long. 24 hours in maximum sounds to me appropriate.

I try to summarize those discussions above on Wikiquote:Blocking policy.

Aphaia 20:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Interwiki links

Is there a way to make an interwiki link here? I tried q and it didn't work. - Hephaestos 17:07 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

We use w: or en: to link back to the Wikipedia. What is q? Are you talking about links to Meatball or something? Nanobug 19:03 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

No Hep is saying is there a way of linking from other wikis to here. But no there is not yet a way. -fonzy

So we have to keep using external links until q is set up in the other wikis.

You can however use wikiquote templates in Wikipedia.

I tried using en:, but it resulted in bold text that was not a link. w: worked. --Eustace Tilley 15:10, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

← outdent ←

Just to tie up this old thread, let me point out that, at this posting, w: is now used to link to Wikipedia, q: is used to link a Wikipedia article to Wikiquote, and the list of prefixes for interwiki links (at least for en:Wikiquote and en:Wikipedia) can be found via the Special pages link in the Toolbox (on the left side of every page, using the default Monobook skin), under List of Wikimedia wikis. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is it better to add those interwiki markup to Wikiquote:How to edit a page or have a separate page including other tricks like {{PAGENAME}}? --Aphaia 07:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we could add a box or two on "Edit a page" for w: (Wikipedia) and wikt: (Wiktionary), the two most common ones? Perhaps also one example of a link to a non-English wiki? We could also provide a link to the List of Wikimedia wikis for a complete list. As far as {{PAGENAME}} goes, that's not something a starting editor is likely to run into, is it? Should we add that to Wikiquote:Template messages, since it looks like a template? I'm not sure. I think I need to get some sleep to think more clearly. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:30, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hoping a good sleep ;-) Well agreed {{PAGENAME}} and similar technics is not for newbies so it would be better not to mention "How to Edit". We can put a link to more closer help of MediaWiki. I recommend w: wikt: and Wikisource: as for early introduced interwiki tags. Interlang tag like fr: or de: would be worthy to mention and promote other language projects ;-) --Aphaia 13:18, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are still a lot of folks who are adding incorrectly formatted Wikipedia links, like en:TITLE, en:wikipedia:TITLE or wikipedia:en:TITLE to articles, probably as a holdover from older wiki practices. As I suggested above, I've added a very terse example of interwiki links at How to edit a page, but I suspect there are other places in our still-evolving documentation that may have outdated information. If anyone can point me to documentation or help articles that have that old data, I'll be happy to fix them. We also need to have a more concise list of project prefixes than List of Wikimedia wikis, which can be somewhat confusing to decipher, and doesn't provide some common prefixes; e.g., wikt: for en:Wiktionary, m: for Wikimedia Meta-Wiki (aka Meta). Such a list could link to LoWW for details, but provide the prefixes most frequently used on en:Wikiquote. — Jeff Q (talk) 22:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea which those older formats are mentioned - I suspect it is even outsides of the project, so we can't erase it completely. Anyway I agree with you, to Jeff, to add this information to "How to Edit". And I propose to make a section on FAQ - supposingly interwiki question might be one of projectwide FAQs . --Aphaia 23:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blockquotes

There's the HTML element 'blockquote', perfectly suited for Wikiquote, but not used -- why?

Since it is a Wiki we try to keep the use of HTML to a minimum. See here for more explanation, in the section "Why not use HTML" (about half way down). Nanobug 19:03 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It's fine to not use blockquote for entering quotes but why is it not used for displaying them?

It is not obvious how to add semantics to information entered with ordinary wiki syntax. The Wiki engine cannot reliably emit <blockquote> </blockquote> in the proper places unless the contributor gives it sufficient hints. A contributor to the Abraham_Lincoln page (for example) needs to figure out only that the quote begins with one asterisk, and the source with two asterisks. Wiki translates that into nested lists because it always does, and the resulting visual presentation is not unacceptable. No special logic is required. If an author happens to have uttered a memorable list himself, the contributor can write

* I have nothing to offer but

** blood

** toil

** tears

** sweat

*** The condensed Winston Churchill

and get

• I have nothing to offer but
  • blood
  • toil
  • tears
  • sweat
    • The condensed Winston Churchill

Eustace Tilley 00:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The presentation/design of the quotes is just confusing. This site need a graphic designer.

I agree that it would be neat to have more semantic markup. The Abraham_Lincoln page consists of the repeated sequence

<ul>

<li>The memorable quotation

<ul>

<li>Source and circumstances of the memorable quotation</li>

</ul>

</li>

</ul>

The CSS technician in me would prefer something like

<div class="q">

<div class="t">The memorable quotation</div>

<span class="s">Source and circumstances of the memorable quotation</span>

</div>

but the problem, again, is how the Wiki engine can distinguish quote from source unless the contributor is somehow required to make the markup. Solve that problem, and then graphic designers can provide style sheets to suit. --Eustace Tilley 00:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Recently perhaps on wiktionary-l and/or foundation-l, a new wiki tag for verse quote was proposed. In my opinion what we have to do is a proposal of our expecting layout and hope a dev to give a feature to this new layout. --Aphaia 13:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Emphasis

Several pages have emphasis added to some quotations, or to some parts of quotations. Examples are W. H. Auden, Sweat of the Damned, Pride and Prejudice, and Ulysses, among others. If this emphasis is part of the original work (e.g. a book) it makes sense to leave it there. But if we have added the emphasis, to make the quotations or part thereof stand out from the rest, I think we should remove the emphasis, as each reader should decide for themselves which quotes are more important or significant than others, and the text should speak for itself. If no-one disagrees with this concept, shall we add something to this effect in Manual of style? And something on pages where the emphasis is part of the original work like "Emphasis is as shown in the original" or words to that effect?) Nanobug 18:57, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I believe emphasis should sometimes be used, especially to point out more famous portions of larger quoatations, as I have done in George Santayana, Chief Joseph and in some of the above mentioned pages. I do not think it should be ruled out as an instrument of presentation. All use of quotation is a process of selection for presentation, of that which is found to be significantly profound, humorous, instructive, or otherwise interesting.

I think a general guideline against emphasis on derogatory remarks might be appropriate, but even that not an absolute rule, any more than exclusion of such quotations if the author is known to have declared them, and they reveal something significant about his or her character.

As this compendium grows it might be helpful to others for those contributing or editing to add emphasis to those quotes or portions of quotes that they feel especially significant. I do agree it could be overdone, and in some extreme cases could be detrimental to an overall appreciation of the author or a literary work, but I do not think this would generally be the case. --Kalki 2003*09*04 00:44 UTC

I, as well as others, have used bolding to emphasize passages or entire quotations that we find to be especially significant or notable. I do seek to continue to encourage the use of this form of presentation, as I think it can be very useful in drawing the eye to major passages and statements, especially on pages with a great deal of material. It may not be perceived as necessary but I (and, I believe, others as well) do find it appropriate, and useful. (I personally rather dislike the blandness of many pages that have no bolding or other use of typography to draw the attention of the eye to at least some of the more significant statements.)

As I noted in my original comment on this issue last year, I am aware that this could be excessively employed, but the only guideline that I have thus far suggested is that passages that are innately derogatory should not be so emphasized. Even this, though I consider it a good practical guideline, I have not and do not seek to make an absolute rule.

I think bolding is generally preferable to italics for such purposes on electronic pages, because it is more noticeable, and italics have often been used in the original documents or statements— bolding is thus more obviously an editorial addition within Wikiquote. On the rarer occasions where bolding or capitalization is used in the original for emphasis these can be retained or omitted as seems appropriate.

Anyone well acquainted with me would perceive that I am a person who recognizes a need for establishing some useful and convenient rules and guidelines for many procedures, but who strongly prefers that in nearly all endeavors there be a minimum of rules improperly imposed as if they were absolutes, and an avoidance of any rules or actions based upon casual presumptions or unwarranted suppositions. I know that others do, and expect that others will disagree with me on many issues, but hope that relatively minor disputes, or even major ones, will not be seen as indications or causes of enmity. ~ Kalki 00:59, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC) [This indented section originally was posted elsewhere, but probably should be here. ~ Kalki 18:40, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)]

I strongly feel that all statements are subject to various interpretations, understandings, and misunderstandings, but that does not mean that all statements are created equal— they are not, and never will be. Perhaps no two statements that make any sense at all can have totally equal worth. There can, and should be a transcendence of biases, but I choose to not even pretend that there can be a NPOV when it comes to selection and presentation of quotations, and that if someone finds some more noteable than others, they should generally be free to indicate it. I realize there can be disputes over this, but feel a few disputes about what should or should not be emphasized are better than a general blandness. ~ Kalki 19:19, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As an advocate of semantic markup, I would favor a markup for contributor-added emphasis that would be distinct from emphasis in the original. That way those who value such emphasis can enable it in their stylesheets, and those who value the Ur-text will not be distracted by intrusive typography. --Eustace Tilley 19:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Quotes by non-famous people

I have several quotations on my Quotes Page that, though extremely apposite (and humorous), are not by famous people. Is there a place for such quotations or are we only going for Great Words by Great People? On one hand I know this isn't a blog, but on the other hand some of these are real gems. - Montrealais

There is definitely a place for quotations from a great range of people, from the very famous, through to slightly famous, and even to witty or insightful comments from your next door neighbor (although in the latter case, unless your next door neighbor was famous in some degree, you would probably add their quotes to Anonymous). Nanobug 13:28, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

What about a section of quotes from Wikipedians? :) Angela

I think that inclusion of such quotes on personal User pages is entirely appropriate. If anyone wishes to submit them for other pages, there could be some kind of nomination process developed for inclusion on a specified theme page —in these early stages, a quotation perhaps only needing 7 user votes or so; or even creation of a new Author page —but this perhaps should require at least 4 quotations deemed worthy of attention, and at least 4 votes by Sysops or such, and even more as Wikiquote grows more widely visited and popular. Kalki 07:55, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Forgive my cutting in but wouldn't "(...) 4 votes by Sysops or such" give Sysops the editorial authority they should not have? A sysop's vote should be no more and no less important than any other users vote. Now... About the idea itself - I've been pondering a similar one lately and I've come to the conlusion that the best place for such quotations would be a separate page entitle Quotes by Wikiquotians (or whatever) to which everybody would have access with no votes for inclusion. Primarily becouse such a system seems awfully un-Wiki - it's not free and open to all anymore. Wether this page should be in the main namespace or in Wikiquote: is debatable. I'd go for main (after all... those are quotes, are they not? :)). --TOR 13:08, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It can be useful to distinguish between a quote and an aphorism. Samuel Gompers' "More" and Ronald Reagan's "Tear down this wall!" are both quotes, but they are unlike the work of Pascal or Wilde or Lec or Bierce. Non-famous people can certainly author memorable aphorisms. --Eustace Tilley 12:02, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Search problem

I tried searching for "Elliot" and it gives no matches despite the presence of the page JimElliot. Am I doing something wrong, or is there a problem? --DavidFraser 10:22, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) Found out on IRC it was a problem that was fixed - working fine now. Davidfraser 14:06, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Random Quote

I see you have a way to randomly bring up a quote page. Is there a way given a certain page display a random quote. I would like to use this so I can integrate it with a small (some what silly) app I made that displays Futurama quotes on a PC. The current set or quotes I’m using is taken from, the Slashdot website. I was considering making my own database to store a better range of quotes, and also quotes for other things, but now I have found this I would like much more to adapt it to the site for obvious reasons (if this is ok or possible). I was thinking something like Link http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/simpsions/Special:Randomquote reply is Homer: doh

or something like that Thanks for your help (hope I edited this correctly) -- 210.11.193.121 23:13, 6 Dec 2004

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking for, because you talk about random quotes from Wikiquote, Slashdot, and your own app. As far as Wikiquote goes, the Random page link in the Navigation box on every Wikiquote pages is just a URL that brings up a random Wikiquote page. You can bookmark it or invoke from within your app (as an HTTP GET, I suppose) to fetch a random page. If you only want random quotes from a single article (e.g., Futurama or The Simpsons), please realize that Wikiquote — in fact, all Wikis that I'm aware of — are article-focused, not text-fragment focused. The entire Wiki retrieval system is based on the encyclopedia format (presenting a document) rather than a dictionary or fortune cookie program (presenting only a sentence or paragraph). You'd have to collect the data from Wikiquote periodically and assimilate it into your quote app. — Jeff Q (talk) 02:14, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikiquotes - Abortion

I was reading wikiquotes on abortion and I found this under the pro-life section:

"A person's a person, no matter how small." Dr. Seuss (Horton Hears a Who!, 1954) (Note: Abortion was not actually the express topic of this quote)

Even with the "note" at the end - why would that quote be there? As a matter of fact, especially with that note at the end isn't it apparent this quote had nothing to do with abortion. Dr. Seuss wrote children's books, from this quote one cannot tell whether he is pro-choice or pro-life. I know lots of people who love children, and who have children, but are pro-choice. So the fact that Dr. Seuss obviously loved children and therefore would be pro-life makes no sense at all.

That quote would be rather appropriate for the pro-life argument (and perhaps is used by PL proponents), but as it is taken out of context, I've removed it from the Abortion article. I also added a note to the Talk:Abortion page to indicate how it might still be cited in certain circumstances. — Jeff Q (talk) 02:08, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is worth a FAQ writeup. I can easily imagine someone referencing "It is logical. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. - Spock" as a rather appropriate pro-choice argument, and "If it were done, when ‘tis done, then ‘twere well It were done quickly. - Shakespeare" for the morning-after pill. "Quotes-by-category" is not as harmless as it seems. "Quotes-by-author," I think, is always NPOV.--Eustace Tilley 10:50, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

I marked several articles for deletion, some via VFD, some via Speedy Deletion. But it seems that the articles stay longer on Speedy than on Votes for Deletion. Is Speedy not being used here? Rmhermen 05:02, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

vfd was added earlier here, and I wasn't actively monitoring Speedy until now. I will attempt to address some of the backlog there today and tomorrow. I generally prefer to revise an improperly created page on a valid subject rather than deleting it, but of course, some simply are not appropriate to retain at all, and these can get deleted swiftly. ~ Kalki

On a related note, Special:Shortpages contains a number of pages with zero content, or "hi", etc. These would all be speedy deleted on Wikipedia. Would you prefer them to just be blanked, a procedure currently discouraged on Wikipedia, which does though have more admins doing the deleting tasks? Rmhermen 00:47, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How does one go about nominating for speedy deletion? Bisexual seems to cry out for it... MosheZadka 16:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Put {{delete}] at the article top, if you find such contributions in the next time. Thank you! --Aphaia 17:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's often helpful, but not required, to use the {{db|REASON}} tag instead, which allows you to include a reason for nominating the article (e.g., {{db|no quotes, only personal opinion}}). The REASON text will appear in the delete message at the top of the article. More information, including a list of reasons for speedy deletion, can be found at Wikiquote:Speedy deletions. — Jeff Q (talk) 22:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quotation Copyright Rules

I wanted to create a page for Erich Fromm and add some quotes of his. Do I need to ask permission from the publisher even if using quotation marks and a full citation? If so, how should I go about doing this?--Golden Eternity 02:14, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Almost all quotations from modern sources are used under fair use provisions of copyright laws. Short quotations less than a few sentences long of any author's work is usually considered fair use, and can be used without permission. It also is always helpful when a citation of original sources can be provided, as well as links to further information on authors and their works. ~ Kalki 13:10, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Odd pages

Using Special:Old pages as a way to find large numbers of improper en: links to change to w: links, I have found a number of odd pages that probably need more changes. Ludoviko Zamenhof, Giovanni Giolitti and Leon R. Yankwich contain long list of the same quote translated into a number of different languages. Alexander_Gode consists entirely of a single quotation embedded in an image. What should I do with these? Rmhermen 16:34, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The lists of multilingual translations that exist on some pages were early experiments that have been rejected, and when you encounter these, most of the list can be removed, retaining only the original language and English versions. I have just turned the page with the imaged quote into a standard format page, and moved the link to the image to the talk page. ~ Kalki 20:16, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What qualifies as a "quotation"?

Over on Wiktionary we're wondering what to do regarding collecting citations and quotations and some have suggested that Wikiquote is the correct place for such things.

I've just read the main introductory pages of Wikiquote but I can't find any place where it is clarified just what kind of quotations are sought. My intuition would be that Wikiquote is interested in aspects such as famous people's views on various topics or insightful or witty statements on various topics.

A dictionary needs to collect citations of a word as used by many authors in different domains and in different eras in order to determine the various senses of the word and how those senses change over the years. Because of this, many citations will be quite mundane and dry even though they may be from famous authors. Does Wikiquote still have a place for them?

I believe a Wiktionary contributor has added a collection of "tidal wave" citations to Wikiquote but I'm unable to locate them using the "Search" button. In any case, I think it would be beneficial to Wikiquote to define which qualities make a quotation worthy of inclusion here. — Hippietrail 00:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tidal wave does look odd as it is organized by year. But many of the quotes certainly look appropriate to me. Does Wiktionary not intend to collect their own lists of first usages of discrete meanings like the OED does? Rmhermen 17:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of using Wikiquote to collect word or phrase usage for etymological purposes. It's an interesting idea. I can see why the Tidal wave material is organized by year, however — it was moved from Wiktionary, where that purpose and this organization makes sense. — Jeff Q (talk) 19:40, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hippertral, you seems to guess rightly. Quotes for etymological and usage are necessary to build a dictionary but it is a bit different from what Wikiqutoe aims; your idea sounds to me very similar to Wikidata, proposed by GeraldM (see wiktionary-l and meta), a cross-project data archives for "universal Wiktionary". I hope both Wikiquote and such archives give a good influecne to each other. --Aphaia 19:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maximal length of a quote?

Should we have a policy with regard to the length of a quote? See for example Noam Chomsky, I've added a few long quotes there. One approach is to simply limit the maximal number of characters that a quote may have to some absolute value. A second approach is to look at it in relative terms, i.e. adding a quote from a speech where the speaker is making a certain point might result in a lengthy quote, but if it's a 3 hour speech, then relative to the entire speech it's still, say, 50 times smaller than the whole thing. A full speech should be on wikisource and not wikiquote. So the policy in this 2nd approach is that if the quote is no more than 1/x (for some x) of the whole thing, then it's ok. A third approach is not to limit individual quotes, but to have a policy that limits the total size of the page, like in wikipedia. A fourth approach, which is de facto what we have so far I guess, is not to limit anything, so that a quote can take as much space as needed in order to make the point. I don't see a big problem with the 4th approach, meaning that there would be no policy about this. The 3rd approach is also ok, but a size limit can be quite large imho. The 2nd approach can also be ok, x=1 means wikisource, and wikisource should also have a policy on whether other small values like x=2 or x=3 are also appropriate there, and wikiquote would be restricted to a higher value of x. This issue can viewed in a general way as what should be the relation between wikiquote and wikisource. Sams 09:26, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Prevention Is Bad, Wait Until Someone Gets Hurt

Your efforts to quantify potential approaches are commendable, but is this really perceived as an issue at this point? I'm in favor of waiting until something becomes a problem before we worry about choosing one or more solutions. (Of course, being the instigator of and a major contributor to the 1st- and 7th-longest Wikiquote pages, I'm perhaps a bit biased toward avoiding proscriptive limits in general. ☺) Seriously, I wouldn't be concerned unless and until people start complaining. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There Is Already Bleeding

how is this for an example of too long - Closing session of the 5th Meeting on Globalization and Development held in Havana, Cuba. And not just the title. Do we have a transwiki procedure? Rmhermen 03:38, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well Closing session of the 5th Meeting on Globalization and Development held in Havana, Cuba seems to be good to move Wikisource ... I prefer a quote within 10 lines or so, but it is my personal taste. --Aphaia 05:10, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

True, That Looks Bad

Wow, that is absurdly long! Not only does that violate the principle of not including full works, but I have to wonder whether there may be copyright issues that might keep it out of Wikisource, too. Does Castro copyright his speeches? (I guess that would be ironic, but you never know.)

Castro copyright would not be unprecedented--Eustace Tilley 16:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As far as excerpted works, I prefer to keep quotes down their pithiest minimum (with some exceptions for cinematic dialog), but I have no problem with a paragraph or two that can't easily be reduced. — Jeff Q (talk) 06:34, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Moving Issues

So how do we go about moving it? I would also nominate Polybius which just got moved here from Wikipedia. Perhaps they thought they were moving it to Wikisource. Rmhermen 14:45, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If there are no copyright issues we should move Castro's speech to Wikisource; it looks like it might have been created before that project existed, or was just getting started. The Polybius "quotes" also seem a bit excessive for here, but I do agree with others there shouldn't be any pre-set cut-off on how long a quote can be. That they do make a cohesive set of assertions should be a general guideline, and the more concisely the better. ~ Kalki 18:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sweat of the Damned

I would consider Sweat of the Damned as too long of a quote but I don't know what the "meat" of it is supposed to be. Rmhermen 23:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, not necessarily because of the length, but more because it doesn't seem like a 'focused' quote, and in fact the page itself says that it's a "speech". So perhaps it's not so great for wikiquote, but still, since it's an excerpt and not a complete work and therefore it doesn't fit in the other wikimedia projects, and since some work has been put into that page in order to make it nice/informative, I suggest that even in such cases we should be liberal and allow it to be hosted on wikiquote. But perhaps there're better solutions that we haven't considered yet... Sams 12:10, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions for Limits

There is a qualitative difference between a quote, an excerpt, and a Reader's Digest Condensed Version. One Protagorean approach to quantifying the upper limit of a quote is "the length of the longest utterance commonly committed to memory by native speakers of the utterance's language." The Gettysburg Address would be my candidate for American English, which implies an upper limit for a quote of three hundred words. Another would be "the length of the longest utterance that can be made on a single breath," though that might rule out too much Shakespeare. While on the topic of length, I think the Difference engine would work better if we had an informal maximum length for an unbroken line. Spotting what changed between versions of the Jean Valjean quote is something of an exercise. We are using the Wiki markup for lists in order to get the visual presentation of quote / source. Wikimedia lacks a line-continuation character for list items. A newline always terminate a list item. Hand coding the <ul><li></li><li></li></ul> pairs the Wikimedia engine generates is a (wearisome) workaround. --Eustace Tilley 16:08, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the specific issue of the criteria for maximal length, your suggestions here can be very ambiguous I think, while the criteria that I suggested are straightforward but perhaps not useful enough.

Mathematical rules are rigid; rigidity is good in some places and bad in others. Protagorean rules are flexible, and flexibility is likewise good or bad depending on circumstance. I know that your longer Chomsky quotes (on drugs, on intelligence) meet my suggested standards, because Aya Ogawa, the actor who portrays Chomsky in The Loneliness of Noam Chomsky, has proven by example that these utterances are memorable.--Eustace Tilley 20:39, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Loneliness of Noam Chomsky

Wow, interesting link... you actually saw the show? Does any of the quotes from the wikiquote page get performed?:) When I first saw what you wrote above about "committed to memory", I wondered if that means with or without practicing, but since you used the work "commonly" I assumed it meant without:) I guess some people could also memorize a 3 hours speech etc... maybe it's not that easy to define "commonly" in this context. Sams 23:21, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I saw the show, and Aya was awesome. Note that she performed the excerpts on multiple occasions to a paying audience during evenings where the memorization itself was in no way emphasized. None of her individual speeches were as long as Lucky's speech in Beckett's Waiting for Godot, or Lena Shchpenovska's speech in Bernard Shaw's Misalliance. Note also that political exhortations such as the State of the Union addresses and Castro's speeches are strictly speaking readings performed exactly once to a crowd largely consisting of a mix of the speaker's fan club and those legally obliged to attend.

Cool... but I'm still curious, what material did she perform?:) Anything similar to what's in the wikiquote page? For the comparison, I checked now for example the recording of the long quote about Somalia, and including the question it's 4.5mins, out of more than 1.5hours of talk+q&a, i.e. the full thing is more than x20 of the quote I transcribed. And that's from 1999, when he's speaking quite slowly, compared e.g. to 1984 when he spoke at a high tempo... Sams 17:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alas, the theater was too dark for me to take notes during the performance. I remember the actors doing the Chomsky / Bennett CNN debate, and I remember the final speech was a rundown on all the Southeast Asians the United States murdered during the second half of the 20th Century. There were a lot of numbers, and I remember one of the producers saying it was a particularly disturbing speech for the actor, and an important reason for why the run would not be extended despite the sellout crowds.--Eustace Tilley 21:22, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's Wait 'Til It Is Howlingly Obvious that Something Must Be Done

Anyway, I don't think that for now we want to formulate policy on the issue, because generally it's not a problem it seems. Sams 15:32, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why do you think that policies formulated under conditions of urgency will be wiser than policies that are formulated when there is time to deliberate? Isn't it the opposite?--Eustace Tilley 20:39, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I started this topic in order to see if there's an interest to formulate a policy, but got a response from Jeffq about this not being a problem yet. I assume that in one sense it's not the opposite like you suggest, because if everything works fine for now, and wikiquote keeps growing, then if in the future this issue would become a problem for some reason, then we would have wikiquote in a more extensive state, so that we could make better judgements then by looking at what's available... My personal opinion anyway is that we shouldn't formulate a policy about this neither now nor in the future, and consider problems individually instead, if they occur... Sams 23:21, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I'm no oracle; I just haven't seen much concern to date on this issue. I think Village Pump is the logical place to find or poll for such concern, and so far, the number and mood of the participants in this discussion seem to bear me out. I'm sure that will change down the road. Concerning workarounds to the limitations of Wiki list markup, it's much more common (and perhaps preferable, though it's nearly as kludgy) to insert HTML break tags (<br/>) into text that is meant to appear as multi-line, but shouldn't require another bullet. This usually preserves the formatting intent, even though it makes the source text somewhat ugly. — Jeff Q (talk) 23:52, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey, what's with the Subheaders With Serious Capitalized Statements? Not only does it look like we're writing a book here ☺, but it also encourages people to violate wiki capitalization practice (i.e., first word and proper nouns only). — Jeff Q (talk) 04:44, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is a quote, cont.

What is the feeling about a page like Health and disease in developing countries. I find it odd but is it within the aims of the project? Rmhermen 15:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is a bit odd, but it seems to be the title of a text book someone has quoted from and I don't percieve any definite reasons to reject it. ~ Kalki 18:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it seems odd for Wikiquote, which I tend to think of more as a collection of favorite quotes. But it certainly includes quotes communicating interesting points, so perhaps it's not so odd. (I've removed its footnote markers, though, since the footnotes aren't included. I'm pretty sure this is proper print-publishing practice.) I would suggest, though, that its content might be more appropriately included in an existing article like Health, or another article that might logically include quotes about breast-feeding, unless we expect to see more quotes (and on more varied topics) from the source paper. — Jeff Q (talk) 18:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For me, it is odd too. Like an extract made by a reader for memorandum. As for it's treating I agree with Jeff: if it is not growing than now, so be included into other articles like Health or other appropriate one. --Aphaia 20:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikiquote Category education and organization

I've been looking for information and discussions on Wikiquote use of Wikimedia Categories (capitalized, as opposed to the more generic sense of "category", which I'll leave lowercase). Nor am I the only one asking. But I haven't really found much. To date, it looks like there have been some ad-hoc efforts to create a few conventions, and many other individual attempts to add categories (some rather limited in scope), but no real documentation of what we have. While I don't think we need to formalize everything to the extent Wikipedia is doing just yet, we could really use a page or two to direct our category education and development efforts.

What we have right now in the way of organized categorization is this:

• Category:Categories, which has conflicting information. The introductory text describes two top levels, Category:Main page (article space) and Category:Wikiquote (administrative space), but the category index shows a third, Category:Fundamental, which seems to be the collection point for high-level categories. (This suggests some overlap with Cat:Main, but both serve a purpose.)
• A second tier of Categories like Themes, Occupations, Films, Literary works, and Television shows, with many logical subcategories beneath each.
• List of categories, which probably still has its uses as a collection point for the older categorization system. However, it would be an ironic place to carry on conversations about the newer system.

As far as where to have these conversations, it's not clear where we best to put them:

• Wikiquote:Village pump would get overburdened by what I anticipate will be many threads of Category discussions.
• Wikiquote versions of Wikipedia pages either don't exist or have junk in them. None have talk pages. My initial reading of their Wikipedia use is:
  • w:Wikipedia:Category provides an introduction to the Category system for basic users. Its talk page recommends bypassing itself and posting at Wikipedia talk:Categorization.
  • w:Wikipedia:Category schemes: lists a variety of organization systems with links to each. Its talk page discusses classification systems and general category stuff.
  • w:Wikipedia:Categorization: provides guidelines for creating and organizing Wikimedia Category systems. Its talk page discusses numbers, organization, technical problems, and pretty much all Category issues.
  • Meta:Help:Category provides technical details on the use and maintenance of Categories for all Wikidom.

I suggest one of two approaches: a quick and easy one, and a basic Wikipedia-like starter structure. I'll describe the more involved one first, to show the rationale for multiple pages:

• Create Wikiquote:Category and Wikiquote:Categorization along Wikipedia lines, borrowing their material and adapting it for use here. This should initially involve just changing "Wikipedia" to "Wikiquote" and changing some examples, since the functionality is the same. (The latter page's examples may take some time, as they're more complicated and may involve things not yet relevant to Wikiquote.)
• Optionally convert the existing but useless Wikiquote:Category schemes into something akin to Wikipedia's version, listing schemes currently in use on Wikiquote, as well as others in use elsewhere. This will probably take some time to rewrite the local stuff and redirect the nonlocal stuff. (We could also skip the separate schemes page and just add it to one of the two above.)
• Make clear in each article, and in an intro paragraph for each of the 2-3 Talk pages, which Talk page to go to with questions or comments; e.g.:

  Discussions about using categories are at Talk:Category. Theoretical discussions about how to organize categories are at Talk:Category schemes. Technical problems with creating, modifying, and organizing categories are at Talk:Categorization.

  … along with appropriate links.

Alternatively, we could just create one Wikiquote:Category page that has smaller, simpler sections for each of these aspects of categorization, and put all discussions on its Talk page. This may be a better way to start organizing Wiki category efforts on Wikiquote, and can always be broken into components at a later date if desired. It might take a bit more time to create than the above slap-and-tweak, but it would be worth the effort.

Regardless of what we do (if anything), the general "how to" pages should also be updated, so newcomers will see categorization as just an integrated part of creating articles. I offer to do some or all of the porting after we decide how to proceed.

I would also suggest that, before any discussion on this topic gets much longer than my already lengthy posting, we first figure out where we can put this particular discussion and move it there, so we don't bog down the Village Pump. ☺ — Jeff Q (talk) 02:20, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent proposals! I agree on that we have two pages instead of "Category schemes" unused and rest of spams. A instruction page and category map are better to be separate because of scalability in future in my opinion.

I propose hereby a new fundamental category for lists like "List of proverbs" or "List by occupations" and so on. Though we could have "List of lists" instead, using a category would be easier than managing a static page. Some of newly created other language versions, starting with category feature, have no list page on main namespace, but use category. --Aphaia 04:15, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I started a possibly useful Wikiquote:Category schemes. I included a Category:Lists from Aphaia's suggestion although it may be better as a subcategory of Fundamental. I made the link for the instructions page Wikiquote:Categorization but that is easily changed or preferably redirected if we prefer Wikiquote:Category. I would suggest we only need two pages for now instead of Wikipedia's three pages, and redirect the extra one for now. I would include links to Meta:Help:Category and maybe w:Wikipedia:Category on our explanation page whichever name it gets.

I also raise some questions on Wikiquote talk:Category schemes Rmhermen 14:13, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Statistics

Dutch developer, Erik Sachte renewed his statistic pages on English Wikipedia. His improved statistic pages provide us all Wikimedia project statistics - not only Wikipedia but also all Wikiquotes!

Here are links:

• All Wikiquotes
• English Wikiquote Stats table
• English Wikiquote Stats chart

The table of all Wikiquotes says there are 70 active Wikiquotes @_@, though it concludes many projects which have only Main Page ...

Enjoy! --Aphaia 05:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Creative Commons Licensed Images Hosted on Flickr

Flickr members can specify several versions of the Creative Commons license for their images, but many of them are not Free. I want to use an image with a CC-BY-ND-NC license on one of the quote pages. Assuming I provide the proper credits for the image, would that be in conformity with Wikiquote policy?

I'm no expert on licensing issues, but if Wikiquote is open to the same repackaging and resale that Wikipedia is (and my impression is that the GFDL allows this), then I suspect that license would not be sufficient, as it explicitly proscribes "commercial" use. (See Wikipedia:GFDL: Materials for which commercial redistribution is prohibited.) Hopefully, someone with a better understanding of the licensing issues can expound on this. — Jeff Q (talk) 22:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki issues

Another maintenance activity that is receiving fresh attention is Transwiki, or moving articles between wiki projects. (Most of the work thus far has been importing quote articles from Wikipedia or exporting entire speeches to Wikisource.) I've created Category:Transwiki to collect all this activity, and Wikiquote:Transwiki candidates to allow people to list articles they believe should be moved to another project. I'm planning to bring over documentation as well, but the official transwiki process is discussed in detail at Meta:Transwiki. Anyone who's interested in helping out in this arena (either to move articles or to import, edit, and discuss policy) may want to visit Category talk:Transwiki. — Jeff Q (talk) 18:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've now added a Help:Transwiki page to distill the general Meta:Transwiki information into a step-by-step, Wikiquote-specific process. It still needs some work, but I invite everyone to check it out. Jeff Q 10:40, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mitch Hedberg problem

I tried to edit the Mitch Hedberg page but for some reason it didn't save and when I tried to edit it again it deleted all of the content. I feel terrible about it and I this was the only way I could find to let anyone know. I could probably fix it if I knew how your site worked, but I just found it today so I'm afraid to touch anything else now. I apologize for the random desruction, but could you fix the page to just ignore my "edits"?

The problems have been corrected: If you do encounter massive problems in your own (or someone else's) recent edits, you can always click on the page's history tab, then click on the version prior to those problems, click on the edit tab to edit it, and then save. This is also one way that any user can deal with the deliberate vandalism of pages as well. ~ Kalki 14:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Using the Wikiquote:Sandbox or logging in to create your own Userpage to work on are 2 highly recommended ways to become more familiar with the editing processes here. ~ Kalki 14:49, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I prefer to say "and" to "or". How about registration and get your own user page? And there are other useful features granted to logged on users. ;-) --Aphaia 03:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Polish language

I found this page but don't know what it is for or how it might be successfully developed. Is this a useful type of page at all? Rmhermen 22:15, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is certainly interesting, and if the information presented here ever comes up in a Trivia game, I will now be able to astound my teammates; but is it a quote? I think it is. This is my argument.

• The page presents noteworthy facts about two (today) sentences in the Polish language.
• The Wikimedia projects are repositories of noteworthy facts.
• The Wiktionary is for facts about individual words.
• The Wikipedia is for facts about entities.
• Sentences are arrangements of words; so they are too big for Wiktionary; but sentences do not rise to the level of entities (except in very rare cases such as Maxwell's Equations), so they are too primitive for Wikipedia.

Therefore, this page belongs here. --Eustace Tilley 23:10, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just because it is a quote does not mean that it warrants inclusion here. Everything that everyone ever says or writes is a quote that doesn't make it notable. Also these are Polish quotes so perhaps they should be in the Polish Wikiquote. Rmhermen 23:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you think these sentences are not notable? One claims to be the first written Polish sentence, the other to be the most widely known.

I find both of them interesting, but only in context. And the current title seems to me unadequate. "Frequently referred Polish quotes" or sorts might be appropriate, in my opinion. --Aphaia 03:17, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This reminds me of the w:Interesting_number_paradox. Perhaps these are the most dull Polish sentences, since each has only one interesting property. --Eustace Tilley 17:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Classifying films

Do we want films that fall into specific genres (Western, Sci-Fi, whatever) listed only by genre, or in the main list of films by title as well? I'd like to know if there's a consensus on this so I don't create unnecessary clutter and/or editing headaches for other people. --RPickman 03:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Subcategories by genre looks fine to me. It is a bit controversial they should be and only be in a category by genre or they should be in both categories (in general and by genre). Sometimes we hear only the name of films and have no information for its genre. --Aphaia 07:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Current category policy on Wikipedia, I believe, is to avoid including articles in a category and its parent (or other ancestor), although it's okay to include it in multiple categories that have a common ancestor (say, "Films by genre" and "Films (initial letter)", both rolling up to "Films"). (We're still working on our own category policies.) Aphaia is certainly right in that it's a controversy, probably chiefly because of the desire to see/browse a complete list. A complementary initial-letter categorization might help break up the category lists into something manageable. Meanwhile, we still have List of films for the overall collection, even though it's manual. It might be best to bring this issue up at Wikiquote talk:Category schemes. — Jeff Q (talk) 11:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikiquote Mailing List with Village pump

Is there a mailing list for the Wikiquote project? I am under the impression that Wikimedia best practice is for meta-discussions to occur on a mailing list, rather than in the project itself.--Eustace Tilley 16:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disagreements with removing discussions

I diagree that it is ever a best practice to remove discussion from Wikipages. Rmhermen 22:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you disagreeing with Jimbo Wales' Statement of Principles #6? --Eustace Tilley 00:59, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But Eustace, if you mean to remove VP, I am against such an idea. (Though I suppose you didn't mean that). --Aphaia 03:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would like to have both. (Eustace Tilley. both = VP and list.)

Multiple Channels

Why should we choose one of them and only one of them? I would like to have both VP and mailinglist. But currently not dedicated to English Wikqiuote only, but a project-wide one, as like wikipedia-l, wiktionary-l, or textbook-l. It could be a sort of interproject VP, and lengthy discussion would be appropriate to the list.(following part is moved ) But Eustace, if you mean to remove VP, I am against such an idea. (Though I suppose you didn't mean that). --Aphaia 03:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would like to have both. Note that the Wikipedia Village Pump says "This page is not a place to make lasting comments as discussions are removed daily to make room for new ones," although it is not not obvious from reviewing its history page that removals are happening with any regularity. I find merit in Jimbo Wales' emphasis that the mailing list be "regarded as the place for meta-discussions." --Eustace Tilley 03:45, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Single Channel

I'm concerned about adding more overhead to Wikiquote. Jimbo's statement was published when Wikipedia was about 30 times the current size of Wikiquote. I for one have never even seen a Wiki mailing list nor do I use IRC. I'd like to defer discussion of an entirely separate medium for discussing Wikiquote issues until we've moved it from its current incredibly informal use of Wikipedia policies to some fairly basic Wikiquote-oriented policies. The three new admins have been furiously writing up stuff on deletions, transwiki moves, categories, etc., and so far, nearly all the conversation has been between us. We need far more community participation to feel comfortable that we're not just dictating policy. If we can't get that through the same medium that our regular readers and editors already know, what kind of participation are we going to get in an entirely separate one? — Jeff Q (talk) 12:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Would you please look at Wikipedia-L and the Wikipedia-L archives?--Eustace Tilley 20:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The medium you are using for the discussions makes community participation harder, not easier. Jimbo is correct that discussions about the wiki should be on the mailing list, not as articles in the project. Use the mailing list to discuss, then post draft policies etc. on the project's wiki so that the community can make comments and annotations.--Eustace Tilley 20:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I also think that using the discussions here (and archiving older topics if they might be useful) works well, and a mailing list is unnecessary for now. But by the way since you mentioned it, I think that unlike mailing lists, IRC can be nice as a fast and informal way to discuss issues, without bloating the wikiquote pages with trivial discussions - so if people here are interested, perhaps we should ask the wikipedia irc channel people about this, so maybe we would use their channel bots or something like that it it's needed. Sams 15:32, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

IRC is great for back and forth discussions. Setting up IRC is as easy as installing the Firefox extension.--Eustace Tilley 20:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, but I was wondering about creating the irc #wikiquote channel in the first place, I assume on irc.freenode.net alongside #wikipedia etc., not sure if we need any bots to monitor the channel or not... Anyway we'll see if others here are at all interested, currently the wikiquote portal doesn't mention IRC. Sams 23:21, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree with both Eustace and Sams about the ease and practicality of using not one, but two more ways of communicating among Wikiquotians. Despite the popularity of both mailing lists (which actually proceeded browser use) and IRC, browsing webpages is the de facto method to access information on the web these days. Anything you claim to be easy should proceed from its use within a default browser configuration. To suggest that, for the average computer user, installing a browser extension is easy, let alone desirable, is to ignore the vast number of people who barely tolerate the complications of just using the standard browser, even when it's built into their OS. (I'm a 25-year computer industry veteran with decades of experience helping people install and use their computers, on both a personal and an enterprise scale; I know of what I speak.) Far too often, people who are comfortable with computer use forget just how disruptive it is to have to learn new tools and paradigms. Furthermore, Wikiquote is not Wikipedia. We do not in actuality, and cannot be expected to, follow every guideline promulgated by a project with 100 times the registered users, 2500 times the content, and twice the age of our project, even when the guidelines come from Wikipedia's founder. I concede that there may be good reasons to introduce such out-of-band processes, but we're already experiencing a dearth of participation in these discussions. Surely you realize that any time you introduce a new system, you lose people?

We're too small and new to have this additional overhead. When a larger portion of the community starts registering itself, talking in Village Pump, joining in policy debates here, and discussing VfDs, then I'd consider the merits of mailing lists and IRC. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No. If you add a good system, you gain the people the bad system repelled, and participation goes up. Adding VCR increases movie viewship. Adding TiVo increases television viewing. Adding satellite radio increases listenership. Adding podcasts increases listenership. See essay.--Eustace Tilley 14:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Eustace, first of all, please stop breaking up my text. I know it's common practice on Wikipedia (where I also admonish people who do that), but it's very hard for someone not already monitoring the discussion to follow these nested side discussions. If you wish to make a point about something I said in the middle, reference it in your own paragraph after my text.

As for your argument, it is based on a false analogy that itself isn't even proven. It ignores three decades of social change that are only partly influenced by technology. You also conveniently leave out any link to whatever "essay" your talking about. But I'll point out the specific problems with your implication. The only people we could possibly gain by adding IRC and/or mailing lists would be people who are avoiding using the existing Wiki channels because they don't have the other avenues to use. We can safely assume that these people are visitors from such established practices as Wikipedia (else why would they expect them?). By definition, these are experienced wikians, and should know enough to check here to find our policies (which inevitably vary between wiki projects), only to see we have none, because we're too small for the extra baggage. On the other hand, your argument conveniently fails to consider the people we would lose because they wouldn't want to bother learning a system for interacting through a different mechanism from the one they're already using (because they're here). Or do you think that such people don't have opinions worth listening to? This is the kind of thing that motivates charges of elitism that are frequently heard on Wikipedia. I want to keep these discussions possible for anyone who knows enough to participate on a site they've already found, using tools they already have, and especially for those who take the trouble to read instructions, which on Wikiquote almost always, currently, point to largely-irrelevant Wikipedia practices, compounding the confusion of newcomers and old hands alike. The last thing we need is to start up two new systems to discourage the "riff-raff" from community participation, which is what this would probably look like to many newcomers. And I suspect newcomers still outnumber old hands on Wikiquote by a considerable margin. — Jeff Q (talk) 05:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jeff Q said;

Eustace, first of all, please stop breaking up my text. I know it's common practice on Wikipedia (where I also admonish people who do that), but it's very hard for someone not already monitoring the discussion to follow these nested side discussions.

I ask you, Eustace, please don't break others' text. It makes hard to follow their original thought. I know it is common practice on mailing list, but there people can easily access the original mail. Perhaps that's why you are fond of mailing list, your discussion way is appropriate to such media. But here it is not welcome to all. Please refactor discussions after it seems to a sort of conclusion, instead of breaking on-going discussion. And I add this way is not accepted on all Wikipedias, some Wikipedia, like Japanese Wikipedia doesn't allow users such breaking - sometimes such deeds could be a good reason of blocking to prevent people to follow the original thought of the editor. I don't claim you should be blocked but please realize it was so annoyed for some readers. --Aphaia 16:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If we have to discuss this matter, 'breaking statement', I recommend to create a new section, not here. --Aphaia 16:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Technical feasibility of the list

Is there a protocol for getting a wikiquote-l mailing list setup?--Eustace Tilley 20:19, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ask devs who care for mailinglist; that's all. But I feel it is not the time. We have no consensus on that. --Aphaia 16:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Mailing List Only" Deprecated

The existance and development of the meta namespace as well as the Wikipedia: and for that matter Wikiquote: pseudo-namespace that we are talking on --and there attendant talk pages belies the mailing list only idea. It never was the one way. Rmhermen 00:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Derivatie thoughts of Eustace

It is easy to participate in a discussion mediated through a mailing list, especially during its early days when most of the subscribers are active. The mailng list mechanism enhances the ability to follow branches in a conversation. It makes it easy to address particular arguments when replying. The searchable archives make it easy for newcomers to discover topics that have been previously discussed, and straightforward to return topics to active discussion when novel insights occur. It is easy to see when new comments have been made. It is easy to see where to enter a conversation. It is easy to discover what people are discussing now. The path of any conversation can be followed topically through the archives, reading by thread.

The presumption of a mailing list participant is that his or her statements will be preserved as he or she composed them.

It is easy to correct and annotate a Wikipage. It is easy to add new sections, add images, and re-organize. It is easy for those who are expert in the content to tend to the content and those who know markup to tend to the markup; in sum, to do the activities related to producing a collaborative web document. It is easy for newcomers to see what has been done already, and to guess where their new content could be inserted. The page is taken as a whole document, appearing to the reader as a single simultaneous utterance. The actual path the page took to arrive at its present state is hidden on the history page, which is organized by time and cannot be organized by topic.

The presumption of Wikipage participant is that his or her statements will be edited mercilessly.

A newcomer who arrives at the Village Pump and wishes to comment clicks the Edit tab is greeted with a WARNING: This page is 91 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections. How can this be anything but discouraging?

A newcomer who subscribes to a mailing list and wishes to comment is greeted with Reply to this. How can this be anything but encouraging?

Summary:

• The Village Pump is a mess right now.
• Using the Village Pump or any Wikipage to host a discussion will always result in a mess, because discussions are branching time sequences, not collaborative documents.
• More people know how to create and reply to an email message than know know how to create and reply to a section on a Wikipage.
• Mailing list archives
  • are easy to search for old topics
  • are often indexed by search engines.
  • are not subject to vandalism
  • are permalinks
• The Village Pump could better do the tasks it excells at (Welcome Newcomers, Requests for Assistance, Events Calendar, Post a Question) if it were not cluttered with the tasks for which it is ill-suited.
• "If you are interested in getting behind the scenes and want to participate in discussions about Wikiquote itself, click here to Subscribe to Mailing List" is very easy to implement.
• "If you know how to use IRC, some of our community monitor #channel-name; if no one is on, you can send a /notice to #volunteer." is very easy to implement.

--Eustace Tilley 14:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Eustace, it is disingenous of you to create a header for this section that cites an unsubtantiated claim as if it were fact. Who says "Low Discussion Participation Level Attributed to Inadequacy of Wikipage Mechanism", other than you? (And why do you encourage people to violate wiki capitalization practice, given your obvious experience with wiki projects?) The fact is that, until five weeks ago, this Village Pump structure worked perfectly well. And until people started interspersing their comments into the middle of others' statements, it wasn't particularly confusing.

That said, you make a number of good points about the use of mailing lists. However, you still ignore or gloss over some points:

• Yes, more people know how to do email than wiki. But we only care about the people who are here, and learning the basic wiki editing process is essential for anything but reading. No person who fails to learn wiki editing should be participating in discussion about changing Wikiquote. On the other hand, people who have never used mailing lists, however easy they may be, don't have to learn this skill to contribute to wiki and to participate in discussions. It's the same process, currently.
• Nobody should be clicking on the page "Edit" tab to add or edit anything on Village Pump (except sysops, for archive purposes). People should be using the "Create a new topic" link to add a new discussion, and using the "edit" link for each discussion to contribute to it. Neither generates this disconcerting page-length warning.
• As I mention above, Village pump wasn't a mess until the past few weeks, when we gained considerable activity. We've needed to archive for a while, but the new sysops have been extremely busy working on policy pages, tending to overdue deletions, and other maintenance tasks. We've only been sysops for two friggin' weeks, for heaven's sake! Give us chance to get caught up before you start suggesting even more changes. I'll try to get a VP archive done in the next few hours.

We have a lot of work to do to bring Wikiquote up to other wiki practices. We can't do it all instantly, and we can't ignore glaring problems that make life difficult for the majority of Wikiquotians (like contradictory or missing policies) just to implement other projects' standards. I'll tell you what. If you help out significantly with getting our basic policies copied from Wikipedia and simplified to Wikiquote practice, along with encouraging the community to vote on these adaptations and implementing the results (none of which requires a sysop, but is currently being done by sysops because of their own industriousness), I'll look into how we could do mailing lists once things get settled. Does that seem reasonable? — Jeff Q (talk) 06:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My observations are:

• VP is now lengthy but not a mess; perhaps creation of "Goings-on" might be help to make us overview much easier, but in my opinion it is not a mess currently.
• We English Wikiquotians are not quite as big as Wikipedia community. Multichannel is now necessary for us; if we think only our community, I dare say there would be much loss rather than benefits. Multichannel would devide topics and make harder to follow discussions here and there.
• I run an IRC channel for Japanese Wikiquote which has now only 160 articles. But we have seldom discussion on Wikiquote itself. It serves more private things between editors which we can hardly to make public or thanks by a bot, checking if a certain article exists or not. Anyway it is a place for chat verbally, not a "discussion" place.
• I proposed a mailinglist though, but it is for projectwide purpose; like how we should design Wikiqutoe portal which serves every Wikiquote project. Currently we have no effective channel serving our grobal community, only there are some personal ties, and m:talk:Wikiquote page on meta seems not to work. A mailinglist dedicated for the entire project, not only for EN WQ, could be helpful in my opinion.

--Aphaia 07:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) P.S. And I think, to Eustace, your summary is arbitrary to support mailinglist and underesteem the current Village pump. And your listed merits of mailing list is not adequate to this situation. We have archives which is easily searched, our VP is not vandalized, and so on. I think you are on a good faith but lost to get points and facts. --Aphaia 16:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Invitation to Wikimania

Hi all,

Registration for Wikimania, the first international Wikimedia conference, is now possible at http://wikimania.wikimedia.org/ . All participants from the Wikimedia projects are invited to join this big event this summer.

Wikimania will take place from August 4-8, 2005 in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. The event will combine Wikimedia community discussions and software hacking with academic research, presentations of current implementations, and user/community panels. Wiki fans, community members, and developers are all invited to attend.

We encourage you all to submit presentations and other content for the conference; for more information, see the call for papers (http://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/Call_for_papers).

Please pass this message along to all Wikimedia projects, in English or in translation. For coordination, see our internal announcement at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Translation_requests/Wikimania/Announcement . To let the rest of the world know, use our public press release: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Registration_begins_for_Wikimania_2005.

If you'd like to help or have ideas for the conference, don't hesitate to write us at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania:Feedback (or just ask here on the mailing list). Attendees can coordinate travel plans and other informal events on the Wikimania community pages.

Wikimania is an event from the community and for the community - it will be brought to life through your participation ;-)

Greetings and hopes to see you this summer,

elian,

for the Wikimania organisation team

(posted by Aphaia), 05:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

501(c)3

Now I received a mail from foundation-l written by Jimbo. Wikimedia Foundation got 501(c)3 status from IRS. This is restrospective and applied for its foundation date, 2003 June.

Congrats for our Foundation ;-)

--Aphaia 18:49, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article Length

It seems that the quotes page for any decent TV show quickly exceeds the "recommended" 32KB -- Veronica Mars has not finished its first season, and it is already past it (and that's with not that many quotes per episodes -- I am adding more, and so are others). The wiki seems to recommend to break it up into several pages. What is the policy on that? [Yes, I know about sections, but sometimes there is a need for a whole-page edit, such as major clean-ups (e.g., whenever another character gets a character page over at wikipedia).] Any advice? MosheZadka 17:30, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If I recall correctly there is no policy for article length at this moment. I recommend you to consider you are including too many (not so significant) quotes into your articles. Too many points are not kind for every reader, particularly those who are not familiar to the theme. And for technically recommended 32KB, this restriction is practically only for a certain version of Netscape Navigator, therefore I don't think it a must for articles, although it is editor-friendly. --Aphaia 21:26, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Few quotes (estimated less than 10%) are by me, I mostly do clean-up and formatting (which means plenty of changes, but no real increase in the size). However, 3-4 quotes per episodes are not unlikely (this is equivalent to 15 quotes for a whole movie time-wise -- pretty low), and that's enough to quickly fill up a 32KB buffer. If the warning is not serious, it'd be nicer if it was worded differently ("really old browsers" or something to that effect). In any case, if you have comments re: specific quotes, feel free to note them on the Talk page, perhaps the wild rush of fans has added some inappropriate quotes. MosheZadka 01:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When a section is small enough, it can be edited on a mobile device, such as a Nokia running Opera. This in turn reduces the response time to petty vandalism, since a watchlist can be checked while waiting for coffee etc. --Eustace Tilley 00:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is a significant issue for all well-written TV series. One guideline I've recommended on Mystery Science Theater 3000 is to urge contributors to add quotes that are especially pithy or humorous to people who have never seen the show. It can be hard to restrain the impulse for fans to add quotes that were very important to a show only because of their context in the show, leaving the outside world to wonder why the quote is considered memorable. That said, series quote pages will still tend to get pretty long. For some shows (like Gilmore Girls and Monk), I try to limit myself to 2-4 intensely funny quotes or dialogs per episode, and I'm not afraid to skip over an episode that had nothing that struck me as funny for everyone. Of course, this is a very subjective guideline. — Jeff Q (talk) 02:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't feel comfortable deleting quotes I don't think are incredibly appropriate or funny -- whoever put them there must have felt otherwise. Especially when fans come here, they will naturally add their favorite quotes. I would dislike discouraging it. Perhaps there could be a "Best Of" top category, and then the others on a subpage? MosheZadka 04:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know how you feel. I have that problem with Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which is one reason it's by far the longest Wikiquote page. I suspect the problem wouldn't be solved by a "best of", because people would argue about what to put there, too. My inclination is to let it lie until page length becomes a serious problem. — Jeff Q (talk) 04:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've just been too busy with Veronica Mars, otherwise I would have taken the time to make the Buffy problem significantly worse -- there are so many of my faves missing (cookie dough!) :) But, yeah, I don't have a really good solution :( MosheZadka 04:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Would that be cookie-dough Buffy, who's "not done baking", or Giles eating cookie dough with Dawn, listening to singers "chosen for their ability to dance"? Yeah, it's a real problem. ;) — Jeff Q (talk) 09:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Naturally, not done baking. As I saw it, it was one of the pivotal quotes defining Buffy, the show and the person, as well as legitimizing screwed up relationships :) MosheZadka 09:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since it's pretty obvious that some pages here should contain info that is much longer than 32k, the two basic options are either (A) we like small pages, and therefore we should start splitting large pages into separate pages limited to 32k each, or (B) we like large pages, and therefore there shouldn't be a size limit, or perhaps a very high limit. Personally, I think that large pages are ok, and that splitting into separate pages would annoy and confuse people. Anyway, the current 32k editing warning used in wikiquote is outdated I think, the wikipedia page about the limit is w:Wikipedia:Article_size. Sams 05:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I too feel that the limit of 32k should not be strictly enforced, as it is mostly a left-over rule for supporting obsolete browsers, although I can see value in browsing WQ with a PDA. How about splitting all big pages about some TV-series to subpages by season? Doing that for Buffy the Vampire Slayer, we could get rid of that huge TOC table at the beginning. jni 11:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It would make quote-wide edits less convenient [for example, changing a linkless character to a character which links to the wikipedia page, which I've been doing a lot lately on the VM pages]. MosheZadka 12:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Besides which policy we choose, long or short, the proposed strategy "Best" and "Others" is unacceptable from NPOV policy, I'm afraid. My second concern "too huge quotes from TV series" is coming from suspect of copyright infringement; they are defintely fair use, so the quantity of quotations should be reasonably stricted; I'm afraid, for ecample, quotes of one third of an episode violates the acceptable line of fair use limit. --Aphaia 14:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think we're well below the limit :) Even at 15 quotes, each taking, say, 10 seconds that's 150 seconds -- 2.5 minutes out of 45 minutes episode, definitely falling under the fair use excerpt. The "too large to handle" limit hits much sooner -- at 15 quotes per ep, it's 15*22=330 quotes per season. At a measely 200 bytes (20 words) per quote, this will be 64KB/season. For a seven-season show, like, say, Buffy, we would have almost half a megabyte(!) of quotes. MosheZadka 15:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reirom three times

Because twice deleted Reirom was create again, with the same content, I deleted it, made a dummy content and protected it. I am not sure if it was the best way to deal with it, so any suggestion is welcome.

--Aphaia 21:26, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure, either, but it seems to me like a reasonable thing to do for the moment. These people consistently refuse to justify their reason for wanting this non-notable article, other than to tell Wikiquotians to go to a single registration-required website to find the justification, rather than bring it here to convince people. I strongly suspect that they are doing this just to plague Wikiquote, especially since they failed to do so at Wikipedia, which has 1000 times the watchful eyes that we do. Jeff Q (talk) 00:23, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alternatives

1. Create an Internet Personae page with a section for Reirom and a suggested twenty-quote limit. Reirom page redirects to that section. Twenty-quote limit enforced by users rather than admins.
2. Rely on user-blanking rather than deletions, though this may lead to bot wars.
3. Reirom page with three quote limit and external link to Reirom's home forum.

Of these, I prefer your solution best. --Eustace Tilley 01:08, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your solution is the best that Wikipedia folks have invented for this problem. I don't like any of the alternatives by Eustace Tilley. We don't need to compromise our principles by giving these folks some free webspace and blank articles just annoy when doing shortpages patrolling. jni 11:57, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am especially fond of principle number eight.--Eustace Tilley 17:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

I report hereby I protected the page for preventing their meaningless rants. Now they come to my talk and do the same things; instead of proper proof or request for undeletion, put an url and force other editors to go to the website outside of Wikiquote. I asked User :66.75.75.208 to register his- or herself, sign with timestamp and be nice, submit legitimate content instaed of rant without signature, but this editor have no intent to change his or her behavour(see also Aphaia. And I am not the first editor who tried this pursuation toward this editor. So I guess we are better to behave resolutionarily now and could put a block on this user, particularly if he or she comes again.

I propose one week blocking for 66.75.75.208 (talk · contributions). If other supporter violate our VfD policy and try again anonymous voting, so first one day and next extend the term. It sounds a bit severe, but because of the duration of their rants, I think it is not too severe for those people. --Aphaia 06:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The link was to a website giving a crude and anatomically impossible suggestion. Nothing is too severe for these people. MosheZadka 06:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Just before, this editor came again, and again tried to force me to go there. But I wouldn't like to put him a block by my hands, because I am involved (the rant was on my talk). So I would like other sysop who agrees on the above to put this editor an appropriate prevention of further rant. --Aphaia 07:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I also favor blocking; the Reirom suppporters just like to waste our time with their silly trolling. The site linked to from Aphaia's talk wasn't much for a shock site, but can be seen as a personal attack nonetheless. Given this, I'd like to note that the draft blocking policy does not talk about personal attacks as a reason for blocking and invite everyone to comment on this on Wikiquote talk:Blocking policy. jni 07:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

After all, they seemed to be pursuaded. They haven't come again (at least till now) and thus not blocked. --Aphaia 23:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quotations about specific people

Would w:Reactions by world leaders to the death of Ronald Reagan fit as a Wikiquote article? They are quotations about Ronald Reagan, not said by him. Would Ronald Reagan be valid as a theme? Please contribute to the discussion at w:Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Reactions by world leaders to the death of Ronald Reagan. Uncle G 10:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I suspect it would do better as a section of Wikiquote's Ronald Reagan article, at least initially. It's common practice here to have a section on quotes about a person at the end of a person's quote article. I've posted a vote on Wikipedia to transwiki it over here. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikiquote:FAQ

I've started a Q&A at Wikiquote:FAQ about abbreviations and shortcuts, including a link to a new Wikiquote:Shortcuts page. We should probably have a similar page on abbreviations (since most wiki abbreviations don't require shortcuts), but I may not get to that anytime soon. I'd be grateful if someone could help out either by creating and populating a Wikiquote:Abbreviations page, or adding a link to an appropriate page on Wikipedia or Meta-Wiki. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Posting a picture from Wiki

I want to illustrate the Traudl Junge quote with her Wiki picture - but can't make it work - is it possible? Brookie 09:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It appears you were able to get it to work. Congratulations, you are now an interwiki syntax champion! --Eustace Tilley 11:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nope, Brookie just took the logical expedient of uploading the image to Wikiquote. Meanwhile, I've been looking into the process for moving Wikipedia images to Wikimedia Commons, since it would be much better for Commons to host multiproject images. Unfortunately, I'm finding that:

• Commons apparently hasn't documented the process of moving images from other wikis, leaving users to deduce that it's a manual save-to-disk and upload-to-Commons process.
• Commons doesn't even seem to have a transwiki process in place, so there's no accounting for duplication between it and other wikis.

I've raised some questions about this process. I'll let folks know what I find out. — Jeff Q (talk) 11:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Commons has no official transwiki process; it is unnecessary - they accepts all data if not updated yet to the Commons and don't care for duplication. How to transwiki image to Commons is following, if I recall correctly;

1. Check if your target image is available under free-licence, you can find a list of acceptable licences on Commons.
2. If true, save the target image on your computer.
3. Upload this image to the commons, and follow the instruction. Give the information on image, as far as possible.
4. Then put a tag on the original image description page - on English Wikipedia, it might be {{NowCommons}}. On some wikis, it would be speedy deleted, on other wikis, they treat it in another way.

And I prefer if an image can't be avaiable under free licence, we don't use it (less fair use, more reusable), but it is my personal opinion. Thank you for your cooperation in advance. --Aphaia 15:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

IRC

JeffQ and I tried the irc.freenode.net #wikiquote channel a little. It was already registered by a friendly de.wikiquote user, and we talked to him and a few more people on the other wiki channels there. Everyone is invited to come and try #wikiquote, and we'll see how it goes... The page with instructions on how to use IRC seems to be meta:IRC_instructions. For wikiquote admins: if you can, please join the channel in order to receive 'op' status for the access list there. Sams 14:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jni requests for adminship

On WQ:RFA Jni is requesting for adminship. Vote is now on-going (till at least April 27). Already some editors showed their opinion, but the more voters, the wider consensus we can make. Any comments are welcome on WQ:RFA#jni. And thank you for this idea of notice on VP to Jeff ;-) --Aphaia 20:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Block

Hello

I would like to dare ask the local community to block an editor from here, nammed Izwalito. If you accept to do so, I of course carry the entire responsability for it. Izwalito is a french editor, currently threatening to sue a french editor, as well as the board, Wikimedia France and developers it seems. The issue s currently discussed with legal counsellors and Jimbo. We'll keep you informed naturally. You are free to refuse, but I just intend to say we would prefer and feel more secure if you do so.

Can you leave me a word on my meta page ? Thanks in advance m:user:Anthere

Kalki, have you made any reaction to this request? If we say "sorry, no" or "yes, for sure" it is better for both us and fr community to make our stand clear. This user made rant on some talk pages including Jimbo's on English Wikipedia, and in my humble opinion worthy to consider as a blocking candidate because of his rants. --Aphaia 03:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Block has not done. On the other hand no additional request was issued from Anthere. I hope things go calmly and peacefully. I think we will be able to archive this section now, or not. or I hope my decision isn't wrong. --Aphaia 12:12, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization conventions

I'd like to address a problem between our official policy and our actual practice here at Wikiquote: capitalization conventions. We informally borrow quite a bit of style practice from Wikipedia, but our own manual of style explicitly reiterates the general wiki policy of using sentence case in article titles — that is, capitalize only the first letter in the title and of any proper nouns, but use lowercase for all other words. This has less impact on Wikiquote than Wikipedia, since most article titles are either people's names or the titles of works, both of which are considered proper noun phrases, but there are two inconsistencies that crop up:

1. Capitalizing non-proper nouns in theme or topic titles (e.g., Theater Musicals and Plays).
2. Varying capitalization within a title or proper name (e.g., Pirates of the Caribbean vs. Pirates Of The Caribbean).

The first I hope to resolve without much argument, but the second is more complex. I am posting this text under WQt:Manual of style#Capitalization conventions as well, and I highly recommend extended discussions of these issues take place there instead of here to avoid bogging down the village pump. — Jeff Q (talk) 08:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Non-proper nouns

The first issue is simply a matter of not following our own stated, straightforward policy. I've occasionally changed these problem titles whenever I come across them, but new ones keep popping up, probably because the lack of consistency prevents new editors from intuiting the policy by general observation. To combat this, unless people object strongly, I will be aggressively changing such titles over the next few months, as I have time and opportunity, and changing relevant links so that Wikiquote will be internally consistent. (Redirects can remain in place for the foreseeable future so people won't have problems finding articles under their former titles.) I don't anticipate much controversy here, but if I'm wrong, I suggest we discuss our differences of opinion at WQt:MoS#Non-proper nouns. — Jeff Q (talk) 08:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would like to make it sure if I understand correctly. You mean we follow an unwritten rule "Only capitalize the first letter, but not others" for non-proper names (like theme articles)? If so, I have no opposition on this point. --Aphaia 00:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean. It's currently unwritten on Wikiquote (like many of our policies), but it's explicit on Wikipedia, where we get most of our unwritten practices from. — Jeff Q (talk) 03:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Irregular proper-noun practices

The second issue is trickier, as different English-speaking countries have different policies on title capitalization. I urge everyone interested in discussing the problems to go to WQt:MoS#Irregular proper-noun practices to participate in the discussion. — 08:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An derivative problem came to my mind: have we already the rule of transcription of foreign proper-noun? Like Cyric alphabet or Japanese names? --Aphaia 00:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Atomic Structure

I just wanted to ask about this issue, which I see has been previously discussed a little. It seems that as Wikiquote continues to grow this will become more of a problem; as I understand it the current structure requires all quotes to be entered multiple times. Once under the utterer/author. Once under each applicable subject. It seems to make more sense that the quote, proverb, etc. should be the basic unit. That way a new quote could be entered just once and then be categorized under the utterer/author and under any/all applicable subjects? I don't know the technical aspects (previous discussion of XML) but that just seems like it makes more sense? Cmadler 11:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are plenty of quote databases on the internet, but this wiki has developed thus far primarily with emphasis on authors and works. There is no actual need to enter any quotes into theme articles, though people can do so if they believe one to be a notable enough statement on a theme. Manual entry onto such pages helps assure that merely incidental use of certain terms don't clutter up such articles. Apart from searches for authors or works, searches for words and phrases can be done, even if this is usually through the Google options. The wiki structure permits a certain degree of improvisation and innovation as well, that most databases do not, though gradually general guidelines and rules have been developed, and are being developed. ~ Kalki 17:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Generaly agreed with Kalki. We focus on authors and themes and wiki is suitable for such a way. Atomic way has its merit but not suitable for wiki editing nor feasible. Though I am satisfied with the current way, but know some editors wants the way you proposed. I assume your proposed way is more feasible on CGI or other technical assitance, and wiki is not a good way for it. It is suitable for the current way - people edit manually one page focusing on a certain theme. I hope you find a site you like their way. --Aphaia 01:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd love to be able to handle quotes atomically, but as Aphaia says, it's not practical for the current MediaWiki software. There are some MetaWikians that have been tossing around ideas about how to provide some kind of semantic sectional tagging that might be adapted for individual quote handling, but that's well over the horizon for MediaWiki (and therefore Wikiquote). — Jeff Q (talk) 11:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Move or keep

On Hugarian name convention, please give a look to Talk:Béla Bartók and let us know your opinion. Thanks. --Aphaia 01:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

vanity or not, that is the question.

Vanity pages, their deletions and resistance from those pages' supporters are currently one of our problems. We could treat those pages and their supporters bureaucraticly, but we didn't. Perhaps I guess most of us still wouldn't be so; and I have realized on my wiki life, things go best when we trust others' good faith.

Jeff has done a close research on our policy, and found we have no clear official rule which said "no vanity is allowed here". We have a set of question and answer on "my neighbor's quotes" on WQ:FAQ, but someone could believe his favorite web forum star is not "his neighbor" or he might not think this is not an official rule or doesn't apply to his own quotes. But from experiences we learned we couldn't keep those pages, for preventing our wiki will turn into a web forum or hosting site like slashdot or geocities.

So I think we need to make more clear and solid rule on vanities with a plain definition. Perhaps it might be better to write this rule into "Welcome, newcomers" or "FAQ". What we call "vanity pages", Why you can not create it" or plainly "You can consume your own quotes or quotes related to you on and only your user page. Not on main namespace among other articles. Even no redirect from there won't be allowed. If you feel yourself notable enough to have your own article on main namespace, we would like you to remind another our rule: "Don't create your own article".

I would like to introduce a funny set of deletion candidates on Fr WP VfD. Our Angela and Anthere had their articles posted in the middle of April by a French editor. He might thing the Trustees of Wikimedia Foundation was so notable as to have their own article on Wikipedia. But lately another editor requested for their deletions. French editors are voting for deletion or in neutral. When I gave a look to this vote, no one support for keeping them. One of voters said "they are not well known" "not so famous as to have an article" and so on. This episode suggests us how an user should be notable for being dedicated an article on Wikimedia project. Not Wikipedia or Wikimedia related people but known by their profession and achivement in the real life (we can let Jimbo be an exception *g, because he founded an non-profit organisation in the real world which hosted one of most famous websites in the world).

Any your input will be appreciated. --Aphaia 10:57, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Giving an exact definition of what is vanity is not straightforward at all. There is a discussion about some of the issues you raise on talk page for WP page w:Wikipedia:Vanity page, with little consensus except that many feel that the page in question needs reworking. BTW, the article w:Angela Beesley recently survived VfD; does anyone know any famous Angela quotes? <evil inclusionist grin> ;) Regards, jni 11:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, I know it is difficult, so perhaps I might have to said "clear and solid as far as possible". Angela's article survived, I know, but you should add Erik (Eloquence) requested its deletion on April 1, so no one took it seriously, I suppose. I can't be reminded on Angela's word, but only a related one, you would see it somewhere by chance ... (pretending to make a angelic smile) --Aphaia 12:37, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Blanked articles

What should we do to all those articles that got blanked by their only editor shortly after creation? For instance Meade skelton, Toditalai Vizhutandinar, Ferdinand Magellan and many others. I have speedy deleted some and reverted others with {{cleanup}} tag. Seems like confused newbies equate blanking to deletion. jni 08:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I just ignore the blanking and treat the original material as I would any other page. If it is vandalism as it often is just speedy delete. If it is good content bring it back to the top. Rmhermen 13:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Similar to me. If the revision before blanking seems to be a test or vandalism, I delete them speedy. If it seems to be a legitimate edit, I revert it. Some projects have a rule blanking is equal to tag it with "speedy" explictly, but I am not sure the users who blanked pages intended so. --Aphaia 19:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I am familiar with the implicit speedy request rule from some other projects, too. It can indeed be problematic and I think we are better off without it. I guess it would be best to bring the borderline cases (i.e. not obvious vandalism but lacking context or somewhat silly contents) to VfD. jni 05:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Water fluoridation

Do we want the Wikipedia article w:Water fluoridation quotes here? It is currently in their VfD and some have suggested a transwiki for it. jni 05:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you for notice, I voted. Pro or contra, I recommand all to state their opinion. --Aphaia 09:50, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Google Web Accelerator (and other cacheing proxies)

What is the proper forum for discussing ways to assure that Wikiquote works properly with Google Web Acclerator (and other cacheing proxies)? --Eustace Tilley 23:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

One of the better options for such current matters is on their irc channels. See the topic on IRC above for details. In addition to joining the #wikiquote channel, you can join the #wikimedia channel to discuss your question. If you don't like irc, then perhaps you can ask on the meta:Main Page mailing list, or perhaps right here, maybe some of the people who are active here know about this:) Sams 05:47, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I can't speak for the Google product specifically, but all my connections run through a caching proxy and everything has always Just Worked. 121a0012 02:48, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Nstab-main

I'm not sure whether the word "article" for the button on top (next to "discussion","edit",...) is the best one for wikiquote, as opposed to wikipedia. I think that perhaps the word "entry" is better for wikiquote. BTW, the word "entry" is definitely better for wiktionary, I'm not active there, so maybe someone else who is a member there should tell them. If we would agree that the word "article" is not the best one for wikiquote, then MediaWiki:Nstab-main is where it needs to be changed. Sams 00:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree that "entry" is better for Wiktionary, and that "article" isn't quite as satisfactory for Wikiquote as it is for Wikipedia, but I think that "article" is much preferable to "entry" for WQ. "Entry", to me, implies a few lines in a dictionary, whereas an "article" should be much more substantial. I hope that we're moving more toward the latter for Wikiquote pages. Perhaps there is a third option that might be more appropriate here? (And no, not "page"; that's too generic and provides no distinction between articles and support pages like Talk and Wikiquote:*.) — Jeff Q (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The word "collection" is possible, but it would seem very confusing I think... I didn't manage to think of a word that I really like there... Another generic possibility is "content". I prefer "entry" to "article" because it seems to me that "article" needs to 'describe' something in detail, as opposed to collecting data on something, but I also think that "entry" doesn't sound that great. To sum up, I don't like any of the words article/entry/collection/page/content :) Now what?:) Sams 00:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Steward election

Folks, now the Steward election starts: m:Stewards/elections 2005. Though we have already our own bureaucrat, we need more stewards obviously. --Aphaia 18:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

VfD and New Pages

Is anyone else alarmed at the rate we are moving pages to VfD? It seems like too many people are creating nonsensical pages (which is easy to do) -- at this rate, the VfD page is going to double within a week. I have no solution, BTW, just alarm... MosheZadka 08:01, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I've been thinking the same thing. Part of it, I think, is that we're monitoring Recent Changes more often now, but clearly many folks (both anon and registered) are creating pages in contradiction to Wikiquote policy. I think we need to make it clearer to new users what is and isn't appropriate in quote articles. We have policy pages, but I wonder if there is enough coherence to them to make it obvious to someone who stumbles across Wikiquote where to go to learn these basic things. Of course, some people will jump in fearlessly without reading any guidelines. There's not much helping that, other than to correct their misunderstandings (politely) and direct them to those policy pages.

As far as the length of VfD goes, I don't think it's particularly bad, as long as we're careful to close votes on a timely basis. The real problem is the archive, which is getting absurdly long because of the rapid growth of nonsense pages. I'm afraid that I'm being proven wrong about the practicality of the current simple system, and I worry that we may have to adopt a Wikipedia-like three-tiered structure with individual vote pages and complex automation almost solely to deal with the explosive growth of vanity pages. — Jeff Q (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, you're being too kind, and the delete tag (for speedy deletions) should be used more often. There should be some reasonable correlation between the simplicity of creating a page that consists of nonsense, and the complexity of deleting that page. Right now we vote on each page, and furthermore you try to discover whether the info on the page is real by searching... I think that the burden of proof should be on the person who created the page, and he should have provided appropriate info when he created the page. And if in a rare case someone tried to create a valid page but messed it up and it got speedy-deleted, then it's not such a big deal, he could create it again... Sams 17:21, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think our current situation is so messy but any improvement is helpful. We need a short and clear guideline for newcomers which they understand at a glance. Perhaps the appropriate modification of our current welcome message will be also helpful.

As for VfD, I don't think it is not feasible, it is still now in a fair length. But the archive becomes huge and huge. How about deviding our current archive into several pages, for example alphabetically (A-O, P-Z), by result (kept, deleted, others) and so on.

Because our current VfD is not too much long for us to deal with, I don't think we expand the range of speedy at the moment generally. But it is supposedly possible deletion candidate without tags mislead newcomers. Perhaps now some improvement of our deletion policy are helpful. For example,

1. Now we can shorten the term of discussion - how about one week vote instead of current two weeks?
2. Could we expand the range of speedy? Like "only biography", "only work's discription"?

And if this discussion is worthy to continue, how about going to Wikiquote talk:Deletion policy? --Aphaia 22:03, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Invisible text?

I reverted an anonymous blanking on Talk: Noam Chomsky, but even after restoring the text, I still didn't see it. If I hit Edit, there was text there to edit, but on the talk page itself I saw nothing. I could see the text in the Edit page and Difference Between Versions, but not on the ordinary viewing of the Talk page. User:Aphaia quickly thanked me for the revision, so I'm guessing that other people could see the page's text normally, but I couldn't. I logged out and back in, cleared my cache, erased my Wikiquote cookies, and even looked at the page from a second computer, but none of those solved the problem. Just now I made a minor edit to the Talk page's text, and now I can see the text just fine. What just happened? Mr. Billion 23:14, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure. Right now it is available for me and perhaps for you. I suppose you needed to purge the page - sometimes cache reloading doesn't work. I hope you can get the page now! --Aphaia 00:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Pre-George Washington Presidents/Leaders

I had a list and I lost it. Where could I find a list of the persons that were leaders of the U.S. prior to George Washington?

On wikipedia. Articles of Confederation Rmhermen 16:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

We need your help

We are growing - at least I feel so - very rapidly. Alexa said so. In April once we reached over 10,000th of Alexa rank. After a half month we were down to nearly 20,000th. Now access to our site are growing again.

And statistics suggest our community is relatively small comparing with those growth. We have almost 3,000 registered users. Most of them has edited once or twice, or visit this project to make interlang links. Or just reading and browsing. On the other hand, we know only 10 or so as active contributors.

I expect more editors are involved to the project. We have currently 8 sysops (if I recall correctly). And the ratio of users and sysops are close to 500. It is not a good sign. It happend usually on very large wikis like English Wikipedia or German one. For small wikis, the ordinary ratio is around 250. It suggests 14 sysops might be appropriate for our current project size. And we are one of projects, which accept anonymous edits in high ratio [48% for us, but normaly under 20%], our community is relatively small in comparison of quantity of submission.

We know sysop previledges make it clear to manage the projects; against vandalism, or dealing with merely mistakes, and so on. So I welcome any sincere request for adminship. Even you have been recently inactive, if you were an active part of this project or any other Wikimedia project, I would support your sincere concern. But we know sysop previledges aren't necessary condition to engage the project and maintenance. Jni proved it very well currently before he was promoted to the sysop status. Joining discussion, archiving old discussion, cleaning up articles, expanding them, reverting vandalism or welcoming newcomers, those things are dealt with an ordinary users. If you wouldn't like to be a sysop, you can still help us and the project in many ways.

And if you are already a part of sysop team, please consider to ask editors who you trust if they would like to be nominated to sysop candidates.

Cheers, --Aphaia 10:57, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Quote of the day

Hello. I come from the he.wikiquote, and I ask this here since I can't get an answer at a reasonable time at he.wiki.

The QOTD is set (at least at he.wiki) by template:QM05D19 , with a new template for every day. I've created several such templates, and it has worked for 18/5 (yesterday) - but the QOTDS doesn't change for today's template, it's "stuck" on template:QM05D18 . Can anyone help me? Thank you.

Use Ctrl + Reload to reload the page from the site (bypassing your browser's cache), or minor edit the main page.

wikipedia's template for wq

Anyone has suggestions on what should be the best wording for wikipedia's template for wikiquote? It used to be "has a collection of quotations by or about", but was changed here to "has a collection of quotations related to". New ideas or comments on your preference would be welcomed... Thanks... Sams 17:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I guess that the current wording is best, because it also works for theme articles, like, say, Armenian Genocide etc. - unless we wish to make separate templates for people and themes, but I guess that it's better to keep things simple. Sams 23:33, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Russian proverbs

An anonymous editor removed transliteration and translation and left only the English equivalence of those proverbs. I don't think it as improvement. Therefore I conclude we are better to revert it. Unless I won't be opposed strongly, I'll revert those anon's edits. Your opinion will be welcome at Talk:Russian proverbs.--Aphaia 09:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I put a 24 hours block on this editor. He or she continued editing without any explanation. The format of the article was changed radically. I'll revert it once, but with a good reason and discussion, I'll be persuaded to keep it as in the way this anon edited. --Aphaia 09:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

The transliteration and translation work on that page seems excellent to me. Such work should be appreciated, it's relevant and informative. So I don't understand why you even raise the issue of reverting those anon edits. Sams 12:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. In my opinion it is great we seem to agree on basic ideas like "we are happy to have both transliteration & literal translation", "we need no vanity" and so on. And it is much better for us and newbies to have those ideas in more concrete, written forms because of our growth and transparency of community governance. As for all my action by declension as administrators I am happy to listen to others and clarify how and why I did so-and-so. --Aphaia 12:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we should start a proverbs policy page? Sams 15:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Proliferation of quoteless encyclopedia stubs

I have an observation, without a recommended action at the moment, for Wikiquotians to consider. Many of the recent articles for which we've been voting on deletion follow a noticeable pattern — they're stub-sized encyclopedia articles with no quotes that are linked from existing theme, book, or show articles. This makes me suspect that many editors, often new contributors, are simply creating articles for people because many red links in these theme articles are directed to Wikiquote instead of Wikipedia, where proper encyclopedia articles are likely to exist. If this is the case, we have only ourselves to blame. The guidance we offer at Wikiquote:Templates#Themes recommends links to Wikiquote articles, despite the fact that we don't have 1/100th the coverage of people that Wikipedia does. Ultimately, of course, we would prefer to have Wikiquote links first, with links to Wikipedia for the subject in each subject's article. But current practices encourage the creation of these encyclopedia stubs which we then turn around and delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

First I would like to make it clear - you don't mean to remove red links (it should be an article in future). Or not.

Generally agreed, I prefer to put links for Wikipedia only in the top of article sections. In the best case, only the lemma. It would be better for us to have internal links even in the article description (to another articles, or category).

In thema articles we can remove (at least reduce) the links to Wikipedia, replace them with internal links.

I don't think the current situation is so messy, but your supposition seems reasonable. I doubt those people who submit those encyclopediac stubs can't recognize the difference between two projects. Wiktionary share a similar problems, I heard. And they remove such encyclopediac stubs periodically.

So I don't expect we can eliminate such misunderstanding, but aa neat modification of formatting would be helpful. --Aphaia 15:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

From a technical standpoint, we cannot have red wikipedia links... nonexisting wikipedia link appear in blue, unfortunately. Having blue nonexisting wikipedia links is not a good solution to the issue that you raise, I think, as it would add confusion in general. Perhaps I'll ask on #mediawiki later about having color distinction for existing/nonexisting wikipedia links. Sams 15:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't mean to do or suggest anything just yet; it's just an observation. I think that some users are just trying to be helpful, and I worry that we might discourage them if we keep deleting these articles. But if they're going to be created, we really do want them to have quotes. — Jeff Q (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Another way of improvement is modification of messags around new pages: the message you will get if you follow a red link. Perhaps we can emphasize much more what Wikiquote is: like "Wikiquote is not Wikipedia, we collect quotes, not encyclopediac information like biography". --Aphaia 09:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Good idea... do you know which page needs to be modified, or whether this is somehow internal to mediawiki? BTW, I asked on their irc channel and they said that all links across wiki projects, existing and nonexisting, appear in light blue, and there would be no way to improve that in the foreseeable future... Sams 10:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

It is one of system messages so under the MediaWiki namespace. I tried to start with Wikipedia equivalence. See MediaWiki:Noarticletext and give your feed back on [[Talk:MediaWiki:Noarticletext]]. The "red link on other syster projects" sound neat, but perhaps it is too heavy for our servers I'm afraid. But it is worthy to requset on Bugzilla, if you prefer. Cheers, --Aphaia 08:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

It appears that what JeffQ described is indeed the case, Aphaia and I also noticed that new pages that are created without quotes had red links in other wikiquote pages. Therefore, I think that Aphaia' suggestion above to modify the MediaWiki:Noarticletext would be appropriate, we could put there a message at the top or at the bottom of the page, saying: "Please note that Wikiquote articles should contain quotations. For adding biographical information, please go to the [[w:{{PAGENAME}}|corresponding Wikipedia page]] and edit it instead." The only problems seems to be that this message would appear on all kinds of nonexisting pages, such as userpages... Please comment on whether you're for or against modifying MediaWiki:Noarticletext, and if so, which message we should put there. Thanks. Sams 09:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC

Lyrics

There're currently some comments regarding lyrics on WQ:VFD. I wonder if we should establish a clear policy on it. There are three relevant issues I think:

• Because adding full lyrics (as opposed to fair use excerpts) is in most cases a copyright violation, should we always prohibit full lyrics, or not? There are some artists with whom posting full lyrics is not a problem at all, in particular artists that aren't on major record labels. There're also gray areas, where lyrics formally have copyright and aren't allowed to be copied, but it's not enforced perhaps...
• If the answer to the 1st issue is 'no', then who has burden of proof? Meaning, in case someone added full lyrics (or a big excerpt), and we're not sure if it's legit or not, when do we remove it? Right away, unless the person who added it proves that it's legit, or do we wait for a formal complaint for a record label...?
• Again, if the answer to the 1st issue is 'no', then are full lyrics supposed to be on wikiquote or wikisource? JeffQ said wikisource, but I'm not too sure, because most people probably see wikisource as a more formal project, unlike wikiquote where other people keep editing and improving the articles.

Or perhaps we prefer not to formulate a clear policy on this issue (yet). If we just disallow full lyrics, then it can save us some headaches... (but might upset some people who try to add stuff that they believe to be legit) Sams 15:25, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to Sams for the concise case about lyrics. I'll make the following observations:

• The burden of proof should be on the people wanting to post suspicious information of any kind. Reasons:
  1. There is no barrier to the original posting, but there is a significant barrier to sysop or community removal of such information based on policies and usually requiring at least 14 days review.
  2. There are thousands of people willing to post data, but only a handful willing to remove it.

  Simple math recommends we allow ourselves to remove suspicious data unless given solid evidence otherwise.

• Unless the community decides otherwise (and that's what this VP posting is about, folks!), it's rather convenient to hand the problem off to Wikisource based on existing interwiki strategies. (Not exactly enlightened, but practical. ☺)

— Jeff Q (talk) 21:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure it is convenient to hand this problem off to Wikisource.  :) And being an admin over at 'Source, I'm groaning right now.  :) I think it would behoove Wikiquote to come up with a consensus on this issue now. Over at Wikisource, lyrics don't last long at all. The reason is because probably any posting of lyrics is a copyright violation. Because of the current copyright laws, even the "minor" artists' lyrics are protected under copyright and so are not compatible with Wikisource. Even if it's not a problem for the artist to have his lyrics posted on Wikisource, unless there is clear evidence giving us permission to post, we err on the side of caution and remove them.

If a person does desire to post lyrics on Wikisource, the onus is on him to proove that posting those lyrics are not in violation of copyright. I would imagine that such would be the policy for all Wikimedia projects, including this one--that there must be evidence that the lyrics are either in the public domain or are GFDL compatible. Otherwise, we could potentially get in trouble for having those lyrics on our site. I hope this helps a bit. Zhaladshar 22:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You know I was thinking you when I wrote that, didn't you, Zhaladshar? [evil grin] Given the current litigious climate in the U.S. and the near-fascist use being made of the DCMA (whose putative goal of protecting artists' rights is highly commendable), I can't disagree with you about protecting our resources, much as I'd like to. — Jeff Q (talk) 22:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I mentioned above that I have doubts about whether lyrics belong in wikisource, but anyhow, I guess that pretty much no one on wikiquote and wikisource wants to mess with the lyrics issue, so perhaps it's better to keep a low profile for now, until more people would want to discuss this. There're some articles that already contain lyrics here, but I don't suggest to start going after them - we can deal with particular problems if they arise. BTW Jeffq, if we agree with your general attitude towards 'burden of proof', then it can also be applied to the VfD pages... I mention this because in some instances we try to prove ourselves if a VfD page is legit - that's not to say that we did anything wrong in any particular case, but just what the general attitude should be like, because there should be some reasonable ratio between how easy it is for someone to create a hoax article, and the time we spend dealing with them... It seems that people here like the VfD page a bit too much, for whatever reason:) Sams 09:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Categorization by Nationality/Geography

This thread has been moved to Wikiquote_talk:Category_schemes#Nationalities. -- Benn M 01:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Red link issue

I mistook. A red link is led to MediaWiki:Newarticletext, and not MediaWiki:Noarticletext (the latter is available when you search an articler under a certain name or just from url). Perhaps it would be better to add an "Wikiquote is not an encyclopedia" like message, very brief and catchy. Any proposal? --Aphaia 18:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

QOTD

Maybe this is just me, in which case I'll just shut up, but I feel the QOTD process is too...undemocratic. While anyone can propose a quote, User:Kalki makes the decision of which quote to use without (seemingly) consulting anyone. I feel that as a regular member of the WQ community, I would like a bit more say in the QOTD selection. Perhaps some vote, or another consensual procedure, could be used? MosheZadka 05:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There really hasn't been much interest to date in taking this burden (and opportunity) off Kalki's shoulders. Kalki himself made some suggestions about how to open up the system early this year, but the lack of response was deafening. (I have to admit that I found myself comfortable enough with the existing process not to want to occupy myself with working on changes.) If there are other folks out there who would like to see a more open selection system — and are willing to participate in it — here's your chance to make your feelings known! — Jeff Q (talk) 06:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You'll notice my question there ("any progress?")...but I actually completely forgot about this. MosheZadka 06:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suppose Kalki would be happy if other editors take part in decision making. You would like to make comments on his scheme or propose alternative. Have fun. ;-) --Aphaia 10:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am somewhat disappointed that nobody else edited Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/June. Even voting 0 ("unacceptable") on my QOTD suggestions, certainly not voting them up and/or adding new candidates. I would like to urge everyone to vote there (for my quotes, naturally) :) MosheZadka 03:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let me remind everyone that July is fast approaching and you can already vote for July quotes (or add new candidates). Make your voice heard! ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Layout issues

Hello, now discussions are on-going on two pages: Wikiquote talk:Guide to layout and Wikiquote talk:Templates. On WQt talk:GtL sections, WQt:Templates the heading are discussed. Your participation to discussion will be appreciated. Come and show your opinion freely! --Aphaia 23:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since (A) the only significant content currently on WQt:GtL is Rmhermen's initial question about the conflict between WQ:GtL and the templates; (B) he makes his concerns known at WQt:Templates; and (C) the Templates discussion incorporates the conflict, I suggest everyone go to the Templates discussion to avoid splitting the discussions. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seems good, because the discussion on GtL is almost over. See you again on Wikiquote talk:Templates, guys. --Aphaia 01:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How do I add a person to wikiquote?

I wish to add a page for Leonard Wibberley and a few others, however I don't know how please someone tell me

There are some ways to start a new article:

1. Create a link of Leonard Wibberley somewhere and click. Perhaps you would like to list this person on List of people by name...
2. enter at your browser's URL window, http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Leonard_Wibberley (instead of space, please use an underbar) and then go to the page you would like to create.

By the way, you can leave your signature with ~~~~ . Enjoy! --Aphaia 03:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's very common on Wikipedia to create a new article from a failed attempt to Go to an non-existent article from the Search box. WP provides an "&action=edit" link in the text "You can create an article with this title...". We should configure Wikiquote to provide this as well, especially as some of the lists that used to give a place to add non-existent article titles are being replaced by Categories. — Jeff Q (talk) 04:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See WQ:FAQ MosheZadka 08:02, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Classifying graphic novels

I've been working with the Watchmen page and am uncertain what category a graphic novel belongs in. My inclination is to put it in Comics (I've always thought "graphic novel" was a pretentious term used by persons embarrassed by their fondness for comic books), but a case could also be made for categorizing it among Literary Works. Any thoughts? --RPickman 19:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How about creating Category:Graphic novels and classfy this new category under both Novels and Comics? --Aphaia 20:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Two observations. First, Category:Comics is already a sub-sub-category of Category:Literary works (via Category:Literature by genre). Second, it might be challenging to distinguish between comic books and graphic novels. For example, I just finished reading Buffyverse-themed Fray ISBN 1569717516, which is a graphic novel by current standards, but which author Joss Whedon et al. consistently call a comic book series. That said, I think Aphaia's suggestion is reasonable, as the Category:Novels membership would give it a path through Category:Literature by format, and because I believe that all graphic novels are "comics" (despite the somewhat misleading historical implication of humor), but many comics are not (and never will be) graphic novels, so it's a logical subset. — Jeff Q (talk) 05:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I just remembered that we don't yet have any kind of "literature by format" (e.g., novels, short stories, columns) categorization. (I hinted at the possibility, but for authors, not works, in WQt:Category schemes a while back, with no results.) The genre branch of the tree would still be useful, and the format could be left for the future (or now, if someone wants to establish it). — Jeff Q (talk) 05:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3RR block or protection - which we go

Recently we experienced an edit war which convinced some sysops the project needed now to introduce 3RR (three revert rule). MoshaZedka proposed a modified (and softer) one, three revert & protection rule. I think personally the latter way is worthy to apply to our project as experiment. Discussion is on-going on Wikiquote talk:Blocking policy. Your opinion will be appreciated! --Aphaia 10:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We become known!

As for 16:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) we are at just the 7,500th rank of Alexa traffic rank[3], it is for us twice at this level. Our highest record was 7,126th, on May 25. Is it good news to celebrate our 3rd anniversary on June 27? --Aphaia 16:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vote: Abortion

I set a vote if Abortion should be unprotected or not on Talk:Abortion#Vote: unprotect or not. Your participation and consideration will be appreciated. --Aphaia 19:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Freenode funddrive

from foundation-l, Anthere

24 June 2005 : Please help'. w:Peer-Directed Projects Center runs w:freenode, an interactive service which helps Wikipedia and the FOSS community. Their annual fundraiser ends July 1, and they're about $8,500 short. [http://freenode.net/fundraiser.shtml Their fundraising page]. From Lilo, the director of PDPC and the head of staff of freenode. Please spread the word... freenode is very helpful for us.

(posted by Aphaia 01:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC))