Wikiquote talk:Policies and guidelines
"Compendium" is a much better fit here than "encyclopedia":
Compendium \Com*pen"di*um\, n.; pl. E. Compendiums, L. Compendia. [L. compendium that which is weighed, saved, or shortened, a short way, fr. compendere to weigh; com- + pendere to weigh. See Pension, and cf. Compend.] A brief compilation or composition, containing the principal heads, or general principles, of a larger work or system; an abridgment; an epitome; a compend; a condensed summary.
Encyclopedia \En*cy`clo*pe"di*a\, Encyclopaedia \En*cy`clo*p[ae]"di*a\, n. [NL., fr. Gr. ?, for ? ?, instruction in the circle of arts and sciences: cf. F. encyclop['e]die. See Cyclopedia, and Encyclical.] [Formerly written encyclop[ae]dy and encyclopedy.] The circle of arts and sciences; a comprehensive summary of knowledge, or of a branch of knowledge; esp., a work in which the various branches of science or art are discussed separately, and usually in alphabetical order; a cyclopedia.
--Maveric149 09:29, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Any copyright limitations need to be specific. I usually consider a one-sentence quote to be fair use, so I doubt that true Wikiquotes will be affected by copyright law. --mdmcginn (my Wikipedia handle) Dec. 11, 2004
Quotes marks policy?
What, if anything, is the policy on the punctutation of quotes themselves? There really ought to be one. --188.8.131.52 01:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it's good to provide a quote in its original language, as well as a translation into English. At least the fact that the quote is a translation and not the original words should be mentioned. The original words could be given in a footnote. An interwiki is not good enough, as the other-language article may not have the same quotes so one can't tell which is which. I note that in the Policies and guidelines list there is a link to a Wikipedia policy "use other languages sparingly". I propose putting a note next to this saying "except to provide the original words corresponding to a translated quote." --Coppertwig 04:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hello, Relevant discussion may be found at WQ:VP. --Aphaia 13:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
"Make omissions explicit"
Just wanted to point out that the Make omissions explicit Wikipedia page is an old proposal which was rejected by the Wikipedia community. It might be more applicable to Wikiquote though. --Fang Aili 15:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't wikipedia policies and guidelines which are re-used here be copied to this wiki? This would help with any necessary adjustments and customisations to the rules themselves as well as making them more accessible. Also because the links to Wikipedia policies and indeed all links to Wikipedia from Wikiquote lack the feature of linking to the secure server when users are logged into it. gz33 (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- While many of the general principles espoused in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are applicable here, and linking to them for general reference is therefore a good thing, many of the particulars would need substantial revision to suit the needs of a project that has a distinctly different mission. Adapting Wikipedia's language to Wikiquote's needs, even seemingly minor "adjustments and customisations," is usually more effort than it is worth for a community as small as ours. Wikiquote is small enough to manage its affairs without so many formal rules and, for the most part, only resorts to rulemaking when specific needs arise. (I gave up on the secure server a long time ago, when I noticed this type of limitation. I don't think mirroring the secure server on a non-secure site really solves the problem.) ~ Ningauble 15:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Proverb Policy Suggestion
As proverbs are, by their very nature, fundamental to a language as opposed to a direct quotation of a specific individual, I'd like to suggest a better method of control than "No Cite, Delete It" as seems to currently be the case. As there are a number of proverb pages (and many recently deleted) it's obvious the proverbs are a part of the wiki, but treating them in the same manner as hard science or direct quotations when it comes to citations is a poor policy.
I'm not much of a Wiki guy, so if this is in the wrong place, could you send it where it needs to be? 184.108.40.206 01:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- On the other hand, proverbs are, by their very nature, so widely repeated that it should be trivially easy to find them in citable print publications even when one cannot trace their actual origins. See the paragraph about citing proverbs at Wikiquote:Sourcing#Proverbs. If you would like to discuss the best practice for this, the Village Pump is probably the best venue for policy suggestions. ~ Ningauble 19:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- From a practicality standpoint, a source from an unsourced document is as suspect as an uncourced quote. Anyway, thanks for pointing me in the right direction to get this problem dealt with.220.127.116.11 22:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)