Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Proposals for "Quotes of the day" were once handled at Wikiquote:Quote of the day/Quote proposals, but now are usually made on pages for each month:

QOTD by month + Suggestions for: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
This Month

Today is Monday, August 10, 2020; it is now 23:12 (UTC)


Archive
Archives


Update[edit]

  1. Update: see recent change, at [1]
  2. Quotes will now each have their own page for each day of the year, and these will rotate automatically - but there will no longer be a new page for each individual date.
  3. In other words, instead of Wikiquote:Quote of the day/January 1, 2010, there will now just be one unified page for January 1, at Wikiquote:Quote of the day/January 1.
  4. All pages linked, at Wikiquote:Quote of the day/Index/Links
  5. In this manner, we can place archived quotes from prior years at the talk page of the pages by day by month, (example: the talk page for Wikiquote:Quote of the day/January 1 would contain archives of all previously used quotes).
  6. When it comes time to update a particular quote page, that page's coding is retained, and all that needs to be changed is the image and quote for that upcoming date - no longer do new pages need to be created, every day.
  7. This will make the whole process slightly easier and seamless - with less manual effort required to maintain it.

Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 08:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This restructuring is evidently a work-in-progress, as it would take thousands of move/merge operations to assemble archives in the manner described, but I want to point out that the above linked new Wikiquote:Quote of the day/January 1 does not have the current Wikiquote:Quote of the day/January 1, 2010 as described, it has the quote used for 2009[2]. This being the case for most of the new pages year-to-date, it appears to be intentional, but I don't get it.

Note also that this page, Wikiquote:Quote of the day, displays {{QoD}}, which still uses the full month, day, & year to locate the current day's quote.

More generally, the plan for archiving quotes on talk pages such as Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/January 1 seems partially redundant, except for the images, with content preserved on pages where quotes are proposed and discussed, such as January 1. Were these changes discussed with the person who usually maintains these pages? ~ Ningauble 14:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

  1. The pages are started initially simply as a placeholder.
  2. They can be updated with new quotes for each day, as the day arrives - just like with the old process.
  3. Yes, the talk pages are a helpful way to archive quotes by date and year, with images.
  4. Fixed the other template, so the two are now uniform.

-- Cirt (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Update: Randomizing coding is pending... -- Cirt (talk) 16:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Although it is certainly possible for improvements to be made in the system of Quote of the Day (QotD) processing, the recent changes in naming conventions and page linkage are not compatible with some of the features and processes associated with the overall QotD system, including but not limited to:
Today's quote has been posted in duplicate, using both naming conventions (belatedly, after the main page today initially displayed a quote from last year), but this workaround is not a feasible long-term solution.

For these reasons, and because Kalki, who normally maintains QotD pages but is not able to fix protected pages, has asked me to[3], I am rolling back the changes that were recently made to Wikiquote:Quote of the day, Template:QoD, and Template:Main Page Quote of the day. I am not, for the time being, going to revert hundreds of moves of individual pages[4] because the resulting redirects do not appear to be breaking anything, and because the new pages may be useful for a more integrated reorganization of the system. If it turns out they actually are disrupting something in unanticipated ways, I would be willing to help with fixing them.

I strongly encourage anyone who proposes improving the QotD system to discuss any radical or systemic changes before attempting to implement them, and to specifically solicit input from contributors who are regularly involved in the process or are knowledgeable about how it works. I am making only three changes as a quick fix for what appears to be broken currently, so it will be easy enough to sort out after a consensus is reached on how to proceed. ~ Ningauble 17:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

  1. Nothing is "broken" currently with the new organization.
  2. I was just about to implement a form of updated randomization, so that each day of the month rotated through multiple dates - this reverting by Ningauble (talk · contributions) makes that more difficult.
  3. Please revert back your changes, Ningauble (talk · contributions), so we can at least look at and discuss the updates.

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 03:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Like a few other extreme actions you have abruptly taken in the past few weeks, "the new organization" you are attempting to implement was done without ANY prior community discussion on the matter. I see NO advantages or desirability to your changes, and much that is clearly detrimental as it would eliminate the current archiving of pages in the style of the QOTD by month pages — which preserves a clear record of the displays presented on the main page a month at a time, and is actually one of the archives which I find most interesting to review and browse occasionally. There is much work I have to update on the other archives, as my daily activity has been much reduced here in the last year — but the QOTD by month remains totally current. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 03:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Kalki, please keep your comments focused to this particular process, and avoid comments directed at individual contributors, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
THAT comment was obviously meant to "keep your comments focused to this particular process" and "and avoid comments directed at individual contributors". Thanks for the further display of blatant hypocrisy. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 03:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Kalki, I am not going to get into this with you here. -- Cirt (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Cirt's numbered points of November 2:
  1. Saying so does not make it so. I gave three specific examples of things that depend on the longstanding naming convention.
  2. Hint: The name of an arbitrary QotD page from the past year can be generated like this:
    Wikiquote:Quote of the day/{{#time:F j, Y|-{{#expr:{{#time:U}} mod 365}} days}}
    (This is not really random, it just cycles through the year about every six minutes. You could replace "{{#expr:{{#time:U}} mod 365}}" with a real random number generator if MediaWiki had one, which it doesn't, or use a kludge like Wikipedia's Template:Rand.)
  3. As I said above, it should be discussed first. The desirability of the change has been contested, and there are too many logical dependencies that would need to be mapped out in advance to avoid disruptions.
Regarding the original proposal: I believe that one of the perceived benefits is illusory. It is actually more work, when posting a new quote, to have to copy the old quote to an archive first. I think it is better to post it once and leave it alone. ~ Ningauble 15:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Selecting quotes for Wikiquote[edit]

I want to select quotes for Wikiqoute "Quote of The Day". How can I do it. Please explain step by step. Thanks in advance. —This unsigned comment is by Abhikdhar2009 (talkcontribs) 07:31, 18 October 2011.

Maintenance instructions[edit]

I've added some notes toward documenting the mechanics of how to maintain the QOTD. Comments? JessRek6 (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

As you have noticed I have edited these. Some of the info on providing suggestions might be useful, but I believe posting explicit procedures involving creating future QOTD pages would far more likely be exploited by vandals and trolls than by any good faith editors. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 18:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Please relax the protection on this page to at least semi. There has been no vandalism on this page. With your deletion of content you involved yourself in a content dispute regarding the content of a project page. The use of your administrative tools in a content dispute is inappropriate. Thank you. JessRek6 (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I have definitely involved myself in a content dispute, and removing what I am prone to consider malicious vandalism of such postings to a very prominent page as indicate very rash, imprudent provision of such information as represents procedures NOT commonly used by general editors, and far more likely to be exploited by vandals and trolls than good faith editors. Your apparent intention of persisting in such postings does NOT bode well in any assessments of you as actually committed to prudent good faith editing. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 22:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC) + tweak
Please revert or reduce the page protection you imposed, then in good faith we can discuss the content you deleted. JessRek6 (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Why should I expose the page to further editing by you at this point? I put a single day-long block to prevent further repeat of postings of such information and instructions as I believe are NOT appropriate to this page and do NOT reflect any generally used or or even discussed procedures here, but only a sudden assertion of suppositions of what is or should be appropriate by someone I perceive to be a extremely contentious and apparently extraordinarily resentful because I did not use your suggested proposal for a QOTD last week. I was just about to be leaving, but do not need to do so immediately, but I definitely believe the information you were seeking to post certainly does NOT belong on this page, and it IMPLIES as routine for general editors such procedures as have NEVER actually been so. I expect that other admins should weigh in on some of the occurrences and proposals which have occurred, and I believe insistence on posting such material here is simply NOT a reasonably acceptable proposal, by any admin who examines the issue. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 23:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I did not examine them closely earlier, but even the "Maintenance instructions" you suddenly posted WITHOUT discussion, and which I did NOT remove are rather redundant in regard to some of the links and information already on the page — I can see that some revision of the previous content, perhaps incorporating some adaptations of your statements or intentions might be used, but I again assert a strong conviction that the further procedural descriptions which you had posted simply do not belong here, and I believe do NOT reflect ANY procedures which have ever been, or should ever be, standard ones for general editors. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 23:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Deployment instructions[edit]

Recent contribution to Wikiquote, reverted, moved to discussion page. This is the second half of the maintainence instructions, and describes the mechanics of setting up a QOTD for a future date.

2. Deploy the selection

  1. Create a new page for the date of interest, for example Wikiquote:Quote of the day/February 14, 2021. This page will be transcluded onto the Wikiquote:Main_Page at 00:00 UTC on February 14, 2020. This step requires an autoconfirmed account.
  2. Edit the quote. As a starting point, cut and paste the contents of a recent quote of the day page. Locate the "quote of the day" template and replace the "quote" and "author" parameter values. Format the quote appealingly with line breaks. Optionally, add a relevant image. Preview and save the page.
  3. Protect the quote. This step requires administrator privilege. Add, or ask a Wikiquote administrator to add, a wikilink to the new quote to page Wikiquote:Quote_of_the_day/Protect. Cascading protection will fully protect the quote.

General interest in participation in the QOTD selection process is evidenced by the immediately preceding section of this discussion page, #Selecting_quotes_for_Wikiquote, an unanswered request from 2011. Documenting this process is long overdue.

Fundamentally, Wikiquote is a Wiki. Our project is an expression of our belief in good faith. We expose ourselves, it's what we do. The QOTD is a highly visible feature of our main page, but the QOTD is not Wikiquote; any potential exposure to the QOTD is not an existential threat to Wikiquote.

We offer extensive online help documentation on every other aspect of editing the Wiki as an expression of our invitation to open collaboration. Every time we make something easier for good faith editors we make it easier for vandals. No content or process is so mission critical that it must be reserved solely to the purview of any one editor.

Security by obscurity is the weakest form of security. These instructions do not include anything that could not be discovered with a little clicking around. Documenting this process does not significantly increase any exposure. A manual editing process that ideally should be performed once per day must be able to be performed routinely by many editors, and must be able to be staged ahead of time, not at the stroke of midnight by one and only one editor.

Comments? JessRek6 (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

"General interest in this process is evidenced" by ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. {I posted this remark using quotation marks around a statement she had posted in her above comments — subsequent editing of the above statements after my post here does not leave this fact as so evident, but I am simply inserting this comment here to clarify that matter. ~ Kalki 2020·02·27}
I believe MUCH of your activity in recent days has been encouragement and promotion of disruption and even arrogant and asinine vandalism. I twice removed your posting of the above "Deployment instructions" as to a procedure which has NEVER before been advocated as one available to general editors. It is has NEVER been discussed at ALL by ANYONE, until you suddenly of your OWN initiative posted it AS IF it were an AUTHORITATIVE declaration of POLICIES and PROCEDURES here — which it DEFINITELY is NOT.
You seem to seek VERY EAGER to speak AS IF you were already an official spokesperson for this project, and declare "Our project is an expression of our belief in good faith. We expose ourselves, it's what we do." Our project is indeed developed as a product of good faith activities — and NOT one that accepts or condones what are QUITE evidently insincere assertions, BAD FAITH exposures, misleading distortions, and outright lies — and invitations to potentially greater activities along those lines on the part of others by advocacy of activities such as are NOT standard practices here, and are NOT generally approved as such — and never before have such ridiculous suggestions been so asininely presented AS IF they should be "standard procedures". I will state that I definitely have increasing contempt for what I hold to be your increasingly evident DIS-INGENUOUSNESS and DISHONESTY, and apparent intentions to further disrupt this project in various subtle or overt ways. [I have been asked by JessRek6 to strike out some of my harsher comments, and have agreed to take into consideration doing so, with various regards, and I begin doing so here with statements in this posting, which I can agree was an overly harsh response to such activities as occurred a very short time before I posted it, and which I believed to be an improper postings of what I believe to be very improper and deceptive material to a significant project page. I thus now modify this statement to indicate that at that point I definitely had increasing contempt for what I perceived to be apparent intentions to further disrupt this project in various subtle or overt ways. I now acknowledge and assert that this person would have very different perspectives on things, to even consider doing what has been done, and am currently attempting to understand many of the complexities of the motives and emotions involved. ~ Kalki 2020·02·29] ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 15:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Though I am a supporter of Kalki for almost anything, in this situation I support JessRek6. Every autoconfirmed user should have the right to select QOTDs, and if the user is not trusted or the user disobeyed maintenance rules, that user can be notified / blocked. Kalki has also misused admin rights to protect a page when in a edit war. (Josephine W. Talk) 11:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC))
@Kalki: Sorry - I have changed my mind that the deployment instructions are not necessary, as ranking quotes could replace this, but I did not say users should not have the right to select QOTDs. I think QOTDs' selector could be voted every mopnth or so. Thoughts? (Josephine W. Talk) 10:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC))
I am not certain of all you are declaring, but I believe I understand much of what you are indicating. I believe that many years ago there probably was at least some brief discussion of developing a council for general selection of the QOTD, but there actually never was much interest in developing one, and I simply continued in my role of selecting the quotes with as much consideration for many diverse aspects of situations and rankings as I could manifest. Thank you for your comments here. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 17:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC) + tweak
I have been accused of having "misused admin rights to protect a page when in a edit war". I do NOT agree with so simplistic an assessment. I took admin action, first in in removing material I believed to be BOTH deceptive and improper because it was posting of material on procedures which were presented AS IF they were actually officially sanctioned policies and procedures, which they very definitely were NOT. At the time I considered this a very deceptive attempt at a "surprise assault" on the actual formalities, practices and procedures which have existed since the first years of the project without ANY complaint at all for MANY years. I state elsewhere that prior to the recent activities of JessRek6 there were probably at least one or two other remarks of dispute of my choices, but the ONLY complaint made which I very distinctly remember regarding my assessments and selection of a quote, prior to hers, is one I believe probably dates back to 2004.
When I first removed her additions I did this with an edit summary plainly specifying some aspects of my reasons for doing so: "These instructions on the whole I believe might not be necessary, and the particularly the procedures I am removing for posting the quote of the day are such as actually have never been open to most general editors, & would very likely be exploited by vandals."
Very soon after removing this material which I indicated as being improper, she reposted it, at which point I again removed it, protected the page for one day, to permit the considerations of others of the matter within a short while, and made the above response. My days have been rather hectic for some time now, so I would have to review some sequences of events to give a proper summation of some of them, but I believe that in most regards I have acted with what others can accept as proper intentions.
Though I certainly have long encouraged editors to contribute suggestions, and rank them in the existing processes, and welcomed and used their contributions, I certainly do NOT believe "Every autoconfirmed user should have the right to select QOTDs", as it would permit regular opening of major avenues of disruption to many incidental or very narrow agenda driven editors with NO extensive or actual investment in the integrity of this project, or even outright hostility to it and irresponsible determination to disrupt it.
In assessing the current situations I request you and anyone else interested to please at least glance over the very extensive discussions which have been collected on my talk page, beginning with those which JessRek6 initiated there, and continuing in other sections from other pages, including this one. I know the discussions have been extensive, especially some of my refutations and rebuttals to some of her accusations, but I believe most can appreciate that it can sometimes require extensive exposition of material to rebut or refute accusations or allegations that can be made very concisely and simply with no firm evidence, and only very short and very misleading statements.
I actually have several other matters to attend to for a few hours, and will be leaving soon, and might be busy elsewhere much of the day, but will probably resume attending to these discussions, perhaps within only a few hours. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 13:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC) + tweaks
I agree that making two reverts within ten minutes and then full protecting a page involved in a content dispute could be easily construed as misuse of the tools. I won't change the current protection as it was set by an uninvolved administrator. As to whose opinions matter and whose don't, current policy is pretty clear on the matter: "Sysops are not imbued with any special authority, and are equal to everybody else in terms of editorial responsibility." GMGtalk 13:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I will begin with a few droll observations that I hope will be accepted as such, and will provide a bit of levity and amusement amidst many generally dreary matters:
You rather astoundingly seem to have uncovered what any definitely obtuse and absolutist mind could easily construe as a severe and gross lapse of judgment and fairness on ALL of our parts — by such a clearly absolute edict we very clearly should NOT engage in maintaining or creating ANY page as being locked to being edited by "admins only" — as that would definitely and very clearly and IMPUDENTLY violate the putatively sacred principle and absolute edict of asserting within ANY and ALL contexts that all admins "are equal to everybody else in terms of editorial responsibility". Of course I myself, as merely an absurdist idiot well familiar with many forms of absurdity, irrationality, idiocy, ignorance, wit, wisdom, confusion and sarcasm dressed up in various guises, do not actually tend to advocate or approve the embrace of obtuse absolutist interpretations of ANYTHING. Obtuse absolutists of course are very probably prone to consider that holding to such a stance is a grievous flaw on my part, and I must honestly confess to it.
Getting back to more somber commentary I will state that ANY practical procedures and policies which are sufficient to ranges of manifest tasks and responsibilities generally develop acceptance, approval, and enduring success with or without many associations with such extraneous formalities as many might favor, and others might disregard or even revile. But aside from the formalities favored or disfavored by any factions, there are always fundamental principles and practices of rationality which it is nearly always dangerous and detrimental to disregard or revile, and I perceive that there are clearly growing indications that many forms of rationally established and exercised principles, practices and expectations ARE actually being disregarded, derided, denigrated, degraded and reviled, even if primarily in such ways as are subtle or surreptitious.
I am very aware that many will not be aware of all I mean by such expressions as I use when I attempt to accurately indicate various matters, and that I should be extremely considerate of the limits which exist on all of us to perceive and communicate many things, but I will begin to provide examples of such behavior as I have mentioned, and of such proposals of practices and policies as I perceive to be quite irrational in many ways.
I wish to preface some of my remarks with a genuine repudiation of some of my OWN errors of recent days: caught up in considerations of many diverse things, I was clearly failing to perceive many significant aspects of what others were perceiving or failing to perceive, and since becoming more acutely aware of some of the implications of this fact, I am far more prone to cordially and charitably temper many of my expressions and assertions, even towards those I am inclined to consider as being unjustly hostile or adversarial on various matters.
I believe that most people can recognize that much of the most insipid or insidious trolling often involves such activity as does NOT clearly or sufficiently violate any specified rules which might clearly exist, but simply is such activity and behavior as is intended to regularly or intensely irritate, annoy, and even severely harass, implicitly deride, denigrate or defame others without necessarily directly or indisputably breaking any declared or established rules of propriety, practices or policies. The most skilled trolls are very often much more successful in many of their efforts to disrupt the regular or established activities, options, practices and procedures of others than outright and overt vandals, as their activity very often is NOT clearly such behavior as can definitely merit a direct removal or block of their existing privileges and practices.
I am NOT someone actually inclined to advocate the severe or needless punishment, limitation or burdening of others, even if they have evidently done severely disruptive or unjustly damaging things, such as easily offend or anger most people, but I am usually inclined to only take or advocate such action as is rationally perceived as necessary and proper to attempt to stop, neutralize, or at least effectively diminish the most definitely dangerous or detrimental forms of behavior observed or evident. In our limited ranges of engagement here, it is a very common thing for admins to take relatively severe measures against obvious vandals and spammers and remove material without complex considerations or presentation of evidence in each case, and after such behavior as is very commonly and regularly observed among spammers and habitual vandals accounts or IP numbers are simply blocked, as a now rather automatic and properly prudent procedure among many of us. I do not believe any of us actually take any measures to actively track down or directly punish any of the individuals who regular irritate and annoy us with their engagement in such activities, and I believe I am very prone to have serious doubts of the rational integrity of anyone intensely inclined to do so. Yet if one wished to be absolutely and tediously technical about some matters of many of our standard procedures EVERY such action we engage in with spammers and many vandals could in quite valid but misleading ways be characterized as engaging in a "content dispute" or abrupt preemptive actions in anticipation of potential "edit wars." I do not believe any of us wish to extend to spammers and overt vandals such benefits of our own or other's potential doubts, or extend to them an actual assumption of sincere or "good faith" behavior on their part, when they engage with clearly insincere and deceptive behavior such as we regularly encounter and grown all to painfully familiar with.
Having expressed all that, and anticipating I will soon have to attend to other matters and eventually leave on various excursions, I will close by stating that in response to recent activities of JessRek6 (talk · contributions) I have found it appropriate to post a request to the admin noticeboard. I am NOT requesting any immediate measures against her privileges here, but simply provide a presentation of some of her activities as misguided misuses or abuse of existing privileges which I believe she presently should be requested to cease. I have attempted to keep the remarks there as brief as possible, while presenting significant aspects and some of the actual and potential consequences of her activities, and I invite you to examine the issues involved. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 17:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)