Wikiquote talk:Requested entries

Why is this page being filled with suggestions? Why does this page "Wikiquote:Requested entries" even exist? Anyone who hasn't been blocked for abusing the privileges can edit here. If you want to post a confirmed quote on an existing page do it; if you want a page of quotes about someone started, do a Google search, find some significant quotes or basic information to go with any quotes you already have and start one. If you want to find who said something, do a "phrase search" (within "quoted phrase" marks) and search through the most likely candidates that are to be found. It isn't all that more complicated than posting a request here. ~ Achilles 14:18, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is a good question. I assumed it was a parallel page to a Wikipedia "requested entries" page, but there doesn't appear to be any such page. Besides, our threshold for addition is far lower than Wikipedia's. On WP, one must actually write original prose about a subject, even if it's only a one-line stub. On WQ, all one need do is transcribe some text directly. (Of course, we hope that they will take the trouble to add a source, but it's not required.)

The only uses I see for this page are for (A) new editors who are uncomfortable creating a new article, but don't mind adding to an existing page, and (B) new editors who see an organized, formatted existing article and are afraid to "break" something. It's very easy to create and edit these articles, and essentially impossible to "break" something that can't be easily fixed, but one only knows that after one overcomes that initial worry. I guess I'd think of it as a page that my Mom might add stuff to. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup proposal

I haven't noticee this page, but ... it is a bit messy. Besides problems discussed on the above, I doubt how many of our regulars care this page.

Just for the record, Wiktionary has a similar page. I agree with Jeff some of requests were submitted because they fear to mess up the exisiting article. While anyone can edit, people often hesitate to break the existing well formatted article.

To make this page more usable, I propose some cleanup, including

• If a requested page exists, that request will be moved to its talk, specially requests with suggestions of quotes.
• If a request is regarding to innate quote, we will just remove it.
• If a request is very simple alike "quotes of xxx will be appreciated", and there is the request page already, we will either 1) remove the request as fulfilled or move it to 2a) its talk or 2b) archive (not exists yet).

I think we need no archive for this page; reference desk has a tons of useful Q&A, but preserving requests make no sense despite of courtesy. --Aphaia 09:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I propose that if entries are made as requested, the request can be deleted (since it has been disposed of). If it is determined that the subject of a request merits no entry, the request should be deleted as useless. Cheers! BD2412 T 01:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Your proposals look me good, while I am not sure how we can assure that a certain subject should be deleted. Proposal of refusal and at least one support? -Aphaia 15:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I support this as well. ~ UDScott 16:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I support deleting fulfilled or pointless requests. If anyone believes the deletion inappropriate, they can always restore it and bring up the issue here. Same goes if it's not clear whether the request has been fulfilled — the editor who removes such an entry might forestall controversies by posting a brief note here why they felt it was finished. The only concern I'd have would be GFDL issues, but if they primarily apply to article content, and the editor isn't willing to add that request to an article themselves, perhaps it can be argued that there need be no credit, since someone else is actually doing the work of addition (hopefully with sourcing, which is almost always going to be absent from WQ:REQ requests). If the responding editor wants to be safe, they can note the suggesting editor in the edit summary for the actual addition to an article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Ah OK. I concur with BD2412 and JeffQ. --Aphaia 23:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned up a few items here and there, but there are also some discussions I'd like to archive (like that on the "God-sized hole" query). Would anyone object to having that sort of mixed bag - delete the fulfilled and the pointless, archive the interesting? BD2412 T 01:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Definitely archive the interesting, I'd say. -- OlEnglish 08:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorting

This page could be sorted better, perhaps by topic? Any suggestions? -- OlEnglish 21:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

We generally avoid organizing articles by topic because it tends to foster POV problems, but I don't know if that principle would apply to project pages like this. I am afraid regular contributors mostly ignore this page. Some article lists such as List of television shows have a "Requested" section.

Regarding the Swedish Chef[1] you may want to take a look at Wikiquote:Fictional characters and the rationale there. ~ Ningauble 19:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that link.. Swedish Chef quotes would've been a fun page, but oh well. It's too bad regular contributors ignore this page.. one would think that requests are a great way to find ideas for new content, and that this page would be given higher priority. Anyway, this page is getting quite long, we should at least consider archiving older requests. -- OlEnglish 08:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Archiving Page?

This page is so cluttered with entries that at this point it's nearly impossible to tell what has and has not been created; many of the entries on this page are years old! Would it be possible to archive the page, so that new entries can possibly be responded to and old entries marked as either resolved, unresolved, or denied?

It's difficult to even tell what is still desired at this point; archiving would be a great boon. Perhaps the entire page should be a project page, similar to WP:AFD? —This unsigned comment is by Zaldax (talk • contribs) .

I am working through this a bit. There are some requests on the page for entries that probably should be made, and quotes that probably should be included, so I am hesitant to wipe that out, or even relegate it to an archive before having a closer look. BD2412 T 19:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Just another random thought

“Pay no attention to ordinary stone because a red diamond is deliberately made to be hard to find.” - Leo Patrick A. Lipana Kaizerpatrick (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)