Wikiquote:Village pump archive 19


Archive
Archives



January-February 2008, originally posted to Wikiquote:Village pump.

Village pump archive 19Edit

Username changeEdit

I wasn't paying attention when I signed up, but I want my username to be BrokenSphere, so my English Wikipedia, Commons, and this account are all tied together. What has to be done? Thanks. --BrokenS 19:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Simply log in at WIkipedia and indicate on your talk page that you wish this name change here, and I will do it shortly. ~ Kalki 19:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Left the request here. --BrokenS 19:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
This renaming has been done. ~ Kalki 23:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Question on questionsEdit

Is this the place to post questions one has on wikiquote rules, functions and policy, or is there another, more appropriate place - and if so, could someone point me to it? 69.86.232.64 22:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the place. --Ubiquity 23:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

talk:Foo_bar and http://validator.w3.org/Edit

Hi all!
All pages from Wikiquote fail at http://validator.w3.org/ .
See validator.w3.org. Best regards
‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 01:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Pardon me for being blasé, but so what? The HTML is generated code that is never directly touched by us. If you want this fixed, report it (or see if it has been reported) at http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/enter_bug.cgi. --Ubiquity 06:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I would suspect that this is probably a common situation with any wiki-page anywhere. ~ Kalki 06:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
It's a problem with any MediaWiki-based wiki, including all the Wikimedia Foundation projects, because we have no means to enforce XHTML use by our editors. Even if the MediaWiki rendering engine were provide only XHTML, nothing prevents editors from adding direct, non-compliant HTML (like <br>, <font>, and many table formatting elements actually recommended for use in wiki tables). I am not aware of any general movement to address this problem in the foreseeable future. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Concur with Ubiquity and Jeff. We don't mind and you are better to bring it up on Bugzilla, not here. --Aphaia 11:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Quotability.Edit

I would like to propose that we come up with "quotability" guidelines. Here is my thinking:

  1. If we include everything that happens to be said by a notable person, then we end up becoming indistinguishable from WikiSource (who is to say, after all, that any random Shakespeare passage is not quotable).
  2. However, we must recognize that when highly notable persons say things, they are more likely to garner attention, even if they speak less eruditely.
  3. At the same time, we must recognize that occasionally completely non-notable people say something that slips into the collective consciousness (e.g. "Don't tase me, bro").

Therefore, I think we need a guideline that addresses the inclusion of both persons, and individual quotes, and that generally excludes quotes that are not, in and of themselves, notable in light of the circumstances that generated them (said by a person who was already famous? part of a famous work? related to a significant event?). Any ideas? BD2412 T 15:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Several, in fact. First, I agree pretty much with everything you say above. Second, the most useful and objective means I've found to collect both memorable quotes from famous people and widely quoted material from lesser-known individuals is to require iron-clad reliable sources for everything. Just as Wikipedia uses this measure to cite evidence of notability, we use it to show both notability (or the person and/or the quote) and quotability (because we're after what people are actually quoted as saying in all those sources, which have limited space to provide their view into the world and so must make their own inclusion decisions). Third, I know that reliable sources don't solve every inclusion and quoteworthiness issue, but it can significantly cut down on the content disputes so we can spend more time on the edge-cases. Finally, if and when this discussion becomes substantial, we might want to take it up on a new guideline page's discussion page, perhaps Wikiquote:Quotability and Wikiquote talk:Quotability.
I know there are many other aspects to this question, and I'm sure folks will chime in on them, but I wanted to make these particular points. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If we have something like WP:V, we'll have to confine ourselves to copying existing dictionaries of quotations or otherwise quote a source to prove notability. That would cramp our style a lot, but might solve quite a few problems. I've just added a quote to Robert Moses [1] citing his New York Times obituary, which I'd say is proof of notability for the quote, but I don't always have such good evidence.--Cato 20:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

We still quote liberally from movies and TV shows, which is more than most existing quotation books do. I'm not against that, just concerned with enforcement of the quality of what we include. Of course, we can hope that existing quotation books have already done the job of verifying their attribution, especially in the older cases. BD2412 T 23:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No surprise that I support this idea with special emphasis given to promptly deleting unsourced content related to living people. In addition to dealing with notability issues, there are legal issues I think. Some of the entries are pretty dodgy and really border as attack pages. Also we have problems with violating copyright laws if we allow improperly cited material to remain. We can not properly claim fair use of the material without citing a proper source and having a good reason to justify its Quotability. For these reason I agree that we need to tighten our standards for Quotability and think requiring a reliable source is a good first step. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

We especially run into copyright concerns when we have extremely loooong passages (I can think of a few examples), or where we have so much of a movie or TV show that we are essentially transcribing the script. In each case, if we knock out the stuff that's not really worth quoting, we'll have a better (and safer) article for it. As for the attack pages, there are likely to be frequent issues with the notability of the person leveling the attack (since politicians do most everything negative through surrogates, who are themselves not particularly notable). BD2412 T 00:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree that the availability of reliable sources should be a major criterion in determining the notability both of individuals and of quotes by individuals. Robert Moses is a case in point -- there are at least two big biographies of the man, and he figures heavily in most histories of NYC in the last century. It should be possible to find some quotes. On the other hand, it will be much more difficult to find quotes for people who are currently having their fifteen minutes, whether as wrestlers, DJs, Z-list celebrities or YouTube and MySpace phenomena. This would suit me just fine. --Ubiquity 00:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Would it be reasonable to say that something is demostrably "quotable" by the presence of that quote in a book of quotations, or in a book or magazine or the like? Not that this should be a requirement, but it should be strong evidence of quotability.
My concern with setting such a standard stems from my recent VfD nominations of Raleigh Theodore Sakers‎ and Tiffany Patterson‎, both of whom are (in my opinion) of borderline notability and with nothing profound to say. It is clear to me that these entries simply do not belong, but I can't point to a policy which explains why. At the same time, I'd like to be clear not exclude things like William Pitt (ship-builder), about whom very little is known, but whose brief poem has been quoted down through the ages. BD2412 T 04:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I am somewhat uncomfortable with the proposed standard. I suppose it boils down, yet again, to the question of what Wikiquote is for. I think it's valuable for us to have entries which serve a somewhat more substantial purpose than simply repeating what third parties have quoted other people as saying; in calling out specific passages that illustrate an author's philosophy, or controversies that an author has been involved in, or an author's writing or speaking style, or even an author's biography, we can provide a more meaningful and worthwhile resource. I think many of the concerns mentioned above can be addressed through greater insistence on proper citation and verifiability, without requiring that someone else have already quoted every passage. (Of course this is somewhat self-serving, seeing as I spent hundreds of hours and hundreds of dollars in my attempt to build the definitive set of Stephen Jay Gould quotations with this broader purpose in mind.) 121a0012 04:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Well part of what I'm trying to bring about is the idea that the more notable a person is, the lower the burden their verifiable comments should have to carry to be deemed "quotable". Since Stephen Jay Gould is very, very notable, his quotes should probably be presumed quoteworthy so long as there as a hint of profundity there (as opposed to someone who barely scratches the surface of notability). I think we can identify categories of people who are automatically recognized as being famous (winners of specified literary awards, presidents, etc.) and characteristics of presumptive quotability to determine who should be given the benefit of this lesser burden. BD2412 T 06:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I am sharing my comments here at BD2412's request. I believe that quotability has a lot to do with the material itself, rather than who is actually saying it. A quote like "Don't taste me, bro," as pointed out earlier is NOT a quoteworthy line. Generally speaking, a quote has to have a moral, and/or be gritty/smart/memorable. If it is none of those things, then mere curses and swearing towards each other aren't really quoteworthy. Modern quotations fall into this category because many people assume that just because a popular person says it, it's quoteworthy. I believe we should concentrate on what is being said rather than who is saying it. And this goes for everyone, whether it be Genghis Khan or Michael Jackson. Quotes are heavily weighed upon their meaning, not the way they sound. Recently, I have been adding an extensive amount of quotations and creating pages devoted to military people of the WWII era. Is it because I like those people only and add only just because they are saying it...absolutely not. It's because the things they say, the actual material is very historically enigmatic and very heavily memorable and smart. It also has climactic overtone to it. I'm not saying more modern people don't have good quotes, it's just that I don't know any that do. If my opinion matters, I'd say that almost none of the new singers, actors, etc. have said anything remotely quoteworthy per this guideline. I agree with BD2412's early comment when it comes to this ideology of quote-worthiness. Hope my input was helpful in deciphering a better style or format of maintaining as to what is quoteworthy and what isn't. - Zarbon 06:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting, Zarbon. - I don't want to give the impression that I think anything a famous person says is quoteworthy, and I absolutely agree that the substance of the quote itself is a strong factor to be considered. Thomas Jefferson's recitation of his grocery list, for example, should not be included; and even passages from Shakespeare must be culled to what we need (or else we may end up reciting the complete works). However, I do think the fame of the speaker should be taken into consideration. I'm sure there are plenty of non-notable men, for example, who have said the equivalent of "I did not have sex with that woman", but there is one instance that clearly impacted our culture, and we all know what it is without my naming the speaker. I suppose what I'm getting at is that the speaker puts a thumb on the scale, and so do the circumstances of the quote.
What I'm getting at is that we should have one set of criteria to determine whether a person should have an individual entry; and a second set of criteria to determine whether a specific quote should be included, in the individual's entry or in a theme entry covering a particular year or area of interest. I do think we should include, perhaps in an entry on 2007, "Don't tase me bro" because it entered the national consciousness (in the U.S., at least), even though the speaker is not particularly notable (aside from the quote). Cheers! BD2412 T 16:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
That's recentism. We should be looking for quotes that will still be as interesing in 10 years' time.--Poetlister 16:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

When I overhauled Never, I added a quote from King Lear. That was exactly how the quote appeared in the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Quotations. InvisibleSun [2] removed the second line and added a couple of lines preceding what I'd quoted. Would I have been justified in reverting him on the grounds that I had a reliable source that the quote should appear in that form?--Poetlister 16:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Poetlister brings up another important criteria here for judging what is justified in quoteworthiness. The second line that was removed, as Poetlister brought up that example, may not have had anything additive to the initial moral. Therefore, the initial removal may have been the best choice. The difficult decision here is the "quotations" of recent. By recent I am referring to the last 10 years, where regular comments have been considered as quotes. It's very hard to decipher what should be notable from 2007. I'm not sure if I'd even consider putting in anything just because of it's impact. Comical quotations are exactly what they intend to be: comical. However, just because they are funny, doesn't necessarily mean they are quoteworthy. As Poetlister pointed out, and I quote,: We should be looking for quotes that will still be interesing in 10 years' time. I can say that I honestly agree with that. And furthermore, I can add to it. We should be looking for quotes that will still be interesting in a thousand years' time. - Zarbon 16:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's one reason I'm so fervent about finishing the Wikiquote:Bartlett's 1919 Index - every quote in that book is at least a hundred years old, and most are several hundred years old (some are thousands). Perhaps what is called for here is an additional thumb on the scale in favor of quotes which have stood the test of time. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that most any pithy observation that we can quote from more than, say, a thousand years ago is inherently quotable. BD2412 T 17:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm working on a draft based on the above. Stay tuned. BD2412 T 12:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to add a different perspective here as the discussion strayed towards an individual's quote worthiness. I am here because of the TV quotes. Most of my formatting work has been on TV shows and in my spare time, now that I have found the link, I intend to work through as many clean-up and no-intro TV/Film pages as possible to clean them up. Does anything on TV or in films merit quotation? Is there a minimum time frame for TV/Film? I ask because I find that much of the writing from Joss Whedon's series of shows to be a wickedly delicious feast of witty language. I feel the same for much of the writing for House. However these are relatively young by comparison to the time-frame discussed for individuals. Neither example is close to the decade mark mentioned above.

On the other hand it saddens me that the page I see the most activity day-after-day is Barney & Friends. Maybe I'm being snobbish but I can't think of anything in a children's show which would be of any notability much less enough to generate, on some portions of some days, more edits than the rest of WQ combined. -- Greyed 16:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Greyed - TV and film quotes can sometimes be a problem here, as regular viewers of a show or rabid fans of a film tend to overquote their favorites. In past discussions on this, several informal points about TV show quotes in particular seem to stand out: first, we should limit the number of quotes per episode to avoid copyright concerns (generally this means no more than 8-9 per episode); second, the quote should not really be a transcript of an entire scene, but instead should capture the essence of what is memorable - in fact if all the surrounding lines and/or scene setting are needed, perhaps the quote is really not all that memorable; and third, that the quote should be pithy and able to stand on its own, even to someone that has never even seen the show. As for films, overquoting is not usually as much of an issue (but there are exceptions - see Monty Python and the Holy Grail as an example of a film that has definite issues with overquoting.
Bottom line is that most films or TV shows are fair game for quoting, provided they are not obscure or web-based (and thus probably not notable enough) and that their quotes are properly formatted and, for TV shows, that they adhere to the loose guidelines I outlined above. In the end, just as we probably need some ground rules for people pages, we also probably need to formalize the rules around TV and film pages. Oh, and yes it is interesting how much activity Barney & Friends generates, but there have been plenty of worthy shows that had as much if not more activity in building them to their current state. Hope this helps! ~ UDScott 17:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not aspiring to propose rules for quotations from films and movies - the idea I am aiming to put forth at this time is a set of rules governing biographical entries only. Of course, we do need guidelines for other media, but that's a later project to tackle. BD2412 T 19:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I had somewhere long ago stated that though I recognize a need for some agreed upon rules in nearly any human enterprise, I generally believe the rules which are actually necessary and absolutely helpful to any endeavor are usually very few, and am usually inclined to object to efforts to advance any guidelines or attempts at making absolute rules as something that should stand as "official policy." Though there are many worthy and steadfast aims and goals that might be embraced by anyone, maintaining much flexibility about many things rather than imposing an absolute rigidity about anything has usually been among my own primary concerns.

Though I am maintaining some daily activity here, my work on other things is currently much reducing time I can spend here. My own lack of interest in making rules has sometimes resulted in rules or guidelines arising which I perceive little or no point in having, and which are often detrimental or even contrary to those policies I would prefer to prevail. There are some I might eventually make comment upon, but others remain of but little interest to me one way or another. I had seen this discussion previously, but had not had time to attempt much comment upon it until now. There are nearly always numerous issues worthy of consideration in any debate, and very often many of these get neglected or forgotten.

I have very little interest in expanding or maintaining such rules as I for the most part consider unnecessary or overly constrictive, and attempts to clearly delineate any definition of "quotability" and make it a standard are among these.

One notable example from the arguments made above in the problems and conflicts that are inherent in attempting any absolute definition of "quotability" is where the notability of "Don't tase me, bro!" by Andrew Meyer was objected to as "recentism"; yet in a Reuters news report (20 December 2007) it is declared by Fred R. Shapiro, the editor of The Yale Book of Quotations that "Don't Tase Me, Bro" tops '07 memorable quote list, and I expect that it, as well as many such incidental remarks by the otherwise non-famous will remain notable to many in the decades to come.

I myself have little or no interest in most of the inane expressions which have been posted as quotes of professional wrestlers, or in many of the electronic games, cartoons and children shows, but I have not seen any need to impose my own interests and standards as those which others must use, and to categorically object to some of the pages for such quotes, as a few others have done. I have accepted that there should be better sourcing on many of these, which often effectively eliminates the rather casual efforts that have been made to add immense amounts of the trivial, and has resulted in the removal of much of it. When such pages have been up for deletion, I have usually had little interest in defending their inclusion, even when I would not have proposed them for deletion myself.

Personally, though I appreciate the value of both criticism and humor I am increasingly uninterested in much of the clearly notable commentary of professional comedians and cynics who in their fervor to attack others often have very little good to say about humanity, or many of the arts, sciences and religions which exist, but I don't object to others posting these, so long as they are actually posted in the proper places, and not zealously spread onto any page where they might conceivably be wedged in by some loose or tenuous association. Clearer rules or guidelines on what is or is not relevant to a page might be useful, but as I have stated previously, I doubt that any fair and absolute rules on the matter could easily be arrived at, and thus far have preferred to rely on consensus and "the common sense of most" when conflicts arise.

I applaud the present effort to add quotes from out-of-copyright collections of the past, which was one of my initial aims when I first began here, though I never pursued it in so methodical a manner as several editors are now engaging in. Yet, I strongly object to the idea that has been mentioned that a previous incident of quotation in some separate collection, essay or other published work should ever be among the criteria used to assess inclusion of a quotation here. Verifiable citing of an original or reliable source is a sufficient rule, and whether some of the quotes are notable enough to include might be a matter of discussion of interested editors on the talk pages, but whether or not one can find incidents of it being widely quoted should not be. I strongly feel we should not attempt to limit the project to providing familiar quotations, but we should aim at the provision of notable ones.

I do not consider it a great disaster that there is still much dross here that might be better ignored or forgotten. I do consider unfortunate that there is not far more which is precious and admirable included, and adding to that material remains a primary concern of my activities here, and allowing others to do so, to the extent it does not violate necessary legal concerns, a primary commitment. ~ Kalki 17:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"Don't tase me, bro" may well be a long-remembered quote, but that doesn't mean we need an entry on Andrew Meyer (who doesn't even rate an independent Wikipedia article). Perhaps (most likely, anyway) it belongs on a page about 2007 quotes that don't fit anywhere else. Really I'm not looking to set absolute rules so much as a set of guidelines that we can point to in explaining our decision not to include something. For example, as I mentioned above, we could transcribe into Wikiquote every line of each of Shakespeare's plays (no copyright concerns there, after all) as each such line is verifiably written by the most notable playwright of all time. Similarly, we could include the entire text of every president's speech, and every rambling of Charles Manson. And, if we don't put quotability on a scale with notability, we could include every word demonstrably uttered by Andrew Meyer, Joey Buttafuoco, Kato Kaelin, and any other schlub who managed to get into the national spotlight for fifteen minutes. We need to have some standards to prevent us from becoming either Wikisource or the Daily Dirt. BD2412 T 02:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Lots of great discussion here! I can't follow it all at the moment, but I'd like to argue that there's an equally valid reason not to include everything quotable from any subject, even when copyright isn't an issue. The more you put into a document, the less concise and special it is. A quote collection of Shakespeare that included the "best" 1,000 of his lines isn't very focused, just like an article on him that included all sorts of trivia and digressions wouldn't be good reading. From my days of both writing and critiquing student essays, I recall that one of the hardest things we have to learn is how to focus on the essentials in order to compose an excellent work. Our conversational nature tends to make us want to mention everything of interest on a subject, but we must fight that to stay focused on the most important points we want to communicate. That's even more critical — and challenging — when there are dozens or hundreds of contributors to an article. For quotes, we need to keep to a select set of lines that not only stand the test of time but also can be used in many situations. As Antoine de Saint Exupéry said, "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." (And we achieve that for Saint Exupéry's article by including only a few great lines like that one from his works, rather than trying to add every single original, pithy thing he ever wrote.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I am still working on formulating this - it is more complicated than I imagined, fitting all the parts together into a coherent whole. I should have a draft proposal ready in about a week. Cheers! BD2412 T 22:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

  • In Wikipedia, we have this quote: And I'm the one who will not raise taxes. My opponent now says he'll raise them as a last resort, or a third resort. But when a politician talks like that, you know that's one resort he'll be checking into. My opponent, my opponent won't rule out raising taxes. But I will. And the Congress will push me to raise taxes and I'll say no. And they'll push, and I'll say no, and they'll push again, and I'll say, to them, Read my lips: no new taxes.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_new_taxes.

    • But, here in Wikiquote, we have Read my lips: No new taxes!

(here: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Taxation) So, the question is, which is the more useful quote, and how do we decide? My vote is for completeness, with the more famous part highlighted. DOR 08:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

      • Agreed, and done. Cheers! BD2412 T 05:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Move to match WikipediaEdit

Under the guidelines for creating a new page there is a suggestion that a new page should, barring any other reason, match the title of the Wikipedia article for the same item. With that in mind would it be beyond the pale for editors who are trying to better organize WQ to tag pages which do not match for a move?

For example... WQ: Portal and WP: Portal (video game). -- Greyed 19:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Another example I think is Angel -> Angel (TV series)(w:Angel (TV series). See also Talk:Angel, thanks. --Aphaia 19:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Established editors can rename pages themselves. However, we can go too far in aligning with Wikipedia. Wikipedia may have many pages of the same name and must disambiguate them (say John Smith (astronaut), John Smith (cook), John Smith (poet), John Smith (soldier)). We only have a page for the poet; is there any need for us to call the page John Smith (poet)?--Cato 23:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it is the programmer in me but, yes. Because doing so sets precedence for later naming convention of John Smith (playright), John Smith (author), John Smith (politician) and John Smith (musician). The idea of naming conventions is not so they play nice by themselves, it is so they place nice with past and possible future additions. -- Greyed 23:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is that sometimes WP articles are renamed after an ambiguity is discovered. Do we need to rename the WQ page then? --Ubiquity 15:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

My gut reaction is yes. This is because WP has the larger name space so name conflicts there are something of a predictor of possible name conflicts here. But it need not in real time. In fact it should not be in real time. This is a wiki after all. If the WP page moves and the WQ page does not move until someone notices, no problem. However, if someone notices and wants to take the initiative to mark it for a move I believe that is a behavior that should be encouraged. -- Greyed 16:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
That is my thinking also. The biggest benefit to making our pages match will be that our regular editors will start an entry with the correct title and save time (and possible confusion) later if another entry with the same name is started here. But no real harm is done if they don't match for awhile. As you point out, sooner or later someone will notice and fix it. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

As long as we stay newbie friendly, I think making the titles match is an good idea. I don't think that checking Wikipedia for the "correct" title for an entry should be seen as a requirement for starting a page. Also, since we have limited volunteer hours, focusing on re-naming entries where there is not a conflict should not be a main priority. But having the regular editors here know the preferred name scheme will save time in the long run since these entries will not need to be fixed later. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

We do have a few articles where there is no Wikipedia article, and I'd oppose a policy that there must be a Wikipedia article before we have one. It is conceivable that we'd have a disambiguation problem that Wikipedia does not.--Poetlister 16:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Good point. It is possible that we could end up with a naming conflict that Wikipedia does not have. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure where that came from, Poetlister. The current convention is that if there is a WP article its name should be preferred when creating a WQ article. Noone has suggested that WP must have an article prior to a WQ article being created. -- Greyed 17:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand. All I'm saying is that WQ has and will continue to have articles without WP counterparts, which makes aligning our names 100% with Wikipedia tricky.--Poetlister 18:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute, folks. I think we're misreading Help:Starting a new page to begin with. I see nothing in that page that says new Wikiquote articles should necessarily match existing Wikipedia articles, and I know it hasn't been our practice to make this happen just for form's sake. What I do see are two points made in several places:

  1. Wikiquote generally follows Wikipedia article naming practices. But the context is for capitalization and official versions of names, not for disambiguation. In fact, we do follow Wikipedia's general policy on disambiguation: don't do it unless and until it's needed. We just don't need it 90% of the time, compared to Wikipedia.
  2. If there's a corresponding Wikipedia article, add a {{wikiquote}} tag to the WP article. Of course, this assumes the article titles match, but it's trivial to add the correct WQ title (e.g., {{wikiquote|John Smith}}). We probably should include a note about doing that if the titles don't match.

I think this convention has worked pretty well so far, so I see no need to change it. But in situations where the unqualified name might cause confusion (e.g., Angel or Heroes), it's not unreasonable to pre-emptively disambiguate. I think Wikipedia suggests this, too. (Our practice of using plural countable nouns for theme articles could be considered to make "Angels" the official theme for the supernatural entity and "Angel" clearly the TV show, but not everyone gets the countable-noun distinction, and avoiding confusion is also important.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that our convention follows Wikipedia for style not for disambiguation. I think we should, however, disambig from the outset common words used as TV show/movie titles (for example Dogma). BD2412 T 06:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Dogma is a good example of a title that should be dab'd right away. Since "dogma" can be either a countable noun ("different dogmas") or mass noun ("preaching dogma"), we can't rely on the plural to make the distinction between concept and film, and far more people know what dogma is than have seen or heard of Dogma the film. We should either create a theme article for "dogma" with dab links between the two, or at least move the current one to Dogma (film). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we should preemptively disambiguate all of them - Dogma, Angel, Heroes, Popular, Bleach, etc. Even if we're never likely to have an article under one of those names, we should still be clear that the meaning of our entry is not the most common meaning. BD2412 T 22:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Um, would anyone object if I just went ahead and did this? BD2412 T 18:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't but I guess that could be surmised by my having brought up this issue as I was considering marking them for moves as I found them and was casting about for a consensus standard to follow. -- Greyed 18:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I've moved this bunch. Will search for more later. BD2412 T 05:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Last modified on 29 March 2008, at 05:11