Wikiquote:Village pump archive 23


From May till July 2008, originally posted to Wikiquote:Village pump.

Village pump archive 23Edit

Case citationsEdit

Greetings all. I would appreciate if citations to quotes from legal cases were generally laid out according to the shorter format in Wikipedia's case citation article. The sourcing of such quotes will probably be of most interest to lawyers, who would benefit from the use of that citation form. Cheers! BD2412 T 05:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you add a note & link to Wikiquote:Citing sources, or at least mention this on its talk page? If and when we get around to cleaning that up, it'd be useful to remember this special situation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'll make it prescriptive, then! ;-) BD2412 T 16:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Monty Python and the Holy Grail againEdit

In February we replaced a fatty version (60KB+) with the trimmed one:

  1. (cur) (last) 09:32, 1 March 2008 DragonBot (Talk | contribs | block) m (33,443 bytes) (robot Adding: it:Monty Python e il Sacro Graal, nl:Monty Python and the Holy Grail) (undo)
  2. (cur) (last) 05:53, 29 February 2008 Aphaia (Talk | contribs | block) m (Monty Python and the Holy Grail/temp moved to Monty Python and the Holy Grail: replaced with current - copyvio-suspected version (over 60KB+), based on discussion at WQ:VP#Monty Python and the Holy Grail) (undo)
  3. (cur) (last) 15:09, 28 February 2008 Link 486 (Talk | contribs | block) (60,532 bytes) (→The Black Knight) (undo)

Now it has becomes fatty again ... and has exceeded the previous size.

  1. (cur) (last) 14:59, 1 May 2008 SamuraiMaster (Talk | contribs | block) (60,617 bytes) (→Tim the Enchanter) (rollback | undo)

I think we need to reverted it to the earlier version and semi protected too? Also the user SamuraiMaster should be persuaded, since he is no newbie and therefore semi-protection doesn't prevent him to edit (and the current increasing is largely based on his edits).

Thought? --Aphaia 17:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

In general, I don't like repeated reversion to older versions. But I've supported it in the past, and do so here again, in order to stem irrepressible mass additions by editors who refuse to accept that we cannot allow Wikiquote articles to become fan archives of copyvio material. I feel we are heading toward establishing a necessary practice of identifying and blocking (at least temporarily) registered users based on their refusal to accept the need to limit quotations to small but pithy subsets of material. The community would be much better served if we had 10 or 100 times the number of selective editors making an effort to keep our articles focused. But until we achieve this, I fear that the dozen or so editors who actively work to prevent copyvio are being drafted by the community's negligence into becoming content arbiters of many popular articles. Until we get everyone on board with the idea of Saint-Exupérian perfection ("nothing left to take away"), we seem to have little choice. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Where is the policy page about this. We can't go on blocking people if there isn't one. --Steinninn 04:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I personal think it may falls onto "disruption" clause, but we have also "elastic clause"; if the community, or conventionally the majority of the community think blocking is the last mean to improve the situation, it may be applicable. --Aphaia 09:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I restored the older and trimmed version and semiprotected the page. The user who has recently been active was notified. Let's see what happens. --Aphaia 09:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Changing username and Wikiquote:Changing username/Usurpation trialEdit

I, and Poetlister have discussed on Wikiquote:Changing username formulation (thanks to Cbrown1023 who initiated the original draft), and seems it is going to set out.

Now we have requests not in a bulk but already some regularly, and it may increase after SUL become no sysop-only privilege.

I hope we start test runs of those pages (both WQ:CHU and WQ:CHU/U) very soon, and finalize the policies before we accept more requests.

If no radical change is needed, I personally hope to start the test run this week, and therefore to accept requests on those pages, not on WQ:AN as we do so right now. I think trial period may last one month or more, as long as we accept requests in the current pace (1 or 2 in a week).

Please give looks to WQ:CHU and WQ:CHU/U. Your comments will be welcome  :) --Aphaia 09:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

awful pageEdit

The Last Mimzy is the worst page i have seen and i would like to make this known. i cannot fathom why any of the quotes are there, why the pictures are there, why it deserves a page in the first page or anything. i would just do an afd or tag it or something but it's just awful and i want some opinions on this.

I find this surprising, but if you want to move an AfD, the procedure is explained here.--Poetlister 22:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorting of quotes by theme on people pagesEdit

Once again, I would like to invite discussion on this topic - and I do believe that we need to make this more official, whether on the template or in a policy since this subject seems to resurface every so often. There are a number of pages where the quotes (either under Sourced or Unsourced) are divided into themes or subjects. I believe this is not the best way to present the quotes since it inherently introduces a POV to the page. Please see User_talk:UDScott#Leona_Lewis for the latest discussion I am having on this. I know this has been discussed in the past a few times, so this is why I feel we need to form some consensus on this issue and formalize it. ~ UDScott 12:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

And in doing so, please help less experienced editors like myself understand how subdivisions are inherently POV (eg Leona Lewis). My current position is that themed subdivisions, implemented correctly, help frame a persons life and work much better, but as with most things, it's open to abuse. ~ eon 18:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The choice of quotes by and about someone, inclusions and exclusions, may itself exhibit NPOV. An obvious way that headers can cause problems is by giving a cxommentary. For example, every slip might be in a section "John Smith makes an idiot of himself", or everything deviating from certain political views could be "Support for Communism/Nazism". I would delete anything like that immediately.--Poetlister 16:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Another difficulty with sorting by theme (as well as using Reflist) is that it makes copyright violation less apparent by not having all quotes from one source in the same place. An example is on the Sam Harris page, where 60 quotes are now referenced as being from The End of Faith; and yet the formatting hides this problem. - InvisibleSun 23:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a very valid point.--Poetlister 18:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible vandalismEdit

After seeing an Afd on Wikipedia for Alice Bogard it seems possible that the quotes here at Alice Bogard may also be vandalism. Looking at these contributions it may be possible all of those IP edits are vandalism. Is rollback effective over here? If it is someone may want to look into it. I'll keep you guys posted on the Afd. Stepshep 04:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

From the Afd at Wikipedia I'd say all of the quotes by "Alice Bogard" are frauds. I'll remove them; if someone could just delete the main Alice page afterwards. Thanks. Stepshep 18:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Who said that?Edit

I am suprised there appears to be no capability for searching for a quotation by a named individual. Maybe I am missing something. If so it is only because the link, if any, is very cleverly concealed.

You use the search box in the left-hand margin. To find quotes by say Tony Blair, just type Tony Blair in that box and click on Go.--Cato 21:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

One notable person speaking about anotherEdit

When one notable person speaks about another notable person, is it standard practice to include the quotation in both articles? For example, I see a quotation by Churchill about Hitler is included both places. Is there a policy or guideline about this? Will Beback 20:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no problem with having a quote in two places. This often happens with theme articles such as articles about animals. I consider it desirable, as it assists browsers.--Cato 21:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Cato. One example can be found at Leo Tolstoy and Friedrich Nietzsche if I recall correctly. --Aphaia 11:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

My importing reportEdit

I have fully imported the edit history from Wikipedia of many pages prefixed "Transwiki:American history" and added Category:History. If you who are also a Wikipedia admin, you will be able to compare the history there with my imported one and see my efforts. As I see more pages prefixed "Transwiki" other than American history quotes and I do not remember importing their full edit history, I will check them on Wikipedia later. If you notice a candidate to be moved from any other Wiki sites, not just English Wikipedia, to this site, please leave a message to my talk page or through email link and I will see your talk quickly. Thanks to all who have supported my importing right.--Jusjih 01:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Quotes about the PersonEdit

Can I make a section that has quotes about the person? (Red4tribe 23:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

Yes, it is standard to have "Quotes about —" sections on many of the pages, but please do not use footnote citations for the quotes, as interlinear citations are the standard format here. ~ Kalki 23:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


How can I fix the spaces between the quotes on this page William the Silent? It is very, sort of, disorginized. (Red4tribe 00:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC))

I fixed some of the format problems on the page by eliminating the "false" paragraph breaks which were splitting up some paragraphs. ~ Zorro 00:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks (Red4tribe 00:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC))

Sourced quote removal as vandalismEdit

I am extremely troubled by the perception of some editors, including at least two admins here, that selective removal of sourced quotes (rather than section or page blanking) should necessarily be considered vandalism. (See Talk:Matt Sanchez#Stop this edit war please! for the discussion that motivates my post here.) Such an attitude flies in the face of Wikiquote:Assume good faith and ignores explicit instructions in Wikiquote:Vandalism:

Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the project. The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, page blanking, or the insertion of other wholly irrelevant content.
Any good-faith effort to improve the project, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikiquote.

Many of us have routinely reverted deletion of sections or pages without explanation as vandalism, especially from editors (often anonymous) who have done nothing but such deletions. But that is completely different from situations where editors are arguing whether a set of quotes specified by some trait (in the case of the Sanchez article, sourced from blogs of debatable notability and/or reliability) are worthy of inclusion. The second paragraph quoted above leaves no room to call even the most contentious argument not against specific Wikiquote policy "vandalism".

For me, the last straw was when Poetlister, in agreeing with some wording of Cato in the cited article talk page, said that "we have always regarded the removal of properly sourced and valid quotes as vandalism". I've been here much longer than either of them, and I at least have never agreed to this, nor do I recall any debate in any forum where this supposed practice was decided, let alone a policy established. (And remember, I'm the project pedant who peppers his posts with links to years' worth of old discussions. And sorry for the inadvertent alliteration.) Furthermore, there is no greater proponent for reliably sourced quotes here than I. But proper sourcing does not nail a quote into an article. There are many other inclusion considerations.

I find it outrageous that some of our admins might feel comfortable treating explicitly reasoned, selective removal (even if the community eventually decides the basis to be uncompelling) as if it were mere vandalism. Such arguments are content disputes. In the middle of a content dispute with specific reasons given, no one should be talking about "vandalism", especially not admins, who carry the authority of members voted especially trustworthy by the community. Editing against consensus (which for the Sanchez article has not yet been established among the five primary participants) could result in a temporary block for disruption or using the elastic clause, for refusal to abide by a community decision — but not for vandalism. I see people far too ready to call edits they don't agree with "vandalism", when we (like Wikipedia) make a substantial attempt to draw a clear line between obvious defacement and edits of dubious value.

I'd like to hear from the general community on this. I confess I haven't been engaged with much of the anti-vandalism and deletion efforts for the past year, except where they involve CheckUser actions. But am I so out of touch with these things that I haven't noticed people routinely treating selective deletions with specific edit summaries as vandalism because they disagree with the summaries? Or that we have decided somewhere that if a quote is specifically sourced, it must stay in an article, and removing it should be considered vandalism? Please comment. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with everything Jeffq says above. 121a0012 02:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I also agree with Jeff's statements above. I think we are sometimes a bit too quick to assign the label of vandal to users that may thoughtfully delete sourced quotes - in fact, I could be called such when I cull quotes from various TV show pages in trying to keep to a limit of 5 per episode to avoid copyright issues. I wouldn't expect to have my changes in these cases called vandalism, but the principle still applies. I would only label something as vandalism that does not show evidence of thought or provide justification for the removal. I appreciate that this can be a knee-jerk reaction to people removing sourced quotes, but we are not really in the business of including everything a person says, even if a given quote can be completely sourced and is considered accurate and valid. ~ UDScott 14:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand what "accurate" means, but as for the meaning of "valid" it seems unclear to me what exactly you have in mind, so you might want to elaborate. I think that if we replace the word "valid" (which seems too generic) with the word "notable", then yes, I think we should say that we're in the business of including everything that is accurate + notable + non-copyvio, but of course this doesn't say all that much, because it's just moving the issue of what should be included to the definition of the word "notable", and I doubt that there could be a single definition that covers all cases, so we're still left with looking at it on a case by case basis. iddo999 20:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I also completely agree with Jeff. I think that it's better to reserve the 'vandalism' label only for the trivially obvious cases (say, replacing the entire article with a single word), and everything that isn't obviously malevolent should fall under the 'content dispute' label. In fact, I never ever use the automatic revert button that admins have for content disputes, and instead always use a manual edit summary for such reverts. That being said, I think that it would be useful to clarify by separating this issue into two: one issue is the 'vandalism' label itself, which I think we should reject, but labeling is a rather minor issue anyway, and the other issue is the substantive issue regarding what kind of sourced quotes shouldn't be deleted. iddo999 20:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I am very sorry that people are quoting me out of context. What I said was "On Cato's point, we have always regarded the removal of properly sourced and valid quotes as vandalism. If it is the consensus of editors that the quotes here are properly sourced and valid, then I would regard an editor who keeps removing them against consensus as a vandal. If, say, someone were to remove quotes from the Shakespeare page because he maintained that Shakespeare did not write them, that might well be vandalism." I repeat what Jeff himself said: Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the project. Vandalism is not just blanking the page or inserting rubbish. That is why we have {{Test2a}} as well as {{Test2}}. If I find any editor removing large chunks of a page, not for reasons of copyvio but for frivolous reasons or no reasons at all, I shall revert them and possibly leave {{Test2a}} on their talk page, and I would hope that all admins would. If the editor then gives plausible reasons, then of course either I shall agree or I shall regard it as a content dispute.--Poetlister 21:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "would regard an editor who keeps removing them against consensus as a vandal" seems reasonable, assuming that the consensus is clear. If the consensus isn't clear, then an editor who removes such quotes may very well be doing something wrong and should be reverted, but I object to labeling him a "vandal". Even in the first case I'd prefer to use a weaker word than "vandal" (something like "uncooperative" or "disobliging"), but maybe that's just nitpicking... As I mentioned above, the use of the word "valid" without any further explanation of what you mean doesn't seem to carry any information, because the word "valid" is too generic. The word "notable" implies something like "interesting", so that word makes it a little more clear what we're arguing about... iddo999 23:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe the additional context that Poetlister quotes above excuses the use of the term "vandalism". Even sourced quotes may be removed because their sources are suspect (e.g., blogs [1], discussion forums, Usenet posts without authorship verification, etc.); because they are inane, unoriginal, or unsuitable for textual citation[2]; because they aren't pithy but just ordinary opinions [3] (Wikiquote is supposed to be a collection of excellent quotes, not mere position statements); etc. So the statement that "we have always regarded the removal of properly sourced and valid quotes as vandalism" is overbroad at best, even assuming we had an unambiguous definition of "valid". (And please forgive me citing my own edits, but I am just about the only one here backing up my statements with specific evidence and precedents, and I can more readily find such information in my own contributions list.)
Treating an editor going against consensus as a "vandal" is totally inappropriate. They are at most disrupters for failing to work with the community, and such a judgment wasn't even on the horizon, let alone decided, when the "vandalism" spectre was raised. Vandalism is textual graffiti or blanking of large sections, not selective, reasoned removals. The reasons do not have to be ultimately accepted by the community, but even if they aren't, they still aren't vandalism. For the third time now, Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the project. Even if Slivowitz is trying to push a personal agenda by removing the quotes (which wouldn't dismiss my similar objections), that is not an attempt to compromise Wikiquote's integrity; it's a belief, right or wrong, that blog quotes added by someone with a clear conflict of interest are undesirable. It is not the same as corrupting articles with bad information or deleting quotes for "frivolous reasons or no reasons at all". Even if the disputed blog quotes are ultimately accepted, the issue should be resolved as a content dispute, not anti-vandalism work. I have serious qualms about any editor (and especially admin) who does not acknowledge the fundamental difference here, which has been an important principle at Wikipedia even longer than here.
(By the way, the whole question of blogs-as-a-reliable-source, a central part of the article discussion involved in this situation, is an important but separate issue, so I've raised it below.)
The problem I see is that of experienced editors, especially admins, putting the weight of their substantial respect from the community behind imprecise or even incorrect statements. Cato's ([4],[5]) and Yehudi's ([6]) edits to the article and talk pages, respectively, clearly implied that removing sourced quotes, even with rationales explictly stated in edit summaries and on the article talk page, required a consensus, while restoring them did not. This is not an equitable discussion, but a clear position on the "proper" content, especially when coming from an admin. It assumes that whatever is in the article should be there, even though that issue was under discussion and had yet to achieve a consensus. It also put Cato and Yehudi in the awkward position of contradicting w:WP:SELFPUB's "primary basis" argument against Bluemarine's addition of the blog material, and as inadequate as it is, WP:SELFPUB is the closest thing we have to an actual policy to cite. In fact, Slivowitz was trying to remedy this, repeatedly citing "self-promotion" as the rationale, and his reward was being told that his effort could be construed as vandalism. (See the "Blogs as reliable sources" discussion below.)
Poetlister is correct that the recent VfD on this article showed that the community accepted the article even though it was largely written by the subject, but a careful review of the actual discussion should dissuade anyone from trying to draw larger conclusions from this acceptance. There was a lot of discussion about the participants, which is irrelevant unless we're enforcing conflict-of-interest or agenda-pushing prevention, and if so, should apply to both Slivowitz and Bluemarine, effectively bringing the article back down to a slimmed form from inarguably reliable sources. Many questions were asked, but few if any were definitively answered. I don't believe we can assume that community acceptance of the existence of this article implies that its state during the VfD is somehow sacrosanct, and I think the discussion details bear me out.
So I'm back to my concern that all four admins involved in the article talk-page discussion (myself included) are using their opinions about informal practices not borne out by any cited policies or guidelines (except some half-hearted attempts by me) to push the article to one state or another, and in some cases are backing up these changes by suggesting that disagreeing with their position requires a consensus (while their actions do not) and that Slivowitz's repeated efforts to remove quotes for a clearly cited (if not as helpfully argued) reason may earn him a "vandal" label. Slivowitz is suspected of lying about his interest in this topic, which can be a basis for considering him disruptive, but I object vehemently to suggesting that he might be a vandal, especially given our own less-than-clean hands on this issue. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It would really be helpful if Jeff replied to what I said, not what he thinks for argument's sake I might have said. I explicitly referred to "properly sourced and valid quotes". Obviously, if the sources are dubious then they are not properly sourced. If the quotes are inane, etc. then they are not valid (unless he has a different definition of "valid"). If he prefers, I could use some phrase like "suitable for WQ". If disrupting the project is not within our definition of vandalism, maybe we should change our definition. Let's take a hypothetical example: suppose someone didn't like the word "green" and removed every quote with that word in, however well sourced or valid it was. Is that or it that not vandalism? And I stress that I am making general points; I have not addressed the specific issues surrounding Matt Sanchez, nor do I intend to unless specifically requested. If Jeff has qualms, I have qualms about an admin who adopts an overly narrow definition of vandalism, and who argues by misrepresenting what I have said.

Yes, removing (I repeat my exact words) properly sourced and valid quotes requires justification, and the burden of proof is on the editor doing so. Proof that the sources are not adequate is good justification. If the rationale for removal is not adequate, then the removal should be reverted. Jeff seems to be saying that two admins are incapable of deciding whether the rationale is adequate. Isn't that why we have admins, to decide things like that? Or is Jeff suggesting that every time someone removes quotes from an article we need to discuss on the talk page before reverting?

On the VfD, I do not assert that it requires the article to be frozen forever. Indeed, it has been amended slightly since the VfD.

I believe that my views are entirely consistent with the WQ policies, on vandalism and otherwise.--Poetlister 11:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

In your example, someone who removes all quotes with the word "green" is indeed a vandal. The simple distinction is that such a vandal didn't even attempt to argue that the quotes that he's removing are not "valid" for wikiquote, while and editor who does try to convince you that the quotes that he's deleting aren't "valid" according to some rationale (as is Slivowitz in this case) may or may not be wrong, but he isn't a vandal (though he would be disruptive/vandal if he fails to convince and refuses - repeatedly - to follow the consensus). If instead of ignoring my request to stop using word "valid" you would have used a word that carries information such as "notable", your example would be about an editor who deletes all quotes with the word "green" because they aren't "notable", which would make it a ridiculous example, and this should be a hint for you regarding why it's better not to use generic words like "valid" without elaborating on their meaning when you construct your argument. So why have everybody try to second-guess what you're saying, instead of having your argument presented unambiguously by explaining what you mean by "valid" as well as what you're basing your definition of "valid" on?
I disagree with two other points that you're making: (1) I think that removing a quote "requires justification" in the same way that keeping a quote requires justification, i.e. the burden of proof falls both on the editors who argue why quote should stay as well as editors who argue why the quote should be deleted. Suppose some lunatic escapes from an asylum, finds internet access, and starts adding all sorts of quotes here. It's unreasonable to have the burden of proof fall only on the editors who delete his quotes (they might have to spend huge amount of time verfiying that his sources are contrived, or that what he claims to be notable only exists in his imagination, etc.) And (2), I disagree that "we have admins to decide things like that", I think that such decisions should be made by the entire wikiquote community (i.e. everyone who chooses to participate in the relevant talk page, though opinions of anonymous users should have less weight than opinions of established editors, and so on). After a consensus is reached, an admin should enforce it in case some disruptive editor refuses to adhere to the consensus, but that's pretty much all of the admins role in this case imho. BTW I think the same is true for wikiquote guidelines, i.e. all editors are allowed to participate in the discussion of what the guidelines should be, and opinions of admins aren't more important? iddo999 14:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Suppose then that the "green" vandal did make some argument. Suppose he said in every case that the sources were not valid (T. S. Eliot's Collected Poems is a self-published book because he was a director of Faber & Faber hence it is not a reliable source), or even that they were part of some self-promotion exercise by a Mr. Green? Does he cease to be a vandal because he makes an argument that would be rejected by any admin or experienced editor? That is "angels on the head of a pin" logic. I have said clearly what I mean by "valid" - "suitable for WQ". Admittedly, we do not have cast-iron rules to define suitability, but we all know what it means.

My argument is that removing a valid quote, using the definition I have just given, requires a good reason. I express no opinion about whether any of the quotes in the Matt Sanchez article are valid, but other editors seem to think they are and Slivowitz' claim that they are self-promotion does not seem to me to be a reason to dissent. There is a claim that some of the sources are unreliable, but this seems to be refuted by Slivowitz' own contention that they are by Sanchez. If he considers that any of the quotes are not by Sanchez, that would be a valid argument. If he argues that some of the quotes are low quality, that can be debated.

The lunatic is a straw man. If anyone, lunatic or not, adds quotes which stand up to scrutiny by other editors, they should stay. If they are unsourced or badly sourced rubbish, then of course they should be removed.

OK, decisions should be made by the entire community. I don't think that any non-admins other than Slivowitz and Bluemarine himself have edited the talk page, but I hope they will. However, both there and in deciding policy, it is inevitable that a consensus of admins is unlikely to be outweighed by large numbers of other established editors.--Poetlister 21:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If upon investigation it's discovered that Mr. Green's made fabricated or frivolous arguments, while his true motivation was to simply delete all quotes with the word "green" in them, then yes, post priori we would know that he's a vandal, but a priori (i.e. before the true nature of his arguments is clear) he shouldn't be labelled a vandal.
Suppose the lunatic reverts back his quotes after you removed them, and tells you that his quotes are valid and that the burden of proof for explaining why you removed the quotes falls on you, and that you are hereby required to provide a good reason for each quote that you wish to remove. Now what do you do? I don't see why Mr. Green is less of a strawman than Mr. lunatic, in fact both cases (Mr. Green removing quotes vs. Mr. lunatic adding quotes) seem to me to be symmetric in terms of the amount of work that experienced editors should do to defuse them. iddo999 23:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I really don't think we're getting anywhere. If the community wants to go down the sort of path that some people do, it's up to them. All I can do is warn strongly against it.--Poetlister 19:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I owe Poetlister an apology for letting her take the flak when all she did was accept my decision. I honestly believe that I have done the right thing, and if people disagree I am open to recall.--Yehudi 08:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Your sweeping statement "The onus is on the person seeking to make changes to obtain consensus." seems false to me, as I tried to explain above. It may or may not be true in specific cases such as this one, but imho not as an unqualified guideline. I think it contradicts the 'be bold' guideline, so maybe you better replace it with some type of a more qualified statement that fits this particular case. iddo999 09:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Formating ProblemEdit

I'm having a little trouble with this page again, I tried making everything the same but I'm not sure what is wrong. William the Silent Does anyone know?(Red4tribe 03:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC))

I've corrected the problem. It's what sometimes happens when copying and pasting quotes: the words in the quotes end up with long gaps between them, causing broken lines. A single-paragraph quote will read as multiple paragraphs because of the line breaks. This then disrupts the correct formatting of the quotes. When you're about to send a completed edit, you can look over the edit to see if there are any of these gaps between the words. - InvisibleSun 04:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
ThanksRed4tribe 04:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Blogs as reliable sourcesEdit

A central issue in the heated discussion occurring at Talk:Matt Sanchez#Removal of self-promotional quotes Sanchez placed here is the idea that "a blog is a reliable source about the author of the blog", as Yehudi has put it. I believe this is an inaccurate extrapolation of w:WP:SELFPUB, which allows some material from blogs and other self-publications under a set of specific conditions. Many of those conditions aren't especially relevant for Wikiquote, as we're after exact quotes and not factual assertions anyway, but at least two elements are quite relevant:

  • there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it
  • the article is not based primarily on such sources

(But don't take my word for it. Please review it yourselves; it's short.) Because of these sticking points at least, I maintain that blogs cannot be assumed to be reliable sources. I would say that a blog is at best a reliable source for the blog, not for the author, who may or may not be who they claim to be. (Even this is arguable, as there is no assumption of responsibility that the contents of the blog won't change from moment to moment; i.e., retroactive redaction.) Bloggers, like Usenet posters, bloggers, discussion-forum participants, and media uploaders, can and often do claim to be someone other than who they are.

The primary rationale for reliable sources on Wikiquote (like Wikipedia) is that we cannot trust just anything we read. We must have people and/or organizations with professional reputations on the line backing up their assertions that so-and-so said whatever-and-such. When prints a quote from Paul McCartney, we know only that Time magazine has asserted that McCartney said this. (We also have their international reputation and readership to protect against ex post facto redaction.) Their assertions could be wrong, but it's the line in the sand that we and other Wikimedia projects draw in order to verify material. On the other hand, the only certain thing you can say about "Bernadette of The Bernadette Blog" (to use a favorite example of mine from Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip) is that someone calling herself "Bernadette" posted something to a weblog at some web address at some point in time (assuming the weblog software is reporting the date/time correctly — or at all). We don't know if she's "Bernadette", or even if she's a "she". Weblog sites exist to promote blogging, not to confirm authorship or factual statements, including assertion of quote origin. (There's hardly a famous quote I've looked up for the reference desk that wasn't also claimed by several bloggers.) I'm sure you'll find in every significant weblog host's Terms & Conditions an mass of legalese that boils down to "we don't take any responsibility for any claims made on this site".

I believe there are situations where we can treat blogs as primary sources for quotes. One I tried to postulate, not necessarily condone, at "Talk:Matt Sanchez" was a hypothetical blog that an inarguably reliable source cited as Sanchez's blog, which would mean the reliable source had put their reputation behind confirming that this blog was written by the Matt Sanchez in their own article. I stress that this does not absolutely guarantee they're right — even professional publishers can make mistakes — but such sources are treated as "good enough" for Wikimedia, and Wikiquote might allow this extrapolation to justify quoting from the identified blog. (The issue of the article being based primarily on such material remains, and in fact was a major factor in the paring down of the Sanchez article, as he presented a conflict of interest by quoting his putative blogs and columns for more than half the article, a state that remains today courtesy of Yehudi and Cato's insistence that these quotes must not be deleted. In fact, Bluemarine must be commended for staying out of the article editing since his original additions.)

The problem we have, however, is that we actually have no policy or even regular practice. (WP:SELFPUB isn't sufficiently relevant to be assumed for our purposes, and if it were, the article would be in violation of the last point, and my attempt to fulfill the penultimate one was rather tortuous and open to extreme abuse by many other bloggers.) Unfortunately, we have plenty of differing opinions, some of which are being enforced as if they are policy or practice. This is unacceptable. We must formulate a Wikiquote position on self-published material after identifying and discussing all the issues (including, in addition to the above, the very real potential for a tide of bloggers like "Bernadette of The Bernadette Blog" creating their own Wikiquote articles just because they got a mention in a reliable publication), and only then establishing a clear policy. I ask for community input on getting this process rolling, since it doesn't seem like we can avoid addressing this increasing popular medium much longer. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This is rather a side issue regarding Matt Sanchez. Slivowitz is not suggesting that Matt is not the author of the blog posts. On the contrary, he is insisting that Matt is. I agree that in general we need to be sure that the person is the author of the blog.--Poetlister 10:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
How do we make sure that a person is the author of a blog? iddo999 14:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
That has to be done on a case by case basis. However, nobody is suggesting that Sanchez is not the author of the blogs in question.--Poetlister 21:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
But how can it be done at all? iddo999 23:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The same way you can (or in some cases, cannot) be sure that a person is the author of any other written work: by examining the totality of the evidence. How do you become certain that Charlie's diary is in fact the blog of SF writer Charles Stross and not some other guy? You look at the content, look at references from other places and in other media, and make a conclusion on the preponderance of the evidence. The mode of publication is not relevant to this determination; it is just as necessary to determine whether two commercially-published books by "John Smith" are in fact works of the same individual. (And, of course, in some cases it will not be possible to make such a determination; ghostwriting is not just for memoirs.) 121a0012 06:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


Currently, we have 96 pages in the category Pages which need their copyright status checked, most of which appear to be TV shows. Does anyone want to help get the level of quotes down to an acceptable level? No more than five quotes per episode would be a start. Will {talk) 00:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been working on this topic for a while on some of the larger pages, but definitely help is needed to keep up with it. I would also like to raise the issue again that the limit of 5 quotes per episode (which I agree with) seems to just be a consensus opinion and has yet to be codified into any official policy. I think this is needed and once done, the template for TV shows should also be revised to reflect this (with a note pointing to the policy). I realize that this will not necessarily stop overquoting of shows, but it would be nice to have something official to cite to those users who insist on adding too many quotes. ~ UDScott 12:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I usually refrain from getting involved in the making of rules, as I generally prefer avoiding the codification of most rules (and their related assumptions) in an absolute way, but could concede that such a rule should probably be established as an official advisory or guideline, and where disputes arose there would have to be a consensus to keep more than such a number in any episode under dispute. ~ Kalki 14:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
That's fine Kalki - I don't really want to be too rigid in this, but I just feel that we need to have something a bit more than just some opinions floating around in a few discussion threads, as we do now. I would just like to see something that can be cited when trimming efforts are disputed or to discourage people from loading up TV show pages with too many quotes. ~ UDScott 16:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Copyrights already says "Based on criterion number three, one must consider the proportionality of the quotation to the work as a whole. If the quotations which are taken from a copyrighted work are not a very small amount compared to the copyrighted work as a whole, their use will likely not be "fair use"." I think that already covers the situation, but we could add something like "As a rule of thumb, it would be strongly discouraged to have more than five short quotes from one TV programme".--Poetlister 19:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that does cover this in a general sense, but how does one define what is a "very small amount" (it would likely be different for each user, especially for heavy fans of a show)? We have had discussions over the past year or two about this, specifically in the context of TV shows where the problem seems to be rampant (as you can see by the number of such pages with their copyright status called into question). The number of 5 per episode has been discussed and even informally agreed to, but never fully captured anywhere or socialized. That is what I am seeking - and have brought up before. ~ UDScott 20:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, these discussion go back several years. I recommend everyone read Wikiquote talk:Copyrights and follow the links to even earlier discussions, where some of these practices, their benefits, and their drawbacks have been discussed. In particular, Fastfission and I (with support from MosheZadka, iddo999, et al) had a substantive argument about the dangers of a Seinfeld-like situation, where a quote publisher was successfully sued for printing what turns out to be only 1 quote per 3 episodes, or a mere 6% of even our most stringent informal practice.
Two developments since that discussion are important to note. One is that Wikimedia Foundation members and other major players in the Wikimedia world have discussed spinning off or even closing down all Wikiquotes because they are inherently non-free-use, which is not in keeping with one of the overarching philosophies of Wikimedia. (I have no immediate links, as I was not a party to any of these discussions [that I recall], but one can examine at least the 2007 Board election candidates' statements to see how the wind is blowing.)
Second, and related to these and other discussions about ruthlessly reducing or even eliminating non-free material, is the creation of the Exemption Doctrine Policy, a per-project declaration of how each Wikimedia project works to incorporate limited copyrighted material in a manner compatible with relevant laws. (See foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy for the resolution that spawned this effort.) We briefly talked about this here, early last year, at "Licensing policy", but took little or no action. I must confess that I'd planned to develop something suitable for discussion, but like so many of my plans in the past year, I've made no real progress on it. And I don't recall that anyone else has, either.
We can wait until someone sues us, or the Foundation tells us they're seriously considering shutting us down, but I recommend that we actually try to codify a serious, objective, enforceable guideline or policy. It cannot be made bulletproof against legal action, as successful suits have as much to do with the organizations involved (and how deep their pockets are) and the judges who hear the cases as with their legal merits (in my humble and non-legal opinion), but I believe that establishing something like a maximum number of quotes per titled work (be it book, poem, film, TV series, video clip, episode, album, song, videogame, podcast, or anything else) — and enforcing it — will go a long way toward both protecting Wikiquote and fulfilling Foundation requirements.
I'm open to other criteria as well, but the basic approach should meet two specific goals: (1) it must be in addition to, not a replacement of, the usual inclusion guidelines of originality, pithiness, and reliable sourcing; and (2) it should be as objective as possible, so that we have some hope of implementing it. The scale of the problem is so huge, and the danger to the project if we fail so large, that we absolutely must make it simple enough for drive-by editors to execute, just as they would revert apparent vandalism; remove unsourced, unlikely quotes; or delete wholesale quoting of speeches, based solely on inarguable failure to meet inclusion guidelines. The burden of restoring such deleted quotes should be on the adders, not the deleters. (I've already suggested that we should encourage all editors to avoid adding any quotes to copyvio-bait articles unless they remove the same quantity from the same titled work or component part; i.e., asserting that they feel new Quote X is more representative of the best of the subject that old Quote Y. That's just one way to bring home the importance of this task.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
So long as we can set those limits appropriately, in a way that takes into account differences in the natures of the works and media quoted. One size does not fit all, but perhaps one size can be made to fit many works of a similar kind (e.g., all half-hour TV comedies, or all newspaper columns). I'm worried, though, that any absolute numerical limit will quickly become—at least for "popular" medua—not just a limit, but a target. If every episode of Doctor Who is "entitled" to five quotations (say), then I'm worried that some Whovians will try to make sure that every episode has "its full five" quotations, thereby dragging down the quality of the collection. 121a0012 01:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry — I didn't want to add even more detail, long as my post was, but I meant that each medium should have appropriate limits. And it's the idea that some will want to fully populate each and every episode of a TV show that was my main reason for saying that these limits are in addition to the usual inclusion guidelines. Copyvio-inspired limits don't entitle articles to material, they only restrict the amount. As the Seinfeld case showed, the overall work is still subject to limitations on "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole". We should also mercilessly remove anything that isn't absolutely brilliant, even if it means entire episodes will have no representation. We shouldn't "run in fear of litigation", as I so crassly put it way back when, but we don't really have that problem at all. Our real problem is that much of the community seems to demonstrate no concern whatsoever for copyright laws, so those who see the danger to the project must push back harder. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd already given my views on this subject toward the end of the previous discussion on this page about limiting TV quotes. I believe that what I said was basically what's being agreed upon here, so just add my vote to the consensus. - InvisibleSun 06:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Jeff, you can say "Copyvio-inspired limits don't entitle articles to material, they only restrict the amount", but I'm not convinced that the "problem" editors will see it that way. That suggests to me that someone is going to end up spending nearly all their time trimming and re-trimming the problem articles. (I wonder if we would not be better off simply insisting on second-party sourcing of every TV show quotation—although that would certainly decimate the TV quotes it may not be a bad thing.) Query: what other kinds of articles are seen as having this sort of problem? Is it just limited to TV shows or are there other media which have a tendency to accrete excessive quotation? (Intuition says song lyrics could be another problem area, but I don't see the level of hand-wringing about those.) 121a0012 14:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

see also; video games. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 14:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm new here, but am a battle-scarred veteran of en:wp's pop-culture wars. I wholeheartedly agree that hard limits need to be in place in regard to fan-content. Five quotations is plenty in all but exceptional cases. In most TV shows, and especially the kid's shows, there is nothing worth repeating, anyway. If en:wp ever gets serious about clearing-out the fan-prattle there, the arch-inclusionists and hoards of IPs will be looking for someplace to go for InvisibleSun's in toto approach to quoting Barney & Friends. This is why Wikia was created, but many will come here — indeed, many already are. In the end, it is about discriminating against certain content. I have a dim view of content that lacks gravitas. Others differ; they prefer prolefeed. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 14:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need a new policy, just strict enforcement of the existing one. I'd be quite happy to get rid of Barney. In any case huge chunks keep getting added and deleted.--Cato 21:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
But Cato, that's the point - there is no existing policy about the number of quotes per episode for a TV show page. Instead there are the discussion threads mentioned above. ~ UDScott 04:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I only glossed over the thread from March. It would seem that there is a need to clear-up just what is appropriate and I support stringent criteria. The whole issue of fan-driven content is a huge problem with the wiki concept. Unchecked, the fans will just bury the significant content with trivia, quotes &c. I noticed Barney and his BFF first time I looked at RC here. It's edited about a thousand times a month, mostly by IPs. These aren't 'editors', they're 7-year olds in the play room after school. As I see it, this issue needs to be clearly addressed by policy as there is simply too much blather for the outnumbered editors in possession of developed critical thinking skills to deal with on a line-by-line basis. With TV shows being mass-released on DVDs and the proliferation of TiVos, the fans have random access to the primary source material and will seek to build shrines to objects of their obsession. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 10:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Exemption Doctrine PolicyEdit

I have created a very experimental EDP at User:Jeffq/Wikiquote:Exemption Doctrine Policy. My two main goals were to provide some context and infrastructure for an eventual EDP (perhaps at Wikiquote:Exemption Doctrine Policy) and to codify a least a first pass at quantitative limitations for different genres or media. I read enwiki's EDP, Wikipedia:Non-free content, last year, but I didn't make any attempt at this point to model this EDP on it. (I'm sure I would have spent another day or two fretting about stuff, and I felt it was important to get something online for the community to think about as soon as possible.)

Since I wrote this from scratch and without any input (except for a quick look at the beginning of foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy), it inevitably and primarily reflects my ideas. I expect that anything that comes out of this will probably look substantially different, so don't be shy about making suggestions or even bold changes. I don't know how much I'll be able to participate in its real development, but we have a number of editors who feel strongly about this issue, so maybe I can just "throw it on the wall and see what sticks". Let's see what we can cook up. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Where do I report this?Edit

The Bruce Lee page has a large number of random images on the page with no connection to the article. Who should I report this to in order to have them removed? 11:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't Wikipedia where the images should have descriptions, explanations, or clear and obvious links to the subjects of the page. Though ideally available images relating to the subject can be used, it is enough that the images used have some relation to the subjects of the quote which they are used with. If you look around you will find images are commonly used on many pages in ways that indicate, have reference to, relate to, illustrate or emphasize in dramatic or humorous ways some of the statements made in their captions. This has been done to make the pages more visually and intellectually interesting, as well as, hopefully, more aesthetically pleasing to most people. ~ Kalki 12:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Kalki is of course right, but any editor can remove a picture if he/she wishes; be bold.--Poetlister 19:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
And note also that some editors feel very strongly that the images do not belong; you are not alone in your reaction. 121a0012 00:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Take Robert Service; nearly all my own work so I won't offend anyone! There are two photos. One is of Mr Service; surely few would query that. The other is a picture of the aurora to illustrate the quote "The Northern Lights have seen queer sights"; I think that it prettifies the page, though maybe some will disagree.--Poetlister 21:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I, of course, agree that the page is improved by these images, and the one of the aurora is indeed well-chosen. ~ Kalki 12:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Quote audioEdit

I am writing to voice an opinion. The male voice actor used for the audio quotes on the site is dreadful. I believe his lack of enthusiasm (or indeed any feeling at all) drains the life out of everything he reads. I firmly believe the site would be better without the audio (as it currently is, at least).

I would be willing to submit readings of my own for consideration. I thoroughly enjoy, and visit it daily, so it naturally concerns me to witness something that detracts from the quality of the site. Please let me know if/how I can help. Thank you. ~ Some EC Dude

I will admit that I don't consider my voice to usually be top rank in many regards, and that I have not always been satisfied with some of my efforts, especially many of the earlier ones, but I do believe most of them have some merit, and I do spend some time every day trying to make them adequately expressive and interesting. This is the first complaint I've had on the issue of my voice, and I have been creating these clips since last November. I have also received one compliment as to the quality of my efforts on my Commons talk page, so as of now there is a balance in the criticism which has been made.
I don't know what level of feeling might be acceptable to the author of this complaint, but I don't believe my voice is entirely without emotion when I speak. I do usually try to enunciate the quotes with a sufficient level of reflective thought as to the meanings of the words and statements, and only occasionally with pronounced levels of expressed passion. Some of the most difficult efforts have been those where I had to speak quoted lyrics, without actually singing the song, and had to find some way of making it an interesting expression without incorporating musical melodies. As I've stated, I myself am not entirely satisfied with many results, but I do try to do the best I can within the time I have available, and to mask any vocal shortcomings I might have with interesting or evocative background sounds.
Though often having much that interferes with or delays my recording, I have tried to complete these to an acceptable degree of quality as soon as I can, and only once have I failed to post a file before the next quote was chosen, though I have come close to such tardiness on a couple other occasions. I can agree it would be good if there were other voices available as well, especially female voices for many of the quotes of women. I don't discourage anyone from volunteering, but eventually if there are more options that become available there will need to be a selection process that is agreed to. ~ BooKKeeper 15:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Anyone can start an account on Commons, upload a clip there and insert it into an article here.--Poetlister 19:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
A few minutes ago, I decided to pay another visit to I hadn't heard/read todays quote after all. I have to say that todays audio was quite a bit better than usual. I decided to check this posting for any responses (I'm the original poster), and realized that I came across as extremely harsh, judgmental, and basically: a total prick. I apologize for my ungracious words. Even if one has an opinion (which, as the quote from a couple days ago pointed out: should by all means be voiced), one should take care not to make themselves sound like a fool in the expression of said opinion. I appreciate that there is audio for the daily quotes, and am humbled by your level response to my earlier rants. ~ Some EC Dude
Listen, I also came here to comment about the audio recordings. It's the first time I've visited Wikiquote for a while and today's recording made me cringe. The thing is, I'm not sure there is even a right way to read one of these quotes. It is a quote from a written text, not crafted to be read aloud and definitely not designed to be read aloud out of context. It kind of simplifies the quote. Not half of the quotes here are quotable as sage words from a Buddhist monk or a fictional wizard. I think you need to ask the question, "do these recordings help communicate the quote?" I think in general not. In some cases they could also somewhat misrepresent the author of the quote. When I pressed play I was expecting a recording of the author saying the quote, but that's not what I got. I am all in favour of these kinds of recordings, but a gravelly voice actor speaking slowly and deeply? No thanks. Bigbluefish 20:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It's funny, but I had paid no attention at all to the fact that this was even available until this discussion. I can see why people might or might not like the voice being used. My question would be, does this feature provide any value? Or is it just an extra which may not be needed. I can't say that I would miss it if were gone. And I would think it might be some work to maintain it. I don't really have an opinion one way or the other, but if people don't like it, and it doesn't add value, then why do we need it? Just my two cents. Of course if there are others that do like it, I'm not against keeping it. ~ UDScott 21:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it potentially provides value to print-handicapped users (at least as a change from their screen-reader's usual voice), but I can certainly see why a normal-sighted user would not care for it. (Try listening to a radio reading service some time while they're reading the newspaper -- it's dreadful!) 121a0012 03:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I began doing this on 1 November 2007 after it was suggested by someone at the village pump in late October and responded to positively. As I've stated, I don't consider my voice an ideal one for many things, but I have made an effort to do the best I can within the time frames available to me. I do not expect that I shall always be the only one involved in this, but thus far I'm the only one who has posted any files for it. ~ BooKKeeper 11:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I initially committed myself to posting files within a couple of hours of the choice, and did maintain efforts at that for quite some time, but after encountering some circumstances where this was simply impossible for me, I simply try now to get something satisfactory done within the first day of the QOTD posting, and even this I've not succeeded at on a couple occasions. ~ BooKKeeper 11:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Depending on what we think is the reason for recording the quotes, I'm quite happy to see them accompany the quote on the front page. However I don't think anyone should feel obliged to produce one. Right now there is no recording for today's, and the page works just as well. I'm not so familiar with the common philosophy over here, but over on the otherside, Wikipedia is not on a deadline. I think efforts should be focused on constructive work on the wiki, improvements which will have some lasting effect. One aspect is that I'd like to see the shelf life of the recordings extended if they're so valuable, so I've constructed a set of templates; {{recording}}, {{user recording}} and {{original recording}} and started to populate pages with them. Populating original recordings has been especially revealing that there a lot of great originals out there. I think it would be a great showcase to feature one of these quotes with the original recording every so often... perhaps starting with a really famous one? Bigbluefish 01:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I certainly approve of your efforts to provide the original recordings on the pages, and agree they are desirable additions. I would also prefer to use original recordings, when they are available, for the QOTD, but I would expect that to seldom be the case. I do think the current templates you are using are a bit large though, and would much prefer something far more compact. For a short while, I had placed a few links to the QOTD sound files on the pages myself, but have not done so regularly, but I used a far more subtle link, and not a button for sound that was active on the page. It probably is best to use an active button, but I would still prefer something smaller. When there are more than a few images on a page, I have tended to use 144px as a standard size, and if the templates could produce a link about that wide I think they would look best on many of the pages. ~ Kalki 05:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
How's this for an alternative version? Bigbluefish 10:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
That's much better, as it fits in well with most of the existing images on many pages. Thanks. ~ Kalki 11:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome to add alternative recordings to Commons, if you truly believe they would be welcome. But complaining about BooKKeeper's voice is totally unnecessary. Superm401 00:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Categorising films by yearEdit

I find it very strange that some films aren't categoried by year and there is not category for them ,articilar the ones not made in the lats eight years. Why has this happened? We should do something about it methinks. Katana Geldar 04:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Every film since 2000 should be categorised by year. At present, older films are categorised by decade, e.g. Category:1990s films. If you see an uncategorised film, please add a category.--Poetlister 19:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Images from WikipediaEdit

Hi, I'm creating a new page on a person, on Wikiquote, and I would include an image. I found a perfect one in this person's article on Wikipedia. Is it possible to put in Wikiquote only the link to the Wikipedia image, or I have to re-upload it? —This unsigned comment is by PaoWiki (talkcontribs) .

We've switched off uploads here. You can copy it to Commons and then link it as if it were uploaded here. If you mean the picture of Sidney Coleman, that is already there [7].--Cato 22:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Policy on deletion using PRODEdit

This has been a proposed policy for some time. We are using it routinely as if it were accepted policy, and I believe that it works well. Can we please adopt it formally. I have opened a ballot here.--Cato 09:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Proposed deletion (WQ:PROD) is now formally adopted by the unanimous support of participating editors. Thanks to Cato et al for moving this forward. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hugh MacDiarmidEdit

I've started a page on Hugh MacDiarmid. I realise that he's often incomprehensible to non-Scots but I hope that doesn't rule him out of English quotes! Is there a site like this for Scots?--Crum375 11:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to add this page - there are plenty of non-English speaking people appearing here - we just ask that there be translations provided for anything not in English. ~ UDScott 12:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think he's more incomprehensible than Robert Burns. No, there's no Scots Wikiquote (though there is a Scots [8]). Maybe we should request one?--Poetlister 22:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquote dayEdit

The project project was launched on June 27, iirc? We would like to have some special .. like Birthday Logo or any other neat events? --Aphaia 10:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

We should have done something. Red4tribe 19:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Author, theme, or both?Edit

As an inexperienced user, I would like to know if there are any rules about where to publish a quote. Most quotes appear under the author, but themes are also used. Is one to be prefered over the other, and can I give the same quote on two pages? --Årvasbåo 17:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Quotes can be placed in both places, and though personally I feel that preferably only a few select specimens of the more significant quotes by an author on a subject would go on a theme page, there are no hard and fast rules. ~ Kalki 17:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Usurpation policy voting on MetaEdit

Global Usurpation policy (draft) is now voting at m:Metapub#Usurpation policy until July 4th.

I recommend you to give a look at least, either you would like to vote or not. While it doesn't affect us currently, since we have local b'crats and our own usurpation procedure (the target user must be noticed and give three weeks to respond), it may affect someday us too, and surely affect your other favorite small wikis without b'crats. --Aphaia 19:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

New Wikimedia Privacy Policy draftEdit

A revised Wikimedia Privacy Policy draft is available for review. The Foundation Board plans to vote on it in its June 21, 2008 meeting, so, as Anthere says, "input is welcome NOW". Post your comments and questions to m:Talk:Draft Privacy Policy June 2008. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for heading up, Jeff Q. I urged the same particularly to the people who are granted CU access and OTRS since some mails may contain privacy information which may be subject to this policy. Cheers, --Aphaia 06:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Board candidate question about Wikiquote and fair useEdit

I've posted a question to the Board candidates at m:Board elections/2008/Candidates/Questions/3#Wikiquote and fair use on what they think about the special challenge that Wikiquotes have because much of their primary material is necessarily copyrighted. I'm afraid I didn't communicate it very well, because so far, the responding candidates all seem to be looking at Wikiquote as if it were Wikipedia; i.e., what matters is the length of each copyrighted excerpt. Although that is occasionally a concern, our problem is much more the quantity of quotes we have in many of our articles. I'm not sure whether or how to post a follow-up clarification, especially given that the election is in just a few days, and these folks have a lot more to think about than just Wikiquote. But I thought I'd mention this here for those who might be interested. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventionsEdit

There doesn't seem to be a naming conventions page here. Shouldn't we have something, even just a soft redirect to w:WP:NAME? It seems to me that a lot of articles are using inconsistent naming conventions, e.g. Category:Animals has many articles with plural rather than singular names. There doesn't seem to be a guideline page here but I assume we should just follow the WP precedent? Richard001 00:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

  • We discuss this very point further up the page [9]. Animal articles should be plural.--Cato 10:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I consider that animal articles here should be plural for quotes here. This is different from Wikipedia due to different purposes.--Jusjih 01:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree - when Wikipedia has an article on the Horse, it's addressing the question "What is a horse?"; whereas our entry on Horses is more likely to contain quotes addressing the subject as a plurality. BD2412 T 02:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I also favor pluralizing these titles. It's more natural.- InvisibleSun 02:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Oh yes, definitely.--Poetlister 12:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
            • Hmm - turns out that Horses redirects to Horse here. BD2412 T 23:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • My fault, largely. I started some of these articles and made a few changes in title for consistency but never finished. If nobody objects, I shall make them all plural.--Yehudi 20:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Please do! BD2412 T 02:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for some eyes on a page...Edit

Tenth Doctor. I go around and try to cut the vine every so often, but it's often an uphill battle. Some eyes tommorow night would be appreciated, as it's the second part of the three-part finale. Will {talk) 22:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Last modified on 21 September 2008, at 10:18