Wikiquote:Village pump archive 33

Archive
Archives



ProverbsEdit

We had a discussion previously about unsourced proverbs and tongue twisters (see this discussion) - I believe the discussion was heading toward the deletion of all unsourced varieties of these pages. What is the current feeling? I for one do not see the need to keep any of these pages since it is nearly impossible to verify the "quotes" on such pages. ~ UDScott 21:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I will say that we don't need to source them to their originator, just to some reliable source that indicates that they are indeed a proverb of the culture asserted. If those can't be found, delete. BD2412 T 16:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I tagged as many as I could find with {{unreferenced}} or {{refimprove}} at the time of the previous discussion. There have been several edits to these articles in the intervening seven or eight months but, despite the hint, I have not noticed any sources contributed to the non-English pages. I think it would be appropriate to VFD the completely unsourced pages at this time, but that would not be the end of the cleanup.

I intend, very occasionally and very incrementally, to work on improving the English article. As more progress is made, I expect to propose some revisions to guidelines for proverb pages because, if we ever do amass a large body of well sourced ones, they will need to be reorganized and something will need to be done about misguided "explanations" of their meanings. ~ Ningauble 18:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced proverbs are bad enough. However American proverbs has another problem: unsourced explanations of the proverbs' meanings. While we can usually assume that unsourced quotations came from someplace, these explanations were presumably created by editors. Unless someone can suggest a good reason for keeping them, I'll start stripping out the added material.   Will Beback  talk  11:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
If it is difficult to find sources then I think we should keep the unsourced explanations. I see little use in proverbs without explanation for people like myself who are not native speakers. And in how many cases will there be disputes or incorrect explanations? I think very few. I think we should only demand sourcing for disputed explanations. Andries 12:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
How do we know, then, whether the explanation is accurate, or just something someone made up? BD2412 T 15:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

English proverbsEdit

Notwithstanding the occasional addition of a source, as happened today, the English proverbs page continues to accrue unsourced additions at a much faster pace than sources are provided. I am thinking about taking some strong actions, short of actually expunging all of the unsourced items:

  1. Would the community entertain a motion to put this article under probation, stipulating that all new additions without citations will be reverted?
  2. One single purpose account, Amitranjanamit, has added numerous items in recent months that appear to be obscure variants at best, or original user inventions at worst. I reverted a few that seemed particularly inappropriate and messaged the user, but the pattern continues. Looking for instances of some recent additions I found zero Google hits, but I do not want to waste a lot of time researching them case by case. Would anyone object to reverting all of this user's contributions, wholesale?

I am afraid this page will continue to deteriorate if something is not done to arrest the growth of non-notable or made-up content. Other suggestions would be appreciated. ~ Ningauble 20:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  • I completely agree. Proverbs are supposedly widespread sayings, so should be very easy to source. Unsourced should be deleted. Perhaps we can put a time-sensitive tag on them and give the a week, but I wouldn't allow any more than that. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Having received only one response, let me put it this way: If nobody objects I am going to revert all of user Amitranjanamit's contributions to the article because they appear to be mostly made up stuff. The user has been advised. ~ Ningauble 16:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No objection...in fact I fully endorse doing so. ~ UDScott 17:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Unlisted namesEdit

I have made a new run of names missing from the List of people by name at Wikiquote:Unlisted names. There are fewer than 500 this time, so it should be pretty quick to get through them. A handful are actually listed, but under different names than the name in the category. Those are at the bottom of the page. I should have these fully formatted to be plugged in within the next few days, but feel free to jump in and start moving missing names to the lists now. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Most of these are now fully formatted, and just need to be plugged in to the appropriate place on the lists. BD2412 T
    • Note: I have moved this from my userspace to Wikiquote:Unlisted names, to avoid the impression that this is a personal project. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing Requests for Checkuser and Bureaucrat permissionsEdit

Ongoing Requests for Checkuser and Bureaucrat permissions — Please see:

and

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 06:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Since we have a few ongoing votes I would suggest we update the site notice to let people know. It is always difficult for a small project to meet the requirements for CU, and so letting people know there is a vote going on seems sensible. Thenub314 23:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Contemporary witnesses sections; requirements forEdit

If there was a witness who claims to have been there when a quote was said but they didn't report having heard it until 16+ years later, does the quote belong in a "Contemporary witnesses" section?

I'm trying to add a Joseph Stalin quote that Nikita Kruschev said around 1970 that he had heard Stalin say. Stalin died in 1953. The quote can be found at this source: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,904531-4,00.html —This unsigned comment is by MathEconMajor (talkcontribs) 14:43, 31 May 2011.

  • This is the first article I've seen that has a "contemporary witnesses" section. I'm not sure why it's even labeled as such. Certainly the attribution by Krushev is sufficient to include the quote on Stalin's page. BD2412 T 16:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
    I suppose the heading, which I too have not seen in other articles, is intended to distinguish eyewitness (earwitness?) accounts from secondhand reports. Some citations in the section do not meet this standard. The heading itself expresses a peculiar emphasis, for it is strange to imagine actual witnesses being non-contemporary. A temporal distinction that is sometimes used, when evaluating historical and legal evidence, is "contemporaneous accounts", i.e. those that are recorded at the time of the event as contrasted with those that are recollected at a later time. This is the distinction raised in MathEconMajor's question, and my answer is that Wikiquote does not generally analyze firsthand accounts to this degree. It is sufficient to indicate the date of the source and let the reader draw their own conclusions. I have updated the citation in the Joseph Stalin article to indicate the provenance of the attribution. (Bare links are not so good.) ~ Ningauble 16:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Elections for Wikimedia Leadership-- Share Wikiquotes' views!Edit

Wikimedia Needs You.     Help with the Elections of Wikimedia Leadership!
Voting ends at 23:59 12 June 2011 (UTC)

the election ends. has already ended. (refresh)

The Election is Very Important...
Elected board members are the very highest leaders of Wikimedia.
  • They select and supervise the Executive Director and staff
  • They determine mission, goals, long-term plans and high level policies of the Wikimedia Foundation.
  • They oversee a budget in excess of $10 million per year.
  • They determine how resources are allocated.
Make a Voter Guide
1. Remember:
  • Be civil.
  • Avoid personal attacks.
2. Write:
  • Talk about yourself.
  • Talk about Wikimedia. What do you want for Wikimedia?
  • Talk about who you support. Why?
  • Talk about concerns. Be civil!
3. Share:
  • Make a link to your Voter Guide. Put it on your user page.
  • Make a link to your Voter Guide. Put it on your user talk page.
  • Make a link to your Voter Guide. Put it in the central location.
  • Make links to all other Voter Guides. Put the links on your Voter Guide.
4. Recruit
  • Ask others to make a voter guide
  • Ask others to talk about the election.
  • Ask others to help promote election participation.
Help Translate: Elections Text Questions and Answers Promotion Text
Help Promote
  • Talk to others. Talk about the election and the election's importance.
  • Post notices about Election in Project Discussion areas.
  • Talk to trusted editors. Ask them to Make a Voter Guide.
  • Serve as an Election Promoter.
Use this box: just add {{PromoteElection}} to any page.
—This unsigned comment is by PromoteElection2011 (talkcontribs) 07:56, 6 June 2011.

FN Five-seven and FN P90Edit

I am going back and forth over whether to nominate these articles for deletion, merger into guns or some similar, as-yet-uncreated article, or something else. Both seem to be drawn to excessively narrow topics, containing quotes from persons of borderline quotability. Not all of the quotes are positive, but some seem to have a sort of testimonial quality. This concerns me, because I fear opening the door to articles being created on things like Frosted Flakes or (to reach the level of specificity in these articles) the Motorola 68020 32-bit microprocessor, containing a handful of quotes from friendly trade journals lauding the qualities of the product. I would welcome opinions on how narrowly drawn pages should be to specific products, and if we should impose some kind of limits on the sorts of quotes that go into those pages. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree - I had similar feelings when these pages were first created. They definitely appear to be too narrow in focus. ~ UDScott 00:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Go ahead and nominate them for deletion. The Guns article does not need to be filled with matter-of-fact observations and unremarkable opinions that do not display enduring quotability. A number of quotes in Category:Weapons, and especially Category:Products, are similarly unremarkable or reflect ephemeral interest. The narrower the topic, the more it invites unremarkable commentary. (I will cancel any plans I may have had for quotes from when the Motorola 6502 vs. Intel 8086 competition was a hot topic in trade publications.) ~ Ningauble 13:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I have so nominated both. I can envision circumstances where we might have a page of quotes made by highly notable people about a particular product, such as an iPad or Blackberry, or even a particular kind of gun (as in "But, being this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and would blow your head clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?'"). The nominated articles are not within that realm, however. BD2412 T 18:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Voting is about to closeEdit

It is currently 10:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC) , voting closes at 23:59 UTC, so just hours after this post. If you want to vote, please do so. Additionally, there's been an on-going discussion about a recommendation for voting to be extended to give people more time, opinions welcome. --Alecmconroy 10:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Enhancing level of quick knowledgeEdit

by adding into names of articles about real persons their occupation in brackets;without any need to read an article to get an idea about who these people were-in cases when person has a little time or need the information about occupation of certain person(s) right now; without actually reading lines in that article that are saying it.

Please consider the significance of this change and be ready to discuss it.--Pieceofpeper 18:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

We already have a system of categories to accommodate those who might be searching for quotes by the occupation of the author (see, for example, Category:Mathematicians). Please note also, we are a sister project of Wikipedia, and because Wikipedia articles often include templates linking to their Wikiquote companions, we try to make sure that our titles for pages about people are identical to the Wikipedia title for that page. If you can persuade Wikipedians to adopt the policy you propose, then we can follow suit without disrupting those interwiki links. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
The practice of including editorial content within titles, which was popular as recently as the Victorian era, is not well suited to the wiki process of continuous editing. I think this also applies to Pieceofpeper's earlier suggestion to convert "List of people by name" into an annotated index. It is best to simply give the name, with no more elaboration than is strictly necessary for disambiguation. ~ Ningauble 13:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

mathematics and mathematiciansEdit

I think that "Mathematicians" should be moved to "Category:People by occupation" (from "Category:Occupations") and the "Mathematics" page be listed on the "Category:Occupations" where "Mathematicians" used to be, if for no other reason than consistency. For example, in "Category:Occupations", the listed category is "Writing", not "Writers"; "Acting", not "Actors". "Actors" are on the "Category:People by occupation" list (although "Writers" seems to be missing). Just a thought. Noodle7mooch 08:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure about the worthiness of your proposal, as I usually don't deal with the category classifications too much, but I have long thought Authors far too broad a term for the category which is usually applied to Writers, but I recognize that the use of this was what arose among some early on, and has become so pervasive as to make alterations difficult at this point. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 11:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
There are a lot of inconsistencies in the category system, but one of the fundamental distinctions is that Category:People, including Category:People by occupation, is for articles devoted to quotes by (and about) individual persons, whereas Category:Themes, including Category:Occupations, is for articles devoted to quotes about a general subject other than a particular person. The naming of individual categories does not make this very clear.

I agree that Category:Authors is problematic. For people who write, it would be best to categorize by more specific professions or genres. I have thought about doing this for some time, and have moved a few on occasion, but there are more than 1000 of them, so don't hold your breath. ~ Ningauble 13:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

If there are no significant objections to this idea, I am willing to gradually begin doing such conversions, and when I am working with pages classified as "Author", I could convert them to "Writer". I don't consider this a top priority, but perhaps within a few months the process could be completed. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 20:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
There would have to be some consensus established as to what the existing titles should be renamed to, if this can be agreed to. For instance, I just noticed Neil Gaiman is classified in these categories:
Comics authors
Fantasy authors
Novelists
Science fiction authors
Short story writers
Should the "authors" portions be changed to "writers" in all of these? ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 20:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand - moving from authors to writers doesn't really solve the issue - it just exchanges synonyms. I think the point is that Category:Authors should only be a category of categories and the more specific sub-categories should be used for the people pages. I'm not against using "writer" instead of "author", but I don't see the point in the work involved to make this change. ~ UDScott 21:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
As I stated before, I don't really deal with the category issues too extensively, and don't really keep track of all the issues involved, so I'm not sure what is preferable to others — I was just extending on the idea that "writers" should replace "authors" because "authors" isn't quite a synonym, and has far broader applicability. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 21:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
On the topic originally presented, mathematics poses a special difficulty. Actors act, Writers write, Mathematicians ... prove. But sadly Proving is not appropriate, mathematics just doesn't have a nice verb that I can think of (and I am by profession a mathematician!) Thenub314 22:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Mathematicians are not really special in this respect, consider Historians. Consider also that it really wouldn't matter if Shoemaking were called "Shoemakers" since there is no great need to segregate quotes about the practice from quotes about the practitioners unless the article becomes quite large and a number of quotes are pointedly about one rather than the other. If the nomenclature in our ad hoc system of categorization is a bit haphazard, it could be worse:
"These ambiguities, redundancies, and deficiencies recall those attributed by Dr. Franz Kuhn to a certain Chinese encyclopedia entitled Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge. On those remote pages it is written that animals are divided into (a) those that belong to the Emperor, (b) embalmed ones, (c) those that are trained, (d) suckling pigs, (e) mermaids, (f) fabulous ones, (g) stray dogs, (h) those that are included in this classification, (i) those that tremble as if they were mad, (j) innumerable ones, (k) those drawn with a very fine camel's hair brush, (l) others, (m) those that have just broken a flower vase, (n) those that resemble flies from a distance."
Jorge Luis Borges, The Analytical Language of John Wilkins
~ Ningauble 17:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Template namespace initialisation scriptEdit

Hello. Some years ago, developers used Template namespace initialisation script to move some pages from the MediaWiki to the Template namespace, and left some useless redirects.

Consequently, the following pages should be deleted :

  1. MediaWiki:Sitesupportpage
  2. MediaWiki:Qotd
  3. MediaWiki:Otherwiki
  4. MediaWiki:Gnunote
  5. MediaWiki:All messages

Moreover, the redirects to the pages listed above should also be watched, as they may be useless for the community.

For more informations, please see this request (meta).

Thanks -- Quentinv57 18:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

They are harmless redirects, although they don't work, maybe they should be left? Rich Farmbrough
So do Special:BrokenRedirects. As far as I know, everything useless is periodicly deleted by sysops. But you can do what you want, it's up to your local community. I just wanted to warn you about those redirects and to give you this list. Regards, -- Quentinv57 16:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Assumption is the mother of all...Edit

..disasters? A quoted in/from CSI? Misunderstanding? Where is it from and who said it and when? Rich Farmbrough

"X is the mother of all Ys" is a very common formulation. I doubt we will ever know when and where it originated. It may or may not derive from "necessity is the mother of invention," which dates from at least the 17th century. ~ Ningauble 15:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Examples range from the relatively literal: "Jerusalem was the mother of all Churches" which was widespread by the 17th century, e.g. Isaac Barrow, Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy (1680); to the purely figurative: "concord is the mother of all happinesse" in Robert Monro, Expedition with the Worthy Scots Regiment called Mac-Keys (1637) and "pride, the mother of all sinne" in John Payne Collier (noted literary forger), The Anatomie of the Abuses in Ailgna (late 1500s); and include variants on the proverbial mother of invention: "need, the mother of all inventions" in Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1651) ~ Ningauble 15:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Interesting, maybe a candidate for the earliest snowclone.
The earliest example I can find so far of "Assumption is the mother of all.. " ("screw-ups" and "fuckups" are the most common completion, but "disasters" "lies" "deception" "messups" and "cock-ups" all get a look in) is 1977. "Orville, in aviation A~" in Flight operations, Volume 66, page 44.
In 1984 (Online catalogs, online reference: converging trends : proceedings of a Library and Information Technology Association preconference institute, June 23-24, 1983, Los Angeles. Issue 2 of Library and information technology series, P.145) it is referred to as "Wethern's law" (there's a footnote for anyone with access to a hard copy). Subsequent books cal it "Wethern's Law of Suspended Judgment".
Team-based strategic planning: a complete guide to structuring, facilitating ... by C. Davis Fogg cites Angelo Donghta (meaning, probably, "Angelo Dongia") being quoted in the New York Times of 20 January 1983.
"Travis Dane" (Eric Bogosian ) or Lt. Casey Ryback (Steven Segal) (or possibly both) popularised the phrase in Under Siege 2: Dark Territory.
In 1890 the phrase "assumption is the mother of" was used slightly differently "This assumption is the mother of the mischievous adage, "Meddlesome midwifery is bad," — mischievous in what it implies rather than what it expresses, ... " Transaction Texas Medical Association, Volume 22, page 204.
Rich Farmbrough
The saying is widely ascribed to Donghia. Rich Farmbrough
Would this make "the mother of all" the mother of all snowclones? ~ Ningauble 16:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, we should have a theme page on Assumptions, that would include the history of this set of variations. BD2412 T 20:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Speech versus Written?reference Stephen Potter and LacanEdit

In reference to an individual facing a very awkward situation of an organised group including business stonewalling producing the written article in other words mass "Prevarication" and entrapment- - any profound advice quotes?

—This unsigned comment is by 86.153.142.187 (talkcontribs) .

The serenity prayers different possibillities.Edit

I look at the serenity prayer as a time based philosophy. The facts as proven by some of the greatest minds are that time is relative to the observer. Be it that the observer on earth would be very different then the observer in another gravitational density. I conclude from past statemeants that Time is therfore relative to not only gravity but also the lack of gravity found in places such as space. This fact simotaneously generates a dismissive reality while creating an infinite number of facts and or important opinions that have not become fact yet. Therfore the demension of time should have never been called a demension or in other words we should never have applied the number four to time. This creates confusion and if anything belittles the progress of men and women understanding who and what they really are (collabaritive units of information be it past, present, or future).

—This unsigned comment is by 108.79.3.213 (talkcontribs) .

Is there any policy against what I am doing?Edit

Hi. I'm adding a picture to each LDS Church President wikiquote article that doesn't already have a picture. I am using Wikimedia Commons pictures only if they exist. I am an anonymous editor, and so I want to know if I am doing anything that may violate policy. FYI, There are 16 LDS Church Presidents in the history of the LDS Church, and so I'm not sure if there is an article on all of them. I am only adding pictures to articles that exist, so I won't bother setting up pages for any of these men that haven't been included. I'm trying to get this "ultra-mini-project" done today--so that may be where my question stems from--doing it all in such a short time-frame. If you would like a wikilink to each article so that an impression of what I'm doing is more visible, let me know and I will. Thank you kindly, 67.182.237.57 22:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Nope, no problem with that. BD2412 T 23:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for responding. A few things for me to inquire about now that I've done the pictures for existing articles:
  • I added Commons pictures for John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Joseph F. Smith, David O. McKay, and Thomas S. Monson. I was a little surprised that not all of the LDS Church Presidents have wikiquote articles. Those that do have articles are Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith, David O. McKay, Gordon B. Hinckley, and Thomas S. Monson.
  • I may add pages for the other 7 leaders (Heber J. Grant, George Albert Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee, Spencer W. Kimball, Ezra Taft Benson, and Howard W. Hunter) in the future, but I wonder if notability would be a problem for any of them. They are all well-known by people who have membership in the LDS Church, but the reason I ask is because some didn't serve quite as long as LDS Church President as others (one was only for 9 months, although he served as an LDS Apostle for many years.) How does Wikiquote notability criteria work? Is there a help page you could direct me to if you don't personally know how these 7 others may qualify for notability?
  • And one other thing: I know you don't have to sign up for wikiquote in order to create articles, but is there any trouble in creating those 7 articles within a range of 1 day to 1 week? I don't plan to afterward start indiscriminately creating random articles all over the historical/cultural spectrum nonstop simply because you or someone else (might) give me the go-ahead on the 6 or 7 LDS articles, but I may occasionally create an article here and an article there after this LDS project goes through--if it does. The newer ones would not be LDS related--probably movies, etc. If I were to start more new LDS ones later, I'd ask permission again (in a much shorter post, thankfully). Thanks and sorry this is a bit drawn out in length. 67.182.237.57 00:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
You are doing fine — this is a free and free access wiki, and there is no need to seek permission for creating articles of interest to you, so long as they are within the general guidelines of being of noted or notable people and subjects — and if they aren't you will usually swiftly find out, and be provided some suggestions by other editors. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 00:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
All right. That's good to know. Thanks for the encouragement. I'll be sure to keep within the guidelines like you mentioned, and it's nice that people can let me know what constitutes notable subjects/people, etc. just in case I do happen to unintentionally wander outside of that scope. Thank you both for responding so promptly. 67.182.237.57 02:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

QotD submissions and votingEdit

For those unfamiliar with the system, how does one go about voting on a QotD or submitting one for consideration?

For instance, if I am interested in submitting the following for QotD on July 31, where do I leave that?

"You know, the Stone was not really such a wonderful thing. As much money and life as you could want! The two things most human beings would choose above all-- the trouble is, humans do have a knack for choosing precisely those things that are worst for them." -J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

—This unsigned comment is by Sparra (talkcontribs) .
This can be added to the list of suggestions on July 31, with your ranking of preference for it, which ranges from 4 (highest ranking, for one believes certainly should be used) to 0 (a vote against a suggestion as unnacceptable) — these ranking procedures are shown in several points on the QOTD suggestion pages. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 00:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC) + tweaks
I noticed a slight error in your above suggestion, and there is no need to add the quotation marks, but it could be added in the form:
You know, the Stone was not really such a wonderful thing. As much money and life as you could want! The two things most human beings would choose above all — the trouble is, humans do have a knack of choosing precisely those things those things that are worst for them. ~ J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
Below this you should leave a ranking and a signature. I have just added another Rowling quote to that page and signed it with a ranking below the suggestion of a * 4 ~~~~

My proposal - create a new category Category:CultureEdit

There are some categories for new category - Art, Clothing, Comedy, Education (?), Festivals, History (?), Holidays and observances, Interpersonal relationships, Language, Literature, Sports (?), Virtues. --Averaver 08:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I think "culture" is too broad and amorphous to be a useful category for theme articles. It's all culture: quotation is cultural transmission. ~ Ningauble 18:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
We can choose categories similar as in the Wikipedia - w:Category:Culture . --Averaver 03:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Please, update wikisource and wikinews templates.Edit

Could you please, update Template:Wikisource and Template:Wikinews templates. On my Page User:Averaver these templates show real links, not titles. --Averaver 09:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

These templates are generally intended to be used in article pages. I am not sure there would be much value in modifying them to provide category and search links; but I would be willing to work on it if more people think it would be useful. ~ Ningauble 18:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Dubious image "updates"Edit

Leonardo da Vinci 025.jpgLeonardo da Vinci - Saint John the Baptist C2RMF retouched.jpg Leonardo da Vinci - Mona Lisa.jpgMona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpg

Two recent alterations involving images of 2 paintings by Leonardo da Vinci long used on several pages were made using CommonsDelinker‎, one of which I reverted, and the other which I accepted, with some reservations; afterwards the one I rejected was itself reverted by Dcoetzee (talk · contributions) who had provided the new image at the commons.

The John the Baptist image I had originally used brought out significant but subtle details, in a way that seemed overall to be fairly balanced, but the replacement with the darker image seemed acceptable, because perhaps the somewhat symbolic cross was deliberately not made clearly prominent in Leonardo's composition, and the color balance does appear acceptable. I still probably have a slight preference for using the older version on at least some pages, but probably not enough to insist upon strongly.

In my reversion of the change of the Mona Lisa image, I noted in the edit summaries that though the alternate version has perhaps has some merit for some forms of technical analysis of the painting, that it appears now to be officially designated "the most valued image" of the Mona Lisa at the commons, among the several alternatives seemed "a bit much" especially as it won that designation with the nomination of one person and the support of another — and no one else seems to have even taken much notice of the nomination at all.

Though clearly much higher in resolution, for those who want to examine the image in detail, the claim that the new image has "more accurate colors" is rather belied by the fact that the one originally used, though certainly somewhat darker than the images presented at the website of the Louvre itself, seems about as close to the color balance presented in the images available there, as the newer image, which I believe seems a bit too yellowish, and seems to greatly exaggerate apparent discolorations at the edges, all of which detract from the relative simplicity of the slightly darker and far less massive image originally linked to. As the use of the images on the page are primarily aesthetic conjuncts to the quotes, the original image, though a mere 2,403 × 3,591 pixels and 1.42 MB in size would likely be sufficient and more readily accessible to most than the 7,479 × 11,146 and 89.94 MB version. I also hold it somewhat more aesthetically pleasing within the compositions of the pages where it is used.

Adolf Friedrich Erdmann von Menzel 012.jpg Adolph Menzel - Bauplatz mit Weiden - Google Art Project.jpg

More recently on the Kenneth Grahame page the first image on the left was replaced by the second, on the right —and though both seem acceptable, and I don't know which might have the more correct color balance in this case, I feel the old image fit in best with the overall composition of the page, where I believe the new one shows up darker and less clear at the standard presentation sizes. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 22:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC) + tweaks

Advanced InterWiki templateEdit

Hi. The Wikibooks has the best InterWiki horizontal template - b:Template:Associated Wikimedia. I look in the Wikiquote there is the Template:Wikimedia. But it isn't full. Is there more useful template (horizontal or vertical)? Could you please create a new template similar as the b:Template:Associated Wikimedia template? --Averaver 15:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquote in the News (3)Edit

More about us (ain't Google great?):

Avoid being misquoted

Marv Rockford and Steve Gray, writing for the Denver Business Journal ("To get the facts right, you’ve got to give the right facts," 28 January 2011), use examples from Wikiquote's List of misquotations to encourage interviewees to stay on-message with precise, understandable quotes and to avoid unprepared, rambling remarks. According to them, "if you don’t say it in the first place, you can’t be quoted."
If only that were true – some quotes On Misquotation suggest otherwise.

Surely you jest

The Seattle Post Intelligencer reports ("That's what she said: UW researchers develop joke-telling computer program," 3 June 2011) that a couple of researchers at University of Washington used Wikiquote as a source of raw material for teaching computers to recognize double entendre jokes. Seriously, it seems that computers have a hard time understanding humor.
Could this lead to deeper intercourse with our artificial partners?

Waxing lyrical

Philadelphia Inquirer interviewer Jonathan Takiff ("Vivid pop poet Conor Oberst moves beyond the despair of youth," 10 June 2011) opened an interview of Conor Oberst by observing, "in prepping for our talk, I came upon an excellent selection of your lyrics at Wikiquote and was struck anew how well the stuff holds up as poetry." Oberst disagreed, "I don't necessarily think the words would stand up without the melody." Asked, "when writing, how much are you thinking about serving the audience that [...] seems to hang on your every word?" Oberst replied, "The biggest disservice you can do to someone who's interested in your art is to pander or cater to them and their ideas of what your music is."
This editor is left pondering the relationship between art for art's sake and cruft for fan's sake.

~ Reported by Ningauble 17:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the updates! Are you going to add that last quote to Conor Oberst's page? BD2412 T 20:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
    My pleasure. It did not occur to me to add it to the article because I was just chatting from a wiki-omphaloskeptic perspective. Do you think this primary source interview has quotability? ~ Ningauble 15:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I can readily see it being quoted. It just struck me like that. BD2412 T 15:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal image filter referendumEdit

Though this is not local policy, the dates are approaching, and I wanted to make sure that this is not overlooked--as it is certainly far-reaching. (It seems like it might not have a lot of impact here, but might, and could certainly still be of interest.

The Wikimedia Foundation, at the direction of the Board of Trustees, will be holding a vote to determine whether members of the community support the creation and usage of an opt-in personal image filter, which would allow readers to voluntarily screen particular types of images strictly for their own accounts. The referendum is scheduled for 12-27 August. You can read more about it at m:Image filter referendum/en; if you are interested in weighing in, you may especially want to review M:Image filter referendum/FAQ/en. Thanks! --Mdennis (WMF) 13:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

adding explanation ('in what sense' to understand a quote fully) and On the other hand section to quotesEdit

Do you think it would add value if some wikiquote pages have one more section: 'interpretations'? Some quotes do not need easy to understand explanations, in-depth analysis and usage examples; some need. The main question is: What conclusion to draw from the proverb?

E.g. the proverb 'One swallow does not make a summer.' -You'd better not do anything, it is in vain (I think wiki authors oppose this), or (thinking the proverb really has some truth): -If I want to make a bigger difference (a web site serving more visitors), I'd better cooperate with others (wiki community, web2, allowing the visitors to contribute with posts and valuations). (Actually it is not only a proverb, it is written by Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, book 1, ch. 7 (C. 335 BC) To be happy takes a complete lifetime; a brief period of 'happiness' does not make a man supremely blessed.)

I propose to add an On the other hand section too (links)(to understand the whole picture, also take into consideration): <> Even the longest trip starts with a step. <> A grain of dust in the machinery. <> Think globally, act locally. <> Make a difference. Do what you can, that is your responsibility. <> For want of a nail the shoe was lost For want of a shoe the horse was lost For want of a horse the rider was lost For want of a rider the battle was lost For want of a battle the kingdom was lost And all for the want of a horseshoe nail This simple rhyme is a reminder for children to think of the possible consequences of their actions. It has often been used to illustrate the chain of events that can stem from a single thoughtless action. brainz.org

Farther, symbolic analogy: Together we stand, divided we fall (lyrics in a song).

It would also bring visitors if visitors could add sayings asking for interpretations they know they do not fully understand but would like to (instead of to counter). E.g. I do not really understand what Do not object! means. It has so many meanings - I would be happy to learn them.

Could users somehow valuate the explanations so explanations could appear under the proverb in order of average rating?

American Beauty Rose quote by RockefellerEdit

It seems very unlikely that this was by Jr. He would have been 30 years old in 1904 and not the spokesman for the company. A contemporary cartoon shows John D. Rockefeller pruning a rose as an old man. Other sources suggest that the speaker was Sr., not Jr. This seems much more reasonable.

Last modified on 1 November 2013, at 19:13