Wikiquote talk:What Wikiquote is not

"Wikiquote is not a place for song lyrics"

Clarification question: does this mean that absolutely no song lyrics can appear on the site?

I understand that Wikiquote isn't intended to become a lyrics repository, but is it permissible to include excerpts from songs that could stand alone?

Examples, off the top of my head:

"All you need is love." -- The Beatles
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans." -- John Lennon, "Beautiful Boy"
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." -- Bob Dylan

If these can't be included, why not? If it's copyright issues, I'm wondering if we should allow quotations from movies or any other works still under copyright.

-- Scarequotes 23:39, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think that these are considered quotes, rather than song lyrics. There're quotes from song lyrics, but if it's reasonable to put between quotes and without linebreaks, it's a quote. That's more opinion than fact, though. Still, I think that's what it's supposed to mean. --Spikey 20:05, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I would concur with this evaluation. Another example is in the religion section, from the Tori Amos song "Crucify"; it is not a superfluous addition of a song lyric, but rather a relevant quote from lyrics that is of value in regards to the topic at hand. 66.157.29.22 20:29, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Consider using wikisource http://en.wikisource.org to post entire works that are in the public domain. Entire songs, poems, books etc. --YakbutterT 23:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Where do lyrics go?

Is there a wiki for song lyrics? Because it seems like a perfect model for song lyrics. I come upon song lyrics online all the time that are just plain wrong and I wish that I could edit them.--Skyfaller 00:43, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There is no wiki for song lyrics, and if there was could you imagine what the (Gay ass)copyright problems would be like??? Altough it would be a good idea for a wiki (IMO), the dam copyright just gets in the way . - fonzy

here's a freelance wiki for song lyrics : http://journals.jevon.org/music/. It's small but growing ... - binou

Also, lyrics.wikia.com. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Advertising slogans

What about well known advertising slogans? For example: "Just do it" (Nike) or "Think small" (Volkswagen)? I mean, that would go under "gratuitous advertising (SPAM) of any type" --Eleassar777 09:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

• Hi Eleassar777, I think we have already such article, Advertising slogans, iirc. --Aphaia 09:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

What constitutes a 'whole poem'

I see that "What Wikiquote is not" says do not include whole poems, but I do see what appears to be poems scattared throughout the site. Is a six-line poem a 'whole poem'? Is the restriction due to copyright issues or because of length? What about a Haiku?

The restriction is due to copyright. If a poem is public domain, then including all of it would be a question of style etc., but note that in general the wiki project that is devoted to whole works is wikisource and not wikiquote. If there's copyright, then only fair use excerpts may be included, and fair use is a concept in law, i.e. it's not us who define what constitutes fair use, though we would need to use judgement for the particular cases. If you see clear violations of copyright, then you can help by deleting them or trimming them or raising the issue via discussion. Also see earlier discussion at Wikiquote:Village_pump_archive_3#Lyrics. iddo999 22:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Censorship

Is Wikiquote censored? -- 69.209.181.211 20:30, 30 August 2005

Could you be more specific with your question? "Censorship" is a very loaded term, with many meanings to many people. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Revision

There is currently a revised draft at Wikiquote:What Wikiquote is not/Draft. Please feel free to edit it. Jaxl 02:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Crystal ball

I started this based on [1] and [2].--Cato 07:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Cato. I've done a little expansion and revision, based on a quick review of w:WP:NOT's version and the style of our other NOTs. Everyone please take a look at this new section and comment, so we can feel that we have community approval for the change. Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I've made one further comment - it may be that there is an authoritative preview that may be cited. Otherwise, it looks good.--Cato 22:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense, since this publication would be verifiable, whereas a trailer you see during a TV commercial break or in theater previews ordinarily wouldn't be. We'd have to watch for YouTube citers and the like, though, since video uploads are almost always copyvio and therefore not reliable. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Broader scope for copyrighted works.

Copyrighted works specifically mentions lyrics and poems. I'm sure that at the time those were the primary problem children of copyright infringement. However, can we have that section rewritten to provide a general scope that would include such things as video games, TV shows, movies, books and such.

OH DEAR...

Quotation - noun - a group of words taken from a text...
Quote - verb - repeat or copy out..

I have made the necessary changes, replacing "Quote" by its noun form, "Quotation", where applicable.
Do not reverse this please, or so help me God/Allah/Buddha/Dalai Lama/Confucius/Kali/Odin/Zeus/Jupiter/Science Textbook.

Oh dear, indeed. According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, "quote v. & n." - verb and noun. As noun, "1 a passage quoted." Quotation means "1 the act or an instance of quoting or being quoted. 2 a passage or remark quoted." I have no objection to pedantry, but strongly object to incorrect pedantry.--Cato 21:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Not censored.

I propose adding the following text to the policy :

"Wikiquote is not censored. Wikiquote cannot guarantee that quotations or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms. The practical implications of this are as follows:

• Expletives should only be censored in quotation if this is how they are presented in the source.
  
• Content which is sufficiently quotable to be included should not be removed because it is objectionable.
  
• Censored forks of pages are inappropriate, and will be merged with the uncensored page or deleted.
  

Editors are encouraged to carefully consider whether adding objectionable content is appropriate before doing so. It is often a good idea to discuss the content on the discussion page of the article before adding it."

as our stance on censorship, which is not covered by existing policies. --User:Tryst (talk to me!) 13:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

What problem does this solve? I have not noticed any unresolved debates over censorship. We do occasionally see someone trying to bowdlerize quotes, but when noticed it is promptly reverted as a simple case of inserting false information. (People who do this sort of thing are generally not guided by policies.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

There are some pages which have censored forks, such as Hell's Kitchen and Hell's Kitchen (uncensored), and there's no specific remedy to these pages in existing policy. I'd rather that we formalised our current stance. --User:Tryst (talk to me!) 13:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem with those pages runs deeper: it is not a case of users censoring the source, but of quoting different sources. As I understand it, the fork was at one time justified on the basis of there being two different productions, US and UK; but what we really have here are two editions of the US production, broadcast and video. I think a case could be made for deleting the "uncensored" video fork as much less notable than the broadcast edition. (There's also no specific remedy for pagefulls of unquoteworthy spew from "notable" broadcast programs.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

We should probably move the pages in question then, because at the moment it looks to anyone unfamiliar with the show that the "uncensored" page is a fork of the main page. I personally feel that Wikiquote would be improved by deleting both pages, there's nothing quotable in either of them. --User:Tryst (talk to me!) 16:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

On the narrow point above, some rename might be appropriate. However, I agree with Ningauble that no general policy is needed.--Collingwood (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the proposal, although I would have it as a freestanding policy page, and not part of WQ:NOT. Where there are censored and uncensored versions of the same show, song, or book, the uncensored version is the original work of authorship and should be used unless there is no source from which it can be definitively determed what, exactly, was censored. Where censorship is achieved by substituting an actual word for the censored word (such as the use of "Forget You" in the radio version of the Cee Lo Green song, "Fuck You") then the substitution should be noted in the notes following the original quote. Otherwise, I wouldn't even bother noting what was bleeped in a broadcast. BD2412 T 16:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Works for me. Frex, when Jon Stewart has a "f[bleep]k" bleeped on The Daily Show, but an uncensored video posted hours later on thedailyshow.com has an unbleeped "fuck", we should go with the latter and write "fuck". Though its publication may be later in time, it accurately represents what originally came out of his mouth during the taping. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I recently noticed two cases in newspaper reports where words were *** out. Were I to add them to WQ, I would of course quote exactly what the source says.--Collingwood (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I would remove any censorship, because it makes the quotations less easy to understand to some individuals. --User:Tryst (talk to me!) 21:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

No, not unless there is a reliable and verifiable source for the uncensored version. It would be quite wrong to guess at the original version.--06:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Often there is, especially as no-one actually "*** outs" their words in real life. --User:Tryst (talk to me!) 10:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

"The D—l you say!" Actually, this sort of self-censorship is not at all unusual. It became very common in the Victorian era, using a dash rather than asterisks (which became popular with the advent of typewriters), and is still very much with us today. Many examples may be found not only in works that have been edited, but also in manuscripts and letters from the hand of the authors. Spoken English, from the Victorian era to the present day, uses initialisms such as "G— D—" or "F-ing" to the same effect in real life. I have certainly heard people say "bleeping", and during the Watergate era "expletive deleted" enjoyed brief popularity as an explative. Of course, I am not suggesting that the host of Hell's Kitchen has ever engaged in any such hypocrisy (or subtlety of any kind), just that your categorical remark overstates the case. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)