Hi Kzzl. Welcome to English Wikiquote.

Enjoy! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Vanilla SkyEdit

what's up with th revert at vanilla sky? CanWeStillBeFriends? 19:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I was in a hurry; I should have manually reverted instead of using a rollback so I could add a proper explanation. I apologize for my lack of comment. The reason I removed the "Who are you? / I'm Sofia / You are not Sofia. / I'm Sofia. / Whatever." dialog from Vanilla Sky is because I felt it isn't particular memorable except as a plot point in the film, enhanced by the visual contrast with the established identities of Julie and Sofia. Quotes that require too much visual or aural cues, or are more plot point that pithiness, don't make for good entries in a general quote compendium, however interesting they may be to fans of the work. (Also, could you please add links to articles you wish to discuss, and please don't add links in your signature that point to non-existent articles, as you did above? Thanks.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

ok. I feel what your saying. I put it back and polished it a little. I think it works despite it's being plot-oriented to some extent. it plays on the theme that x can't replace y even if you rearrange all reality (except David's memory) so that "x" is now named "y". or maybe x is y in the new reality. I dunno. it's a trippy-ass movie with some nicely-done ambiguity. not sure if that addresses the relevant issues but that's how I view the film and that scene.
also- I thought many pages here were like [[team america]], where you'v got scene-by-scenes and as much content as possible, but well-organized. I see that perhaps many pages here aren't that comprehensive.
as for my sig- I know it's unconventional. I don't wann disrespect the "we're all here for a common goal" thing, but it's just a sig. I'll change if someone makes a good argument. props on using the word "aural". later. CanWeStillBeFriends? 20:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
What matters in Wikiquote is what is quoted. Anything used to explain a quote detracts from the essential value of the quote. Many quotes include contextual information, but a rule of thumb that we've used here is that any context that takes up a sizeable fraction of the entire quote entry indicates a quote that probably is more scene than quote. Editors tend to forget, as you've noted about Team America: World Police, that the purpose of Wikiquote is not to include every single thing of interest from a work, lest we either violate copyright laws or overlap with Wikisource. (The preceding sentence, by the way, includes a proper article link, not the bracketed, nowiki-ed article title you provided.) The main reason we have so much excessive quoting is that there are only about 10 people who regularly edit, over 7,000 articles to monitor for excessive quoting, and no formal agreement on what is "too much". But the constraint imposed upon us by the Wikimedia Foundation makes it important to choose the most pithy quotes from a work. One way to look at it is if a work like Barlett's Familiar Quotations were expanded to include every notable person, work, and theme, might we expect to find the material in question there? Another way is, are people likely to quote such a passage when talking about another topic, as a kind of illustration (the way folks have done with Shakespeare for centuries)? David and Julie/Sophia's exchange fail both of these tests as well as the too-much-context test.
However, I am not going to argue this further at this point, because I've got much bigger problems to deal with than this relatively innocuous quote. But I have at least reformatted it to follow Wikiquote:Templates/Films, which I recommend you peruse, along with its talk page. (Editors of Team America would be well-advised to do the same.) I also recommend reading Firefly (TV series)/Format, which goes into some detail about the particular formatting of film and TV-show articles, from the point of view of the TV series Firefly. We are currently lacking, among many other things, a central place to present a detailed discussion of why our practices are the way they are, and to provide a venue for discussing these issues that includes all the history that developed the practices. (This lack is a direct consequence of having so few frequent editors for a fairly large Wikimedia project.)
Finally, I don't have any real problem with peculiar signatures (although the purpose of signatures is to aid in communication between users, which substituting text for actual names interferes with). My concern is your pointless hidden redlink to a non-existent article "the subconscious is powerful thing". We have quite a bit of difficulty with people creating useless or even prank articles from unnecessary redlinks, and I see this as yet another opportunity for such confusion. I don't understand why you want this non-article to be referenced. If you want a part of your signature to be red, please just use "<font color=red>". If you want to make a point about this idea, please put it on your user page instead of hiding it in a signature in a way that no one will notice unless they attempt to create this pointless article by clicking on it. Or are you imitating Cato with your own version of "Carthago delenda est"? (If the last is the case, at least make your point explicit, so people aren't encouraged to waste Wikiquote resources to find out what you're saying.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)