User talk:Ningauble/Archive 15

Latest comment: 8 years ago by Ningauble in topic Ben Carson

This is an archive of past discussions on User talk:Ningauble from Jul–Dec 2015.
Do not edit this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please use the current talk page.

Problem edit

Eaglestorm has removed the quotes from The Simpsons Season 3 Page. Can you sort him out? -- 11:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@  If Eaglestorm has neglected to point out the reason for removing excess quotes, you may want to read Wikiquote:Limits on quotations which explains it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

sourcing question edit

Here, Canto I, stanza 2, lines ?? — which ones should I count, those within the stanza (lines 7–8) or the whole poem (lines 15–16)? Thank you ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And another thing: should one write "Canto I, stanza 2, lines 7–8", or simply "Canto I, stanza 2, line 7"? Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: I would use a hierarchical schema, numbering stanzas within canto and lines within stanza, just as "chapter and verse" Bible citations use chapter within book and verse within chapter (unless one is using a widely recognized linear numbering standard, like Bekker numbering for the works of Aristotle). In situations where it is best to use line number within poem (e.g. where different editions use different stanza breaks, which can happen with poets who do not use formally structured meter) one should probably omit reference to stanzas altogether.
B: Some authors cite only the beginning of a quoted passage, so it is not wrong; but I generally cite a range when when referring to multiple lines that do not comprise a whole stanza, (even though it can be complicated when the passage begins in the middle of one stanza and continues into the next). ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks again. One more question, if I may: which do you prefer, writing (e.g.) "lines 45–47", or "lines 45–7"? ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please use both digits. Potential confusion from dropping the most significant digits outweighs the amount of ink saved. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hakan Lucius edit

Good edit.  That said, I worry the issue with that page runs deeper than its insufficient source.  See my note on the talk page.  Suffice it to say, I worry the page may be delete-worthy.  allixpeeke (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hadn't looked at the page since we last edited it until today, and I now see that has edited the sole quote, substituting "a bank's" in place of "your," rendering it a quote found nowhere else online.  It all seems rather fishy.  Just wanted to bring this to your attention.  Best, allixpeeke (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that it looks a bit dodgy for someone to post a second version without citing the source, even after a published source was requested. If you want to {{prod}} it for "no verifiable source" and give the user a {{prodwarning}} then go right ahead. (I also agree with your reservations about originality. These are minor variations on PR consulting buzz that has been circulating for years.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 11:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Science and Religion edit

The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations by Subject (= to the Oxford Treasury of Sayings and Quotations) uses "Science and Religion". Should I write to Susan Ratcliffe and tell her she used "improper" capitalization? ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About Chile and template of deletion edit

Hello. Hey I've found a source but this wiki rejected the source. How can I add sources and more information without problems?. Have a nice day. Good bye.--Je7roi (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi edit

Hi Ningauble, can you rename my account to other name? --Wiki Wisdom (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Wisdom, I do not have that ability. Requests for renaming may be made at m:Steward requests/Username changes or at w:WP:RENAME, where a steward or global renamer can help you. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kenji Goto edit

Would you please give a look? It has only one quote, then unsourced, now sourced. I am not ready to provide more quotes, but it'll be able someday, hopefully. --Aphaia (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok. Usually I do not like to cite a tweet without secondary sources, because there are millions of tweets every day and most are not notable. I notice that Wikipedia has this quote and cites a ".org" that I am not familiar with, so I looked for more secondary sources:

I found an AP story carried by The Guardian and The Telegraph, which shows it is a notable quote in the mainstream press. – Notice that the translation is a little different in meaningful ways.

I suggest adding a mainstream secondary citation to the article, as described at my essay Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, as evidence that the tweet is definitely notable. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your research, I'll give a second look, and consider if I can improve the current translation. --Aphaia (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, did you mean "brothers" vs. "brothers and sisters"? Then the original word 兄弟 means only male brothers (both elder and younger) for the first. In Japanese it can embrace female siblings, but it's a possible implication no one can determine out of context. It may be English mainstream media adjustment. The rest part is not significantly different from my eyes, but if you disagree, please point out. I'm willing to provide my opinion as a native Japanese speaker. --Aphaia (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah - another difference I've just noticed: who gets mad, perhaps? It depends. I prefer to use "we" or "one" in translation, but it's just my interpretation: the original Japanese sentence provided here no subject (Japanese sentences require a subject not every time). It's pretty up to the reader. --Aphaia (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) Actually, the difference that struck me was in the beginning of the quote. The version in the article and at uses the imperative mood in the second person and the collective "we" in the subjunctive mood. The AP version uses the first person singular in a very personal statement. The tone of the two versions looks very different, and the AP version is more intensely poignant in English. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure AP folks did so. The beginning is actually not in the imperative mood in the Japanese original, though it can connote an order. It was said as "lesson", so translation into the imperative would be within translators' license. I guess AP translator on the other hand wanted to keep the calm tone of this tweet allover, not using the imperative. I tried to provide the literal translation, which still has some addition for English grammar. --Aphaia (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article looks good now, with a cited translation and a variant. (I don't have any Japanese myself, but I do appreciate that mood and nuance are expressed very differently than in English.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good faith gesture edit

Puss in Boots (2011 film) edit

Hola.  After I added Puss in Boots to Category:Shrek, you removed itI urge you to reconsider.  The Wikipedia article on Puss in Boots has the film categorised in Category:Shrek films, which is in turn categorised under Category:Shrek.  I believe Wikipedia is correct in choosing to place all films/shows/video games from the Shrek franchise in the Shrek category, and I think we here at Wikiquote ought to do the same.  Best, allixpeeke (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fine. I had not noticed that this film, in which Shrek does not appear, is considered part of the same franchise because the character was "borrowed" from a totally unrelated story for a supporting part in the franchise of films that are about Shrek, which this film is not. (Shame on DreamWorks.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Criminals edit

Should it be used here? ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think tagging articles with this sort of badge-of-shame is in very poor taste, unless criminality is a principal reason the person is notable in the first place; but it seems to be standard operating procedure at Wikipedia. Go figure.

To be clear, I am not defending D'Souza. I have no sympathy for his brand of politics and polemics: there must be a special place in Hell for people with his level of intellectual dishonesty; but that is evidently not what is meant by this sort of categorization, whatever really is meant by it.

Someone looking for quotations from a criminal perspective (like Willie Sutton's reported explanation of why he robbed banks) would hardly benefit from having this article recommended; but that does not seem to be the purpose of such categories, which I regard as pointlessly pointed. ~ Ningauble (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your well thought-out response. I agree w/ you, but don't know if I can keep removing the category, if it is added back. BTW, I too used to find D'Souza's "intellectual dishonesty" very disturbing, so much so that some years ago (before he made his movies and became really famous) I even sent him an email detailing what I considered to be his many distortions and errors in his debates on the existence of God (and, guess what, he replied back). Still, I regard his books as useful resources, mainly for high-school students (e.g. his Letters to a Young Conservative), or for people living in a bubble who've never heard arguments from the "other side". And I agree with his defense of the spirit of 1776, as opposed to what he calls "the spirit of 1968". D'Souza is not so much an original thinker (exception?) as a popularizer. He is IMO good at finding and compiling arguments for and against any given position. Perhaps a certain degree of "intellectual dishonesty" is required in this enterprise, if you want to sell books (cf. "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people"). ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

word order edit

  • The Destruction of Troy (1656), Preface
  • Preface to The Destruction of Troy (1656)

Which of these do you prefer? (Should I treat "Preface" the same way I would a page number?) ~ DanielTom (talk) 03:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My own preference is to treat it like a chapter if it is a preface by the author of the main work, but if it is one author's preface to another's work then I would write "preface to..." followed by a full citation to the work, including it's author. Note that prefatory materials often vary between editions, so identifying the precise edition is helpful. ~ Ningauble (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Misattributed/Disputed end edit

Hi, Ningauble, I found your misattributed/disputed begin/end templates useful so that I imported them to the Japanese Wikiquote. But oddly they don't work as same. Rather the first == title appears just as same as wikitext, the second next works properly though. For example, ja:孔子. I copied them and changed not at all. Could you please give a look and find the way they work well? Cheers, --Aphaia (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Self-solved! Not the template but the line followed was wrong. There was something different from SPC placed perhaps. So there is no problem ... I expect ... --Aphaia (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am glad you found them useful, even if it took a couple tries. The formatting was originally suggested by BD2412 at Wikiquote:Village pump archive 31#Color coordination for misattribution sections. As discussed there, it took a couple tries to get the template implementation working. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes it did. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the category clarification edit

The lines are not always distinct as you yourself have noted, but thanks for the clarification regarding categories, I'm not deliberately trying to give you things to revert. I've noticed you've kept the interpersonal relationship categorization, anatomy seems to cover eating and drinking right now which seems a bit off. Again the only ones I would actually contest that you are wrong about are the ones about art; discourse is a vague term which you've helped clarify for me a bit; not as vague as art though. CensoredScribe (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ben Carson edit

What do you think of this About section: Ben_Carson#Quotes_about_Carson?

It seems very biased to me. And I'm not even a Carson supporter. (His position on evolution reminds me of Ron Paul, another doctor who—many people don't know this—also doesn't "accept" the "theory" of evolution...)

But when I see unknown nobodies—who don't even have a Wikipedia page—insulting and attacking Dr. Carson ("mindblowing irrational thinking", "batsh*t crazy Bible-thumper", "ignorant, offensive, and downright stupid", "lacks [integrity] entirely", etc.), I wonder: should we even have quotes from people who are not even notable enough to have a Wikipedia page themselves? (In my opinion, no, we shouldn't—especially in politicians' pages, for obvious reasons.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think "about" sections should be held to the highest standards for quotability. I also think candidates for high political office should be held to the highest standards for intellectual integrity. What I think has little influence in these areas. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Return to the user page of "Ningauble/Archive 15".