Wikiquote:Village pump

Community portal Welcome

Reference desk Request an article

Village pump Archives

Administrators' noticeboard Report vandalism • Votes for deletion

Wikiquote discussion pages (edit) see also: requests
Village pump comment | history | archive General policy discussions and proposals, requests for permissions and major announcements.	Reference desk comment | history | archive Questions and discussions about specific quotes.

Archives

Welcome, newcomers and baffled oldtimers! This is the place if you (a) have a question about Wikiquote and how it works or (b) a suggestion for improving Wikiquote. Just click the link above "create a new topic", and then you can place your submission at the bottom of the list, and someone will attempt to answer it for you. (If you have a question about who said what, go to the reference desk instead.)

Before asking a question, check if it's answered by the Wikiquote:FAQ or other pages linked from Wikiquote:Help. Latest news on the project would be available at Wikiquote:Community portal and Wikiquote:Announcements.

Before answering a newcomer's question abruptly, consider rereading Please do not bite the newcomers.

Questions and answers will not remain on this page indefinitely (otherwise it would very soon become too long to be editable). After a period of time with no further activity, information will be moved to other relevant sections of Wikiquote, (such as the FAQ pages) or placed in one of the village pump archives if it is of general interest, or deleted. Please consider dating and titling your discussions so as to facilitate this.

---

Wikiquote:Wiki-sisters

What is up with this page, it seems like it doesn't meet notability guidelines. CensoredScribe (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

It's in the Wikiquote namespace and shouldn't be categorized with standard entries. Thanks for mentioning it here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Why do we even have a page for it at all though? It says the page is humorous, but it has an about section and normally having to explain jokes means they aren't very funny. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, I agree. There's no reason for this page to exist. — FPTI (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Is wheel reverting really just as simple as three strikes in 24 hours and you're out?

These are survey questions about an informal policy and there is no wrong or right answer. I would appreciate anyone's answer but particularly those of administrators who have implemented blocks for this reason.
How many times do you think an editor can revert someone before a block is justified? Is the answer different depending on what the page is and who the editors involved are? Is this something an administrator has ever been blocked for doing, if so, I would like to see some links. Does it matter how spaced out the reversions are? I've heard somewhere before that 3 revisions in 24 hours is too many, but what about just 1 revision every day, endlessly? I don't think endlessly undoing edits on your own is a particularly good use of anyone's time, because you could at least make it a team effort to try to demonstrate you are on the right side of the community's consensus, however I'd like to know what is allowed and what isn't and whether it's any more complicated than three strikes and you're out. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to no more than 3RR in a page, unless you are reverting vandalism. While in fact, I'm even oppose edit warring with vandals, since your time is priceless. -‎Lemonaka‎ 13:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your answer and saying that our time, including mine, has value; I feel spending my time here was the right choice, even if it cost me a friendship, or most of them. I feel like reversions are better done as a group activity, two lone wolves fighting doesn't present much of an example of civility, even for Romulus and Remus. Like the old saying goes, "He who represents himself has a fool for a client." CensoredScribe (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Now this is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia.

In 2012, an anonymous user recreated the page Russian proverbs. The tiny problem is that while doing so, he used a significant portion of an earlier revision of that page which (the page, that is) was seemingly deleted at an earlier time, to which many other people (including yours truly) have previously contributed; but in the process of such recreation, the names of these participants were lost to the void, so now it looks like the entirety of that page was created by that user, although for example they include see some things that I personally added, like, in 2006. Such destruction of the edit history, and thus erasure of contributor's names, is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Let's discuss this matter. -- Wesha (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

There are, in fact, over 1,000 deleted edits. @UDScott: deleted the page in 2011 because it was unsourced. UD, since this page is now sourced, would you object to undeleting these revs?

As a secondary issue, it seems like this is all sourced to a single source. While it may not be obvious, you can have a copyright on the arrangement and collection of quotations from others, so as someone who has not seen the source material, is this page infringing on that copyright? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not like I claim "copyright" of these edits, as we all obviouly leave any "copy" rights it at the door when we edit Wikipedia, but I am just saying that it is a very least not good manners to take creaion of somebody else and put it under one's own name — without the actual creator's name associated with it: it's colloquially known as "plagiarsm". -- Wesha (talk) 06:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

So, what do you want us to do? -‎Lemonaka‎ 13:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that you are claiming someone else's copyright. What I'm saying is, we cannot break a copyright here and the arrangement, translation, etc. of quotations can itself be copyrighted. I'm no legal expert, nor have I seen the original source, so it's not obvious to me that it's inappropriate, but it could be. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Wesha:

How would you feel if the page was recreated from scratch instead of using its previous content? I am asking because I am frequently faced with this dilemma when I try to add a new page and am told that I (paraphrasing) should think carefully about recreating a page that was previously deleted.

What would you do if you were in my shoes? I realize this does not answer your question, but I feel that an answer to your question must address problems inherent at several levels of the operation of this site. For example: why have the previous responders to your question after more than 3 days on the village pump been administrators only? Is this discussion forum meant for the community at large or are admins the only ones permitted to post their opinions?

The deletion log of Russian proverbs says this:

• 01:43, 28 December 2011 UDScott talk contribs deleted page Russian proverbs (Proposed deletion: No sourced quotes)

so why was this page deleted without a VFD discussion?

That is all I have to say on this matter, since I do not wish to be considered "disruptive". I hope I (together with my autocomplete) am/are making sense. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Regarding this comment by @Ottawahitech, perhaps you should read the Wikiquote:Proposed deletion page to better understand the proposed deletion process. Not every page needs a VFD prior to its deletion. A PROD tag is placed on a page when it has an issue (there is a list of possible reasons for this, outlined on the policy page) and other users may correct the problem or even dispute it and remove the tag (after which it could then proceed to the VFD process, if the problem still exists). ~ UDScott (talk) 00:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't really know how to solve this connundrum, but I can tell with an absolute certainty that on the current (or at least the current as of the moment of me writing the original comment) version of the page are certain centences that I personally typed back in 2002'ish, that are no longer attributed to me, but to some anonymous user. If I know a thing or two, taking somebody else's brainchild verbatim (to the letter) and putting one's name on it is called "plagiarism" and is generally frowned upon. I don't have a good idea of solution at this moment -- but that's precisely why I am here: so we all can have a discussion. -- Wesha (talk) 19:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, given that the page was competely deleted and then re-created, it would be fair to undelete all the old revisions, so the original edits (from which the anonimous user made the newly re-created page) along with their authors' information would be visible to the public again. That way, both the edit history and original authorship information are preserved, and the current look of the page remains exactly the way it is right now. I think it's a good middle ground. -- Wesha (talk) 07:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Y Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

question about content removal at the English wikiquote

Since I joined enwq in 2020 I have contributed over 20,000 "edits" to the project according to xtools. Almost 17,000 have been to content, but I have also participated in various talk spaces (VP, AN, VFD, UTP, and more). However, I still have not figured out whose "edits" I am permitted to undo. Am I permitted to undo edits of enwq-admins? Ottawahitech (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by permitted? By whom? Your question seems disingenuous, like you already know the answer is that anybody can revert anybody and that anybody can get banned after 3 reverts in 24 hours, including admins should they choose to infight amongst one another, which for some reason never happens. CensoredScribe (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Let's make a Quote template optional

The Template:Quote, is obsolete, but perhaps it could be revived and made optional for use, as suggested by myself several other users at Wikiquote_talk:Manual_of_style.

The French wikiquote has such a template fr:Modèle:Citation and its use is recommended by their layout guide at fr:Wikiquote:Conventions de style.

We would benefit from making this optional, as its too late to standardize and change everything. It would make linking to wikisource easier for quotes that are in the public domain, and it would make sharing quotes between here and wikipedia and other projects much easier - just copy and paste the wikicode text without any need for extra re-formatting. Consequently, the quality of both projects would be likely to improve overall: especially this one because it would encourage be better referencing. Ideally, there would be one common interface with two unique implementations: Each project could implement the eponymous template to represent the quote according to each projects's unique styleguide. C.f. w:Template:Blockquote

Our quote template should be programmed to conform to our styleguide: end users would not see a difference between a quote formatted with the quote template and one formatted without.

Thoughts? Opinions? Has this been tried in the past? Jaredscribe (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Launching! Join Us for Wiki Loves Ramadan 2025!

Dear All,

We’re happy to announce the launch of Wiki Loves Ramadan 2025, an annual international campaign dedicated to celebrating and preserving Islamic cultures and history through the power of Wikipedia. As an active contributor to the Local Wikipedia, you are specially invited to participate in the launch.

This year’s campaign will be launched for you to join us write, edit, and improve articles that showcase the richness and diversity of Islamic traditions, history, and culture.

• Topic: Wiki Loves Ramadan 2025 Campaign Launch
• When: Jan 19, 2025
• Time: 16:00 Universal Time UTC and runs throughout Ramadan (starting February 25, 2025).
• Join Zoom Meeting: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88420056597?pwd=NdrpqIhrwAVPeWB8FNb258n7qngqqo.1
• Zoom meeting hosted by Wikimedia Bangladesh

To get started, visit the campaign page for details, resources, and guidelines: Wiki Loves Ramadan 2025.

Add your community here, and organized Wiki Loves Ramadan 2025 in your local language.

Whether you’re a first-time editor or an experienced Wikipedian, your contributions matter. Together, we can ensure Islamic cultures and traditions are well-represented and accessible to all.

Feel free to invite your community and friends too. Kindly reach out if you have any questions or need support as you prepare to participate.

Let’s make Wiki Loves Ramadan 2025 a success!

For the International Team 12:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikiquote's Google search results

I've been talking to HouseOfChange about this a bit and I'm wondering what other people's experiences are with Wikiquote's search rankings for various topics on Google, I know that there are numerous other websites for quotations about popular topics, however we have considerably more pages than most of them. How often does anyone here see Wikiquote listed on the front page of Google when searching for quotes about a topic? I normally see us listed somewhere between the end of page one and the start of page two, and I wonder how much more popular these other quote websites actually are in comparison and why that is. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

WQ had a lot of good pages of quotes. We need to keep making and improving such pages. We also need to do more to prune pages of longform nonnotable/unquotable editorializing. Websites like BrainyQuote not only do SEO (search engine optimization) and paying for sponsored listings -- they also curate useful pages so that satisfied users become repeat customers. It's remarkable to me, however, that Reddit does better than we do in "quotes" search results. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

question about copyright

This may sound like a stupid question (I'm new here), but during editing/creating a page, it says in red and bold, "Do not just copy material from another website!", which I am assuming is because it is a copyright violation. So do you have to type up the quote in your own words, or do you have to copy it from the original source material? - AFasterSlowpoke (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Generally, a given quotation is not copyrightable. What is in principle is the arrangement and editing of various quotations into some collection. So you definitely can mechanically press Ctrl+C and then Ctrl+V to copy material, you cannot wholesale copy the general arrangement of quotations from other sources. I'll amend the wording to make this explicit. Thanks for asking. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying and updating the text. AFasterSlowpoke (talk) 10:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I'm having a hard time finding that system message. Can you tell me either exactly what it says word for word or tell me the steps to reproduce seeing that message? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It's here: MediaWiki:Newarticletext —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)