Wikiquote:Village pump

(Redirected from Wikiquote:Village Pump)
Community portal
Welcome
Reference desk
Request an article
Village pump
Archives
Administrators' noticeboard
Report vandalismVotes 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.
Archive
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.




Introducing Wikiquote Page ratingsEdit

This project is definitely mature enough to have some kind of system of page ratings in place to highlight our best pages and note those that need a lot of work. I therefore intend to put together such a system. It will approximately parallel the system in use in Wikipedia. Pages that are at the most impressive level of completion both in terms of content and presentation will be Featured pages, those that are in excellent overall shape but fall short of being showcase material will be classified as Good pages, and the rest will be classified as A, B, C, Start, or Stub class based on their respective levels of quality. I suppose I should present this as a proposal and seek support for implementing it, but it is so obviously needed that I would really like to just go ahead and start doing it. BD2412 T 04:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

  • For what it's worth, I heartily support your efforts. We had tried at one point to identify some pages that could serve as models, but as with so many initiatives here, it slowly died away. Good luck and I am looking forward to the results. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
    • @UDScott: Do you remember where the previous effort to institute page ratings is documented? As a newbie I would be interested in looking at some WQ history. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I like the idea but I'm not sure it's going to work. But I am in favor of this idea. Strong support from my side. --Saroj Uprety (talk) 14:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Sounds good. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • This is a great idea. Support. A suggestion is to start with rating individual quotes. One could include the rating for a quote with hidden text just below the quote. I think it is easier and more objective to rate individual quotes than a whole page. A quote that has been quoted in a published compendium of quotes would get a high rating. If an article has more than a specific number of high-rated quotes it would then count towards the rating of the whole page. -- (talk) 11:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. The complicated system at en.wp may not be necessary here, considering how much less content there is and how much less complicated said content is. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

ClassificationEdit

So far, so good. I have requested help at Wikipedia to create the appropriate templates. We will have twelve classifications of pages: Unassessed, Stub-Class, Start-Class, C-Class, B-Class, A-Class, GP, FP, List, Disambiguation, Redirect, and Placeholder. I am also proposing the creation of a Wikipedia WikiProject to improve coordination between Wikipedia and Wikiquote. BD2412 T 22:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we need all 12 of those classifications. I think `start` and `C` can be combined, `A` is unneeded, and `GP` and `FP` can be merged. Additionally, I'm a bit unsure about `List`, and how are `Unassessed` and `Placeholder` different from just not giving any classification at all? DannyS712 (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Not giving any classification at all would mean that the page as unassessed, which would flag it as needing assessment. For the most part, I am trying to parallel structures that have been set up on Wikipedia, as theirs is the product of a great deal of trial and error. All mainspace pages should be assessed at some point. Placeholders like 1512 should be marked as placeholders so that it is known that no further assessment is needed. This can be done quickly by a bot following the category. Perhaps we combine placeholders and redirects into a utility class. As for lists, I am really thinking here of lists like List of television shows (A–H), which (critically for the project), don't contain quotes. Perhaps lists and disambiguation pages should also be combined, or perhaps we should have a single grouping for all mainspace pages that are not expected to contain quotes. I can see the case for just having a 'GP' classification for our best work. BD2412 T 00:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

CriteriaEdit

We will need to draft some criteria for what raises a page to the next level. I would think that the obvious elements are the relative completeness of the collection of quotes on the page, complete citations for all quotes, internal consistency in page formatting, a solid lede, and appropriate "see also" links, external links, and categories. BD2412 T 17:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the quality, or at least notability, of the quotations should be considered too. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I kind of agree, but it's hard to gauge. BD2412 T 00:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I should expand on this a bit. It is hard to gauge the quality or notability of a given quote. The thing about quotes is, if they are quoteworthy (at least through the objective measure of having been quoted by others), we can't really exclude them for being of subjectively poor quality. On the other hand, there might be a notable topic or a notable person for which there are not great quotes. BD2412 T 02:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
How do we solve it if there is a dispute about the rating between two users? Something about this should be addressed in the page about ratings? -- (talk) 09:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose we will need a consensus process for that. By default, I would think that the highest available ratings should be unavailable unless the page passes a consensus review process. BD2412 T 05:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Dibbydib: has set up a rating here with a grading scheme for wq. I think it is excellent. Opinions? -- ~ #SheSaid 12:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I have copied it below (I hope Dibbydib does not mind). -- ~ #SheSaid 13:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: I'm fine with it dibbydib 02:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Article rating Articles Criteria
  A • So many quotes you need to arrange it alphabetically
• Great referencing
• Pleasing design
  B • Above 15 quotes
• Layout and design works well
• Good referencing
  C Debugging • 15 quotes or less
• Layout checked
• No copyright concerns
  Start Predictability Yggdrasil • 7 quotes or less
• Referencing is... meh
• Layout not checked
  Stub Spell checker • 3 quotes or less
• Poorly referenced
• Basically, short articles that suck

My proposal for the highest rating:

  • Lead: Strong, definitional introductory sentence, Comprehensive summary (who, where, when, why), Comprises of strictly relevant information, Strong english without typos; clear and to-the-point; handles nuance academically, Neutral tone appropriate for encyclopedia audience, Strictly informative; allows reader to arrive at their own conclusion
  • Structure (organization, sections) : All relevant sections included, Lacks no key sections, Good flow between sections; sections are well-ordered, Comprehensive mention of associated pages and thorough “see also:” section, at least five relevant images, depending on how large the article is
  • Content: Comprehensive coverage of all relevant views and opinions, Quotes represent mainstream and minority views deservingly and without favor, At least two quotes are also quoted in a published compendium of quotes (book), at least five quotes are very widely quoted, depending on how large the article is
  • References (citations, sources, completeness) : All sources are clear, Most sources are the best sources available for the quote; include multiple sources when useful, All sources properly formatted and trackable; direct links included when possible; all links clickable to source

-- ~ #SheSaid 12:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I would be wary of being overly prescriptive rather than descriptive. Saying something like "must have 15 quotes" is going to put pressure to add those three extra quotes even if they aren't very good or are poorly sourced. It would be better to say something like "Includes a wide variety of quotes, spanning the breadth of the subject, especially those which are cited in secondary sources. All references are formatted consistently and fully. Quotes are organized on a consistent rational basis. Appropriately freely licensed images are included." GMGtalk 13:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Setting it upEdit

I have asked for technical assistance at Wikipedia, but have received no response. Does anyone here know how to set up the template structure? I presume we will be going with talk page templates, and they will be fairly straightforward. We have not discussed ranking pages by importance, but I would not associate such a process with this task, so really we're just looking to tag the relevant pages with templates indicating an initial quality assessment, and categorizing pages accordingly. BD2412 T 02:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, we could always import the banner template shell but that seems like a lot of work, frankly for not a lot of payoff. Have we actually landed on basic questions like: where/how will this display? How many rankings are there? Does everything need to be rated? —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I am working on the presumption that every mainspace page will have a classification. Making it universal will insure that nothing slips through the cracks. Pages that are not intended to contain quotes (lists, disambiguation pages, placeholders, and redirects) will be classified as utility pages. Everything else will get a rating (Stub, C-class, B-class, or Good Page). They will all start by being tagged as "unclassified" by default, and we should pretty quickly be able to figure out which pages are clearly poorly developed and which ones are well developed. BD2412 T 04:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

2020 Coolest Tool Award Ceremony on December 11thEdit

Community Wishlist Survey 2021Edit

SGrabarczuk (WMF)

15:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@SGrabarczuk (WMF): Since there are boxes for Wikidata, Wikisource, and Wiktionary projects, how about a box for other small projects on the Community Wishlist Survey 2021 page?(I have posted this before, but received no answer).
This may seem unimportant to you, but it is crucial for members of this small community who participate in the survey, but are at a disadvantage getting enough +votes to move their request forward. For example: Meta:Community_Wishlist_Survey_2021/Categories/Protection_of_all_pages_in_a_category
Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
@Ottawahitech: Actually, communities' needs are always, by definition, far from unimportant. We all can see that small projects are discriminated just as any minorities in democratic processes are. As long as sheer numbers count, small communities' requests are not likely to make it to the top. We can't change the rules during the voting, but we certainly will discuss potential improvements to the future editions. The example you gave doesn't seem to be small wiki-specific, though. Honestly, fortune of this kind of requests would probably not be altered. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
@SGrabarczuk (WMF): Thanks for responding and pinging me. I have participated in several wishlist surveys, and it is my observation that the process is extremely political, not by design, but because of human nature. Users will normally support a wish if it is presented by someone they know and trust. If they do not understand the proposal they tend to hash it out on user-talk pages, instead of on the wishlist public page. Most users, however, are hesitant to approach a user they do not recognize.
The example I linked above was proposed by a wikiquotian, however, I do not recognize any of the participants in the discussion as wikiquotians. Regards, Ottawahitech (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
See meta:Talk:Community Wishlist Survey#Feedback on CWS process. I have proposed several ways of improving the Community Wishlist Survey, both as to more categories and as to addressing true priority instead of just popularity (among other issues raised). SMcCandlish (talk) 04:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Templates about personal attacks and BLP violationsEdit

Due to the problem that Wikiquote talkpages are often littered with extreme personal attacks and BLP violations I have created these templates

like at wikipedia they can be used for gross personal attacks and BLP violations.

Personal attacks should never be used in Wikiquote. This template allows an editor to remove personal attacks without removing context or completely deleting a comment. -- (talk) 11:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@|ო Thanks for taking this initiative. (BTW I am glad to see we have editors who know how to create templates).
As far as personal attacks are concerned, I wonder if anyone here could point me to a page that defines them. and no, I am not trying to be funny. It is just that we have different people here with different backgrounds and a comment that seems like an egregious personal attack to some, may seem rather mild to others.
Also, it would help if your new templates had documentation explaining how and where to use them. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
The wikipedia version has better explanations. See here. -- (talk) 09:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
@ო: I checked the enwiki documentation regarding this template,and I see it says this:

RPA is a notice that a comment has been removed from a discussion

I am surprised to see that enwiki now allows the removal of talkpage comments. This practice was disallowed a few years ago. I don't believe such actions should be allowed on wikiquote -- which I assume is the purpose of your new template?. Regards, Ottawahitech (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Personal attacks are removed at wikiquote since a long time, sometimes even the page revision is made invisible, only the removal is very inconsistent and the removal of a lot of extreme personal attacks is missed as there are just too many. -- (talk) 12:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, I still believe personal attacks (whatever they are) should rarely, if ever, be removed from discussion. Having a comment removed from a discussion is the best way to antagonize someone who is trying to contribute (I am talking from personal experience). In my opinion the best way to handle, shall we call them, off-topic posts, is to simply collapse them. This allows those who want to see them to "unhide" the comment. Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Undoing editsEdit

Just trying to compare notes here with other contributors:

Whenever I see an edit I disagree with I try to modify it with the help of the undo button. How do others deal with this issue? Do you use the undo button or just change the text because you don't want to get dragged into an edit war, or for another reason? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Technical question: How to add #SheSaid to my signature?Edit

I see I can change my signature by clicking Preferences at the top of a page and following the tab User profile to Signature. I would like to add an invitation at the end of my usual wiki-signature inviting others to join the Wikiquote:SheSaid campaign. Can anyone tell me how to do this? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Adding this to Signature (and checking the checkbox)
[[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] : [[User talk:Ottawahitech|Talk]] : [[Wikiquote:SheSaid|SheSaid]]
should work.
This is a great idea. I have also added it to my signature too. Everybody should consider adding it too. -- ~ SheSaid 21:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

She said campaign on wikiquote is alive and wellEdit

I just discovered a new article: Gender bias on Wikipedia. Way to go! Ottawahitech (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Technical question: How to remove autocomplete from comment summaryEdit

This one is driving me bananas: I put in a comment summary and the silly software decides to add another comment I made on another page at another time. Here is an example.

Is there a way to ask the autocomplete software nicely to stop predicting what my summary should say i? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

[answering my own question after consulting others on a help desk of another wmf-wiki] The Autocomplete-software sits in one's browser, it not part of the wiki-software. In order to stop Autocomplete, one must find out how to do it on the browser they are using, namely Internet Explorer, Firefox, Chrome, etc. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Multi-Content RevisionsEdit

Does anyone know what Multi-Content Revisions are? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

This seems like a great question to ask at mw:. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
You are kidding, right? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
No. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
@Koavf, Alsee: In that case maybe you could help me and others who try to ask questions at mediawiki. Here's the problem I am having: In order to participate in discussion at mediawiki one must be fluent in FLOW which is a new experiment on some wmf-wikis. I have tried asking questions for months, but have become increasingly frustrated because my questions have been largely ignored and have started disapearing into thin air. In one recent case I found out later that my posting was deleted without notice by a local Admn and when I complained about it I was told I was at fault because of my "passive-agressive" language which I think is some kind of wiki-namecalling, not sure. End of rant. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
@Ottawahitech: Generally, I would recommend asking a particular person who maintains some extension. In this case, that was mw:User:Daniel Kinzler (WMDE). Note that this was just an RfC that is now closed along with this ticket, so it was never something that really existed, just a proposal from six years ago. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Moving Category:Cancelled showsEdit

I'm not really sure if there's a centralized Category Talk location for this, apologies. But, I noticed that there's a Category:Cancelled shows because I noticed it on Black Sails (TV series), which wasn't cancelled in the sense that it was pulled before the creators felt it at the end of its natural narrative lifespan but simply ended. I noticed several other shows in the category, such as Category:Breaking Bad, Band of Brothers (miniseries) (how do you cancel a 10-part miniseries?), Boardwalk Empire, that also weren't "cancelled" in that sense but just concluded. I noticed that the talk page for the category remarks (over a decade ago) that the the category is poorly named. It would better exist at, say, Category:Ended shows (which matches the Wikipedia Category:Television series endings) or Category:Concluded shows or something of the like. It's broader than "Cancelled shows", better encompasses the apparent intent of the category, and it doesn't require sitting here parsing whether a project was canceled versus concluded.

I would simply move the category myself as a taking initiative thing, but it has about 100 subcategories and a little over 1,400 items, and I haven't renamed a category in a long time so I don't know what happens afterward and don't have the resources to rehome all these items manually if necessary. Is this a controversial move? Is there a better location to discuss this? And, should there be grounds to rename the category to something else uncontroversially, is there an avenue to ensure all the child categories and items are correctly ushered to the correct spot, perhaps by automated means by necessary? TenTonParasol (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@TenTonParasol: Welcome to Wikiquote. I am glad to see more Wikiquotiens who are interested in the Category system on WQ.
Where should category-related questions be discussed? I also asked the same question, and I believe, but am not sure, that the consensus is that asking questions about any topic should be done right here on the Village Pump, because WQ does not have enough participants to support any more discussion venues.
I myself have had some luck getting some feedback on specific Category-talkpages, but many times what I had to do was post on such a talk-page, wait for a while then start promoting the discussion by posting links to it from discussions at other locations, such as the Village Pump. Your Miles May Vary (YMMV). Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
My two cents: Yes, this is a fine place for such discussion (although I would also expect to see some like this at the Category's talk page - and then maybe elevated to the VP to gain a larger audience). As to the original question, you make some good points and I would support moving these pages to one of your suggestions (I would recommend keeping similar naming conventions as WP). If you are familiar with Cat-a-lot, this task should not be too burdensome. I echo Ottawatech's thanks in getting involved in such tasks. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
At Wikisource, if I recall correctly, they have some kind of move-category-template. I guess that allows admins, or some other experienced users, to step-in and evaluate the move before a lot of potential unnecessary disruption takes place. Also, if I remember correctly, cat-a-lot is only avialable on some kind of software operating systems, but not others? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I forgot to thank @UDScott for the tireless help they provide on category-talkpages. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Ottoman EmpireEdit

The following is only a theoretical question:

If I wanted to research a new article for Wikiquote, where would I go to find good quotes? For example if I wanted to start an article about the Ottoman Empire. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

copyright questionEdit

I have just posted a file I got at Commons at Economy of China. Commons says the license is: CC BY-SA 4.0 which is Greek (or Chinese) to me. Am I in trouble? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

You can read about CC BY-SA 4.0 here. This is your add file edit, right? It seems that, at the least, you need to include an attribution. But I wonder why you added it at all. First, what does it have to do with "Economy of China"? Second, what does the graphic add to the quote? (By the way, quotes that appear on the side with illustrations generally also appear in the text of the article.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
@Butwhatdoiknow: Why did I add an image tied to Jack Ma to the Economy of China? Because I could not think of a better image to add to this image-less page. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
@Ottawahitech: Okay, I'll play along. Let's assume it's better than any other graphic. The next question is "is it better than no graphic?" Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Update: Apparently I am not in trouble. I posted a question about this at at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#really_basic_question and received a reply. Ottawahitech (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

How about CC BY 2.0? It also says "add attribution". Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Privacy Policy at the White Hose website - comments?Edit

Since the White House website is linked to the official usa government accounts at Twitter I went over to check it out and found the following at: Privacy Policy at the White Hose website:

WE MAY ALSO USE MESSAGES OR COMMENTS COLLECTED THROUGH WHITEHOUSE.GOV OR OFFICIAL SOCIAL MEDIA PAGES FOR OUR OWN PURPOSES, SUCH AS TO INFORM POLICY DECISIONS OR IN PUBLIC ADVOCACY.

Comments?  Ottawahitech (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

What to do about tweets that are not available any more?Edit

The immediate WQ dilemma is at Donald Trump who has for years relied on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram for communicating with the world. The problem WQ now faces has been posted here: Talk:Donald_Trump#What_to_do_about_tweets_that_are_not_available_any_more? Ottawahitech (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Bad quoteEdit

American Negro Academy - the two quotes never mention this academy. The whole entry should be deleted. Deisenbe (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The quotes of Louis "Moondog" HardinEdit

There must be a huge number of people all around the world who know of Moondog's music and some of his quotes,words The most well known coming from his album,simply titled Moondog. "The only one who knows that the songs of words is just a token,is he who has the tongue to tell,but must remain unspoken". and "Machines were mice, and men were Lions once upon a time,but now that it's the opposite,it's twice upon a time" No words can accurately describe his music,but there must surely be more of his words and quotes available. The album mentioned was released in the UK in 1969,I think.I would be grateful if anyone knows if he wrote more of his words of wisdom.

@ 86.189.253.143 Do you mean Moondog? If so, you may want to check the sources that were used to build the enwiki page -- it may lead you to other sources about this interesting American. If you find any quotes, please don't hesitate to bring them back to WQ. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

QOTD editor turned Wikiquote's Main Page into his personal blogEdit

This is about partisan contemporary US politics in every quote, every day. --ElfQrin (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

While I understand the concern, I do not believe that this is what is happening. Rather, this topic is by far the one most dominating conversations at the moment and it seems appropriate to address it in the QOTD. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Why are there so many pages with images containing a swastika on WQ?Edit

I have been working on articles for WQ:SheSaid and have come across several pages that contain an image with a swastika. I did not think much of it initially, but now I am starting to wonder if this is something that deters new members from joining WQ? Opinions? Ottawahitech (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide some examples? I would guess that there are a lot of pages of quotes from World War II German figures which might include that. BD2412 T 00:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I found only one small swastika on theosophist Annie Besant in Category:Women. However, in a search on commons:Category:Nazi_Swastikas I counted 42 pages with File:Anti-dictatures.svg and File:Anti-dictatures2.svg on enWQ. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I just discovered Template:Badimage but there is no documentation, and I cannot figure out if and how to use it, to prevent the use of images with swastikas on WQ. Anyone? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Ottawahitech: It's not necessarily that big of an issue unless it's being unduly used to promote an ideology. It's a particularly nasty part of history, but it's still part of history. It's acceptable to use images that invoke racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, so long as they serve a legitimate educational purpose related to racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. GMGtalk 04:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Looking at the list of pages containing the image identified, I do think its use is a bit excessive. I have a hunch that we'll find that a single user added almost every instance of it. I think any user has the right to switch it out for an image they feel is better for the page. BD2412 T 05:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @GreenMeansGo: I disagree: it is a big issue. The use of a swastika image is a highly offensive and emotional issue for a large group of individuals. What sort of educational purpse do you believe these images serve here? Ottawahitech (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Ottawahitech: Whether a particular use is appropriate will ultimately depend on context. Using offensive content is sometimes appropriate when discussing offensive subjects. Obviously, on something like the main article for Nazism, as the primary historical symbol identifying the ideology, its use would seem to have an intrinsic educational value.
As above, feel free to evaluate whether the context of the use cases warrants inclusion, and remove or replace as appropriate. But something like Template:Badimage is used for content that has no potential educational use whatsoever. This is almost entirely low quality gratuitously pornographic images used by vandals and trolls. But the standard of having any plausible educational usefulness in any conceivable context is a very low bar, and probably any symbolism of any historical significance would satisfy it. GMGtalk 12:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
A random example of such a weird yet wikilegit (=historical & educational) context: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:85.LGBT.MOW.25April1993_(23711409874).jpg Zezen (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Zezen: Enwikiquote has 42 pages, some of notable people with a Jewish background, who have an image containing a Nazi Swastika inserted on their page. I am hoping the person/s who iserted these images will pop in to explain why they added the images. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I will start by simply noting that not all swastikas are Nazi swastikas: Jains, Hindus, Buddhists and modern Theosophists used swastikas as symbols of benevolence and divine acceptance or approval long before pissant Nazi bigots adopted it as a symbol of their ignorant, confused and depraved ideologies and thus turned their racist, anti-Semitic and nationalistic uses of the swastika into something quite properly reviled by most individuals of greater moral and mental integrity.

You seem to be intent on implying or asserting that any use of any reviled image or symbols should be rigorously censored or even forbidden, even in contexts where they are both relevant and expressly critical of the ideas and ideologies represented by them.

The image you seem to be most specifically objecting to is one which is clearly objecting to dictatorships generally, using historically significant symbols of Nazi and Communist dictatorships, specifically, amidst a red background field evoking wanton spilling of blood.

Some of the most clearly relevant uses of this image are with these captioned quotes on various pages, critical of various forms of dictatorships or tyrannies, and often specifically the two clearly referenced by the image:

• When Rhinoceros was produced in Germany, it had fifty curtain calls. The next day the papers wrote, "Ionesco shows us how we became Nazis." But in Moscow, they wanted me to rewrite it and make sure that it dealt with Nazism and not with their kind of totalitarianism. ~ Eugène Ionesco

• If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. ~ Karl Popper

Orwell in 1948 understood that despite the Axis defeat, the will to fascism had not gone away, that far from having seen its day it had perhaps not yet even come into its own… ~ Thomas Pynchon

• Communism is in itself a variant, the most successful variant, of Fascism. Fascism with a human face. ~ Susan Sontag

George Soros is one of the several persons of Jewish heritage on whose page this image occurs, and it was used on his page where he was specifically referring to his experiences in opposition to both Nazi and Communist dictatorships, such as he encountered in his life. Extending a bit on the quote used as a caption for the image, he states: "I learned at a very early age that what kind of social system or political system prevails is very important. Not just for your well-being, but for your very survival. … I could have been killed by the Nazis. I could have wasted my life under the Communists. So, that's what led me to this idea of an open society. And that is the idea that is motivating me."

I do believe it an actual deference and service to the impulses, ideas and ideologies of pissant fascist dictatorships and would-be dictatorships to oppressively prevent people from using what words, symbols and other significant means are available to them to identify various fascist impulses, ideas and ideologies for what they actually are, and in the case of their use on pages here, from using them in conjunctions with quotes vigorously criticizing them in such ways as the image itself actually does. ~ ♌︎Kalki ⚓︎ 01:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC) + tweaks

I would venture that most swastikas in this project were added by Kalki, who seems to have a fetish for them. I would begin by saying that the images included in Apology are incongruous to that page - there is nothing there that actually illustrates an apology, just a set of images that Kalki is fond of overusing. I intend to remove them once this discussion concludes, if someone else doesn't get their first. BD2412 T 04:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I would venture that some pissant fascists or other fools might wish to fantasize that I have a fetish for Nazi swastikas — even when my use of them is nearly universally with quotes in some way derisive or critical of the fascist impulses, ideas and ideologies they have been used to represent, or at worst using them as simply relevant to some quotes of fascists. I have added some of the context that exists on the page of The Faith of a Heretic by Walter Kaufmann to the Apology page (which was created with reference to the broader ranges of various apologetics, as well as the narrower uses of the word "apology" such as are commonly used today) to make clearer their use on that page. ~ ♌︎Kalki ⚓︎ 04:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC) + tweaks
It would be more accurate to say that your use of them is nearly universal. How many pages have you created into which you haven't managed to work a swastika? There are literally millions of images on Commons, and tens of thousands of categories. Expand your repertoire. BD2412 T 06:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
WTF??? — What the FRAUD are you talking about — or trying to create? Though I am certainly not the only person who has used images of swastikas with quotes by or about fascists, I have CREATED over a thousand pages, and worked on over a thousand more — and this particular ANTI-FASCIST, ANTI-DICTATORSHIP image using the symbol currently occurs on a total of 33 pages (including a few transclusions and its use on this page); a few occurrences of the previous version of it also exist, and I am sure that I have used other swastikas on other pages where they are clearly appropriate — but I seriously doubt that there are much more than a hundred pages, if even that, in which they have been used by ANYONE, in either the deplorable Nazi form, or the ancient Hindu, Jain or Buddhist versions of the symbol, on the entire wiki. To say my use of them "is nearly universal" is profoundly delusional or simply deceitful. ~ ♌︎Kalki ⚓︎ 06:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC) + tweaks
Use of the symbol is prevalent enough and prominent enough that a new editor to the project was taken aback by it, and initiated a discussion here. BD2412 T 17:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Many people are taken aback by many things; I am often somewhat surprised by many of the forms of entrenched ignorance, confusion, bigotry and deliberate deceitfulness which I encounter on the internet, including the forms which would declare as contemptible this very clearly ANTI-Nazi use of the symbol within a generally anti-tyrannical composition which I had discovered already on the Wikimedia Commons many years ago, and found to be insightful and instructive imagery clearly opposed to general forms of tyranny by ANY political factions or their professed motivations in support of dictatorship. In more extensive analysis of this image's use, which very likely prompted this discussion after it's very appropriate use on the Susan Sontag page with her quote regarding communism and fascism was apparently noticed, after I did a quote of the day of her.
  • Not sure I'm super enthusiastic about this image in particular. Not necessarily because of the specific symbolism, but because it has all the historical significance of an internet meme. Judging from template transclusions on Commons, there's probably on the order of at least thirty to forty thousand related images to choose from. Even if the issue of relevance is a given, I'm not sure why we should prefer a fairly low quality image that seems to have just been made up by somebody one day on their laptop. c:Category:Antifascist resistance alone has at least several hundred images available. GMGtalk 14:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I have tried to look for alternatives on Commons and this seems to be the only image on Commons that illustrates opposition to both nazism and commnuism. I have not found any other. Therefore, for quotes that illustrate opposition to both nazism and commnuism it may be suitable. In all other cases, it is better to replace it IMO. I would have thought that most readers would understand that this is an anti-fascist image, but some readers might be confused about it so it is better to avoid it. Also the theosophical seal and the Hindu and Buddhist symbol are not related to the Nazi symbol as Kalki mentioned already. Also can somebody explain what the two white shapes at the bottom right of the image are? -- ~ #SheSaid 13:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
    • How about not having any image that "illustrates opposition to both nazism and commnuism" on pages that don't really need such an image? BD2412 T 02:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
      • I agree with @BD2412. Anyone who wants to see which pages these images were inserted into can easily click on the link I inserted at the top of this thread and check the individual images. Commons provides a complete list of pages each image is used on: for example file:Anti-dictatures2.svg is used on 32 enWQ pages, but on only one at enwiki. I am disappointed that the author of these images, who is also the one who inserted them into WQ, has decided not to remove them. It is a shame that a user who has been around WQ for 13 years since 2003 seems to not care about the WQ communty and does not understand why the image of a nazi swastika damages this wiki. I h
In my opinion all swastika symbols should be removed from WQ. Period. If users feel the need to replace them let them do it, under community scrutiny. I have started this process by removing the image from this thread where it serves no purpose. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • No examples were this particular image was used were shown in this discussion, and I have not checked how this particular image is used, so this was hypothetical. As I said it, unless clearly relevant and lacking alternatives, such image should be avoided and replaced. -- ~ #SheSaid 12:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@დამოკიდებულება: , I am not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that you do not feel this is an issue for the whole WQ community? Ottawahitech (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
No, I have not been saying this. The image is in the category anti nazi logos, could the image be replaced with a better suitable from this same category of anti nazi logos? If it cannot be replaced I don't oppose the removal. -- ~ #SheSaid 19:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I had some time ago noticed that the image most under discussion, which I had added with references to a few of the quotes it has been used with had been removed from the discussion. I did not immediately restore it upon discovering this, because the irrationalities involved in removing it were so were so extensive, I knew I did not at that point have time to sufficiently address them. I have now restored the image into the discussion area where it had been placed, but with an added a sub-sectional border enclosing it and the quotes I had listed as a few with which it had been used, as without it's inclusion some of my previous statements referring to it directly can seem almost as incoherent and irrational as some of the arguments which have been presented for it to be removed from pages. As has been pointed out several times, it clearly uses the swastika as symbolic of Nazism within an ANTI-NAZI and more generally anti-fascist and anti-tyrannical composition. The framing I have added also helps prevent mistaking the image evoking dripping blood of the background as merely representing "two white shapes" on a field of red, as at least two people over the years have somehow mistaken them for, when placed on a white background.
I had expected to respond extensively to matters here much earlier, only a few hours after restoring the image to some pages from which it had been removed, but remained too busy with other matters to respond until now.
Some of the other quotes which this image had been used to emphasize on from various pages included these:
Richard Hofstadter : It is possible that the distinction between moral relativism and moral absolutism has sometimes been blurred because an excessively consistent practice of either leads to the same practical result — ruthlessness in political life.
Jane Jacobs : Extremists typically want to squash not only those who disagree with them diametrically, but those who disagree with them at all.
Kurt Vonnegut : Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile.
In earlier comments another editor stated that this seems to be "the only image on Commons that illustrates opposition to both nazism and commnuism"; that actually isn't the case, but for a long time I believe that it probably was, and the only other such images which I know of are much less striking, more simplistic and less applicable in relation to other forms of dictatorship and tyranny than the Nazi and Soviet regimes specified.
Amidst many other ignorant and confused assertions and mistaken assumptions, the person who began this discussion states that despite some rational pushback to such irrational nonsense, by another editor, that apparently no matter what the context: "all swastika symbols should be removed from WQ", and "I am disappointed that the author of these images, who is also the one who inserted them into WQ, has decided not to remove them. It is a shame that a user who has been around WQ for 13 years since 2003 seems to not care about the WQ communty and does not understand why the image of a nazi swastika damages this wiki."
I will also state that it should be quite clear to anyone who actually examines the "file page" for it that I certainly am NOT "the author" of this image — I simply edited it to make it's background transparent rather than opaque white, in the SVG version of it at the Wikimedia Commons. The most used version of the image was created in 2007 by Ash Crow, based on an earlier 2006 composition by Patrick Madrolle, and I have already stated that I found them to be "insightful and instructive imagery clearly opposed to general forms of tyranny by ANY political factions or their professed motivations in support of dictatorship" and as such I have used them in conjunction with quotes in some way "derisive or critical of the fascist impulses, ideas and ideologies" which the Nazi and Soviet symbols have been used to represent. I adamantly remain derisive or critical of the fascist impulses, ideas and ideologies — no matter what specific individuals or factions might embrace them, or seek to promote them.
I find it more than merely ironic, and actually extremely suspicious that so obviously an anti-oppression composition has become the focus of attempts at censorship. I will also note that the subsequent attempts to remove incidents of the swastika or at least the Nazi swastika here, have thus far mostly been in conjunction with their use with anti-fascist and anti-tyrannical statements or presentations.
I will probably make a few more observations to this thread of discussions within the next day or so... but have quite a few other matters to attend to today, including at least a few others here. ~ ♌︎Kalki ⚓︎ 19:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Another flavour of a Nazi Swastika WQEdit

Just discovered another one inserted on Palestine. This one is File:Protests Edinburgh 10 1 2009 5.JPG. It was created by a different user. Opinions? Ottawahitech (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The image is not directly relevant and of low quality.-- ~ #SheSaid 12:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Removing Nazi Swastika images from wikiquoteEdit

I have removed some File:Anti-dictatures.svg and File:Anti-dictatures2.svg images from the various wikiquote pages that currently contain them. Unfortunately it appears that my edits have been reverted on

and no one seems to object. Does this mean that the WQ community believes those images belong on those pages? Just curious. Ottawahitech (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

As you have probably noticed, I responded to your removal of these images and the accompanied anti-fascist captions which they were used with, but did not complete the restoration of such removals as you had begun to do, because I had more urgent matters to attend to; I intend to complete that task to the extent I believe appropriate, perhaps today. In the meanwhile you earlier today removed another anti-fascist quote and the satirical cartoon it was used as a caption for from the Dr. Seuss page. I restored that and I noted there that "I have long suspected you to be, and increasingly perceive evidence of you very likely being very little more than a malicious troll around here, despite various forms of camouflage and acceptable edits. I am continuing to examine many aspects of many things that have occurred in recent years, and still analyzing and assessing them to the extent time permits — but you have increasingly deleted various anti-tyrannical and anti-fascist quotes and captions on what I perceive to be various dubious or ridiculous pretexts and pretensions of virtuous motivations, but I have retained some doubts and uncertainties about many things […] You're actions truly have become increasingly contemptible here, and I mean to make some extensive observations on this fact within the next couple of weeks. I remain primarily busy with many other things, but will attend to such matters to the extent time permits."
I did not intend to deal with the matter very much more today, but I might do so; but I do retain many other things to attend to and it might be a few days yet, before I believe I will have examined things sufficiently to indicate some further observations on this matter and a few others. ~ ♌︎Kalki ⚓︎ 18:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC) + tweaks
My two cents: I believe it is sometimes necessary to include offensive imagery in order to emphasize quotes that are against offensive topics. In each of the cases you mention, the quotes where the images are added are anti-facism, anti-discriminnation and the authors do not endorse their application. Rather than hide from these topics, I do believe it is better to shine a light on them. Just as we do not censor quotes (even if over time our perspective on them changes and they may become offensive), we should not be afraid to include images that evoke a certain reaction in people. Their use in these cases seems appropriate to me. There may be other instances when their removal is the correct path, but IMHO, this is not that time. And as a note, I do find the notions of facism, intolerance, discrimination, and elitism distasteful at best and very harmful at worst - and I certainly do not condone the actions associated with these particular images. But I do think they can be useful in educating people as to the tragedies of history so that we all might learn a bit more about ourselves and others. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
For me the anti nazi and more generally anti-fascist and anti-tyrannical composition of the image as used in these pages is clear, and I broadly agree with Kalki and UDScott with regard to the image. When however several users argue that it is not clear to them, and are taken aback by it, then more caution is advised. That is why I have said that it may be better to replace or avoid this image. It would be helpful to hear the opinion from more people on this image. -- ~ #SheSaid 15:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: Admin activity reviewEdit

Hello. A policy regarding the removal of "advanced rights" (administrator, bureaucrat, interface administrator, etc.) was adopted by global community consensus in 2013. According to this policy, the stewards are reviewing administrators' activity on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis with no inactivity policy. To the best of our knowledge, your wiki does not have a formal process for removing "advanced rights" from inactive accounts. This means that the stewards will take care of this according to the admin activity review.

We have determined that the following users meet the inactivity criteria (no edits and no logged actions for more than 2 years):

Administrator Last edit Last log action
FloNight 2018-12-18 02:29 2018-12-18 02:17
Sketchmoose 2018-04-19 23:32 2016-04-30 13:04
Ubiquity 2018-03-27 18:06 2018-03-20 21:41

These users will receive a notification soon, asking them to start a community discussion if they want to retain some or all of their rights. If the users do not respond, then their advanced rights will be removed by the stewards.

However, if you as a community would like to create your own activity review process superseding the global one, want to make another decision about these inactive rights holders, or already have a policy that we missed, then please notify the stewards on Meta-Wiki so that we know not to proceed with the rights review on your wiki. Thanks,

--Defender (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Defender: Thanks for alerting the WQ community to the existence of A META policy regarding a global Admin activity review. I have a couple of small questions as a starter:
  • Since Steward elections will commence shortly, who will make the final decision, the old set of Stewards or the newly elected set?
  • How easy is it to re-instate a WQ admin whose "tools" were taken away in previous years?
Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Anyone can get the admin tools at any time by passing an RfA, though someone may be unlikely to pass if they've been entirely absent from the project for two years. There is no special standard for former administrators. As to stewards, there isn't really a "decision to be made", just a button to be pushed. It's an objective standard of activity. It will be done by...whoever gets to it. We don't have that many stewards and they can often have a lot to take care of. GMGtalk 04:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not a steward. But I can answer based on years of experience. For AAR, which is usually done regularly every year, certain stewards undertake these processes. Because @Defender: is the current steward, on steward confirmations in this year community members will only decide whether to continue stewardship or not. If the user who receives notification does not respond here or on the user message pages that they want their rights to be kept or if the local community doesn't object to removed for their rights, their rights will be taken as a result of the evaluation of the relevant stewards. Or if the local community asks their rights not to be removed. Anyway, the general purpose of these processes is to address rare problems such as no longer being active for any personal reason or your admin account may be hacked. I hope I will able to help you a little bit for your questions. Uncitoyen (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Moving Wikimania 2021 to a Virtual EventEdit

Hello. Apologies if you are not reading this message in your native language. Please help translate to your language. Thank you!

Wikimania will be a virtual event this year, and hosted by a wide group of community members. Whenever the next in-person large gathering is possible again, the ESEAP Core Organizing Team will be in charge of it. Stay tuned for more information about how you can get involved in the planning process and other aspects of the event. Please read the longer version of this announcement on wikimedia-l.

ESEAP Core Organizing Team, Wikimania Steering Committee, Wikimedia Foundation Events Team, 15:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Project Grant Open CallEdit

This is the announcement for the Project Grants program open call that started on January 11, with the submission deadline of February 10, 2021.
This first open call will be focussed on Community Organizing proposals. A second open call focused on research and software proposals is scheduled from February 15 with a submission deadline of March 16, 2021.

For the Round 1 open call, we invite you to propose grant applications that fall under community development and organizing (offline and online) categories. Project Grant funds are available to support individuals, groups, and organizations to implement new experiments and proven ideas, from organizing a better process on your wiki, coordinating a campaign or editathon series to providing other support for community building. We offer the following resources to help you plan your project and complete a grant proposal:

Program officers are also available to offer individualized proposal support upon request. Contact us if you would like feedback or more information.

We are excited to see your grant ideas that will support our community and make an impact on the future of Wikimedia projects. Put your idea into motion, and submit your proposal by February 10, 2021!

Please feel free to get in touch with questions about getting started with your grant application, or about serving on the Project Grants Committee. Contact us at projectgrantsTemplate:Atwikimedia.org. Please help us translate this message to your local language. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Quotes published in social media that were deleted by the social media platformEdit

On some pages such as Trump related pages there are quotes that were published on social media that were later deleted or suspended by the social media platform (Twitter, also Facebook, Quora, etc). The most well known example is Donald Trump but there are many others such as tweets and quotes from very prominent Iranian and Malaysian politicians, and these quotes from social media have been reported in the media before or after they were deleted or suspended by the social media platform.

Such quotes are also on pages about Donald Trump and other articles despite being deleted or suspended by the social media platform where they were originally published. What is the policy regarding this on WQ? -- ~ #SheSaid 12:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems to me that a contemporaneous report from a reliable media source would adequately support the quote. See Wikiquote:Quotability#Verification_factor. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I would go so far as to say that we should only be including social media posts that were notable enough in the first instance to be reported in reliable sources. BD2412 T 17:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Is there a difference when we report tweets from a subject on the subject's own WQ page? I agree with this in principle, and the WQ policy should be updated, but this was not my question. For example, Twitter deleted tweets by very prominent politicians, and these tweets are still deleted and will likely remain deleted at Twitter, and it was reported in the media also, and in some cases the entire Twitter account was suspended which means all tweets were deleted. Examples are removed tweets by Donald Trump and by the former Malaysian P.M. [1] or by Iranian Ayatollah. The reasons for deletions vary case by case, but very serious reasons were usually cited by Twitter. Is it responsible to quote such tweets on WQ that were deleted or suspended from Twitter for very serious reasons and which were also reported in other media and other reliable sources? If they were serious enough for Twitter to be removed, should they also be removed on WQ? -- ~ #SheSaid 19:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
If they were reported in other media, they can be reported here. We are a compendium, not a social media platform. We can note in the sourcing for the quote that it was originally posted on Twitter, and then deleted from that platform due to its policy of not permitting dissemination of false information. BD2412 T 20:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
@BD2412: I would be entirely in favor of making all quotations here having to be sourced to their original and having been quoted elsewhere with a source. My understanding is that this double-sourcing requirement is already in place at de.wq. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I would prefer more of a sliding scale. Certainly tweets and other social media postings directly by the subject should need to be quoted elsewhere. Quotes published in an edited interview with a reliable source, not so much. BD2412 T 21:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Then how do we decide what should be included? It's a real free-for-all and easily susceptible to manipulation (as we have recently seen :/). —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
We use some common sense. How notable is the speaker, how reliable is the source, and how useful is the quote itself? The latter inquiry can be a matter of community consensus. BD2412 T 22:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Ostensibly, sure but for a very notable person, virtually any public statement would be notable and measures of utility are very squishy: hence, the ease of POV-pushing and manipulation. Requiring secondary citations makes a clear and objective standard that some quotation is itself notable (notable quotations can come from otherwise non-notable persons, non-notable statements can come from notable persons). re: consensus, in principle that works but in practice, with such a small community, there are not enough eyes to make all bugs shallow. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
That example makes sense for verification, but not for notability of the quote itself. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

To come back to the original question, they were not removed just because of its policy of not permitting dissemination of false information, but they gave reason for deletion because they incited a coup d'etat, the overthrow of a democratically government in the capitol of the USA in collaboration with twitter handles originating from China or Russia disrupting law and order situation in the national capital of US. They gave reason this is not about free speech, but about tweets that were provoking undermining democracy and a coup d'etat. That is the stated reason that the twitter (and all other social media accounts like facebook) were deleted. Therefore it could cause controversy that wikiquote has pages Donald Trump and Donald Trump on social media reproducing this content. We had at wikiquote an user complaining about tweets from twitter from politicians (tweets which were also reported by the media) in which tweet the politican were blessing the people with God Rama's blessings. If already a tweet can be controversial because of giving a religious blessing, then how much more controversial are tweets that were actually removed by Twitter due to inciting a coup d'etat such as at pages about Donald Trump? The question is if content from tweets at Donald Trump and Donald Trump on social media should be deleted.

The conclusion seems to be, that even if tweets are controversial, if they were reported in other media, they can be reported here. -- ~ #SheSaid 21:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Possible big change: require proof of notability of quoteEdit

In the discussion above BD2412 points out an important requirement - too often overlooked - for a quote to appear in this wiki: notability of the quote itself. I suspect that a substantial number of the quotes currently appearing at this site result from folks finding something that strikes their fancy that someone notable said and then adding it. What does the community think about, going forward, requiring that quotes not only include a source but also "proof of notability"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree in principle, but since this was never policy, the majority of quotes on WQ do not display this proof, despite that in many cases such proof would exist. This means more than half of WQ would not meet the requirement even though such proof would in many cases exist. I have seen many cases were such proof was even deleted and removed from WQ articles, and when a reason was given for such deletion it was said it was unnecessary, spam or clutter. -- ~ #SheSaid 19:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Right, we'd need to be clear about the "going forward" aspect of any requirement we set up. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

If this goes ahead, I would propose we start using a Reference section, as in Wikipedia, to reduce visual clutter.

To give an example:

Quotes

  • I became my own only when I gave myself to Another.
    • C. S. Lewis, Letters of C. S. Lewis (17 July 1953), para. 2, p. 251.[1]

References

[1] As reported in The Quotable Lewis, ed. Wayne Martindale and Jerry Root (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1989), p. 334.

~ DanielTom (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I see no need for footnote references; all of the information about where a quote originates can be included in the citation following the quote. I would mention, as an aside, that at one point I added several thousand quotes from different public domain quotation collections (Bartlett's 1919; Hoyt's, the 1904 Dictionary of Legal Quotations). I suppose it will not be terribly hard to pinpoint these, but if I had known that we would be discussing this, I would have left some notation. For those, I think, we can engineer some kind of shorthand. BD2412 T 19:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong support 100%: All quotations here should have a source and a reliable source quoting said quotation to prove that the quotation is notable. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: The problem I have with this potential requirement is that it only really fits with more recent quotes or works. It is not very likely that a quote from a literary work from the more distant past as an example is quoted in a secondary source. But that shouldn't disqualify its inclusion here. If the author or the work from which the quote is taken is clearly notable, I do not believe we should force the need for some other source to have quoted it. For example, the following quote by James Fenimore Cooper in The Last of the Mohicans is clearly notable, but is not likely to be quoted elsewhere, except maybe for another quotations collection (which may or may not be very well sourced itself). "It is better for a man to die at peace with himself than to live haunted by an evil conscience." It seems to me that a requirement that a quote be quoted in a secondary source really only fits with quotes taken from modern media or written/spoken by living people. But when quotes are from a literary work or film, etc., I'm not sure this is the best policy. If this were applied, I doubt that most film pages or TV show pages would exist. Yes, I know that many pages in these categories are not the best and may contain many quotes some consider not quoteworthy, but we would also lose many others that are quite memorable in the process. Oh, and I also do not favor the use of footnotes regardless of what is decided on sources. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
    • This is an interesting thought. Suppose we have a cutoff date of 1925 (before which all works were in the public domain as of the establishment of Wikiquote and up until last year). This would cover all the public domain collection quotes I have added and others from historical figures less likely to be used in promotional contexts. We can presume quotes prior to that date are likely notable because they have been recorded and conveyed to the extent that they are still with us today. BD2412 T 04:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps - but again, I am only in favor of this for people pages. Were this cutoff date used for pages for works, as an example, we would likely have to cut many of the quotes on the The Catcher in the Rye page (published in 1951), as it is likely that only a few of the quotes on the page were ever cited in a secondary source. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
This seems to be an argument against a requirement that quotes be notable. Your example, for example, is certainly by a notable person and is undeniably of high quality. But if that is all that is required then what prevents the Shakespeare page from becoming a dump of his complete works? Or the Monty Python and the Holy Grail page from including the entire script? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
There is always that risk (which has always existed), but we have a community here and other guidance that provides additional limits on how much material can be quoted. I am not arguing that quotes need not be notable - but notability is not only proved by being quoted by another. If we impose the quite high bar of only allowing quotes that have been quoted elsewhere, many quotes that are surely memorable and notable (especially from older works) will be excluded. As Kalki stated in this thread, I am against imposing such a strict requirement that will likely result in the exclusion of many quotes that until now have never caused an issue for anyone by being included in our site. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that we switch the test for notability of a quote from (a) "fame" and "endurance" to (b) "memorable"? - —This unsigned comment is by Butwhatdoiknow (talkcontribs) .
No, there is no "switch" necessary. Both (a) and (b) are factors for what is deemed quotable. There may be quotes said by a notable person that are in no way memorable - these should not be included, despite the notability of the speaker. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Let me try this again. Are you suggesting that a memorable (artful?) quote from an older work may be "notable" without fame and endurance? 03:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I do believe this to be the case. There are many quotes, especially from works, that may never be quoted in modern media that definitely rise to the level of what we wish to include here. And I would hate to lose them just for the sake of a very high bar being set as a restriction for inclusion. I get it for quotes from people (especially living people), but when applied to other types of pages, it seems a bit restrictive. And I also believe that Kalki's point (made below) regarding the inability to provide contextual quotes around a more well-known part is valid. In the end, I believe that while we need to have some structure and rules, I do not want to be so rigid in their application that we lose the good with the bad. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
If you'll permit me, I'd like to see whether we can come to some consensus regarding the "memorable can be enough" issue before moving on to Kalki's points. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Above you explain that the "community ... and other guidance ... provides additional limits on how much material can be quoted." Say I'm reading a P.G. Wodehouse novel and come across what I believe to be an memorable turn of phrase. If not fame and endurance, what "community" or "guidance" would prevent me from adding that to Wikiquote? IF none, does anything prevent me from adding hundreds of such quotes? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that is the nature of a wiki. Nothing would prevent you from adding them. What I meant by the community and other guidance is that we do have some limits already established (for example I could not quote every line from my favorite film, even I thought they were all good) that would lead to many of the added quotes being removed, as well as we have a community that would likely not agree with every choice made in the circumstance you mention and would either trim or argue to trim some of the quotes you added. It's not a perfect system, in that it might take time to get a page to a good level, but that is the system we have and is the very nature of a wiki, where users may freely edit pages. I am just not in favor of establishing overly strict and rigid rules - that's not how wikis as I know them function well. Yes, this leads to problems occurring on occasion (or even frequently in some cases), but if we wanted to have a closed site with only the very best and famous quotes, without freedom to edit the pages within, IMHO it wouldn't be the same project as it is now. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
To be fair to me, I am not proposing that we limit Wikiquote to only the very best and most famous quotes, just to those that have proven their quotability by actually having been quoted at least once somewhere meaningful. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Okay, so I post a quote I find memorable. You delete that quote because you believe it isn't memorable. What standard do we apply to resolve our difference of opinion? What is the definition of "memorable"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I would refer you to Wikiquote:Quotability#Artfulness factor, which states:
It may be a very difficult and very subjective determination to say that one quote is "quotable" while another is not.
As Samuel Taylor Coleridge famously wrote:
Prose is words in their best order;
Poetry is the best words in their best order.
Where the author is highly notable, the inclusion of less literate statements by that author may be justified. Where the speaker is of little notability, we seek the witty, the pithy, the wise, the eloquent, and the poignant expressions. How a quote is weighed under this factor is a very subjective decision, which may be determined by consensus of the community. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Good discussion. I think we clearly understand each others' viewpoint. Too bad those viewpoints seem irreconcilable. I'm following up on the "strict requirement" concern below. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I strongly OPPOSE this whole idea. There are properly guidelines which are for the most part proper which have long existed, regarding notability of authors and various works which I believe are certainly not flawless, but usually sufficient. I generally believe it better, when possible, to maintain rather loose guidelines which can permit many incidental considerations within potential disputes than any alternatives which for the most part ignore or deny the deficiencies and problems of absolute mandates. The mandates proposed not only would constrain some clear excesses which exist presently, and are often problematic, but as UDScott mentions, create a host of worse problems and radically diminish or eliminate most options for quotes and many pages for modern films, TV shows, and most other media, including very noted and notable works of literature. ~ ♌︎Kalki ⚓︎ 13:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Such mandates would also potentially even eliminate the option for extending quotes for proper context — as throughout history, and especially in modern times, there have often been quotations of only portions of statements deliberately or incidentally presented out of context, in quite misleading and deceptive ways, and such situations are quite often best remedied by extending well circulated quotes to retain and present such context as have often remained relatively unknown and rarely or never quoted. ~ ♌︎Kalki ⚓︎ 13:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I also oppose the idea of switching to footnote citations rather than interlinear citations or sub-heading sectional citations. ~ ♌︎Kalki ⚓︎ 13:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm with you on this last point. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
@Kalki: Okay, what if we made it a recommendation rather than a requirement? Something like "If the notability of a quote is not inherently obvious editors may wish to include suitable evidence. See, for example, 'We're on to Cincinnati.'" Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

WikiMedia Foundation Steward elections start February 5, 2021Edit

Since I have not seen invitations posted on Wikiquote for the upcoming Steward elections I decided to share here what I discovered by following links supplied in the Wikiquote discussion at ANI babe kebab by other generous users.

  • The annual election of stewads starts in four days.
  • There is a list of current Stewards who need to be confirmed.
    • Even though the community gets to ask Stewards who want to maintin their status questions/ and make comments/ the final decision rests with the Stewards themselves.
    • The talkpage of the page linked above cannot be used for commenting on the proceedings by regular users because it is reserved for the Stewards during their final deliberations
  • I see no list of new candidates. Anyone? Ottawahitech (talk) 02:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • More info [about current Stewards] is posted at Meta:Stewards'_noticeboard#Admin_activity_review/2020, I think
  • I can't see which wmf-wikis are supervised by Stewards and which ones are not. For example we know that Wikiquote is under Steward supervision, but the english wikipedia is not. Anyone?

As I went through the statements made by current Stewards one thing struck me: Most Stewards claimed that they did not spend as much time last year on Steward activities as they had hoped. Some/most attributed this reduced activity level to:

  • Being offline due to Covid
  • WikiMedia Foundation's "We don't care about community" attitude?

Warning: the statements by Stewards on the election list utilize acronyms extensively. So if you plan to follow the discussions, a crash course in SRP / SRGP /WMF/ bigdelete / SRM / LTA etc is recommended :-)

Comments? Ottawahitech (talk) 02:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

pinging all Steward-hopefuls: @-revi, Base, BRPever, Bsadowski1, Defender, DerHexer, Einsbor: @HakanIST, Jon Kolbert, Jyothis, Krd, Linedwell, MarcoAurelio: @Mardetanha, Martin Urbanec, Masti, Matanya, Melos, MusikAnimal, NahidSultan: @QuiteUnusual, Ruslik0, Rxy, Sakretsu, Schniggendiller, Shanmugamp7, Sotiale: @Stryn, Tegel, Tks4Fish, Trijnstel, Vituzzu, Wim b, علاء:
During Requests for adminship at enwiki the community is allowed to question the candidates, the ensuing discussion is divided by Support votes, Oppose votes, Neutral voted and General comments. The final decision is made by bureaucrats and requires at least 65% support. (recent example of an RFA)
Can you please explain to the English Wikiquote Community how this process works during Steward elections? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
so, the list of candidates is available in here. You are free to ask questions in two ways: for all candidates or to the specific one. Users who gain 80% of supports will become stewards. As for the confirmations: you are free to post comments about current stewards, but true, there is no formal process of asking questions. And just to clarify: after the confirmations stewards got to decide if comments are rather positive or negative: if the user is to be steward for next term or is not. It's the community to decide, we need just to work out the community input. Concerning the stewards supervision: in different wikis we can act in different ways. Steward is a technical role for wiki without local admins/'crats/CUs/OS or to act globally (locking of accounts/ globally block IP / performing cross wiki CU). In English Wikipedia we do not usually act since local 'crats can remove admin status. BUT, if the local ArbCom of enwiki announce decision about new CUs - it's steward to grant the flag. Hope this makes thing easier to catch. Einsbor (talk) 07:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
@Einsbor: Thank you for informing us of the process at the Stewards elections.
I followed your link and tried to ask one candidate 2 questions, which I assume is the limit permitted(?), but the questions I posted have been collapased with this caption:

This question was filed in violation of 2 Questions rule. For the ElectCom, — regards, Revi 15:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

What do I do now? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Update: The questions I posted yesterday + the answer from the candidate are now available for viewing at: Meta:Stewards/Elections_2021/Questions#AmandaNP
I have also posted a question for an existing Steward/META admin. The question and the detailed response from the candidate who Globally blocked a specific LTA (long term abuser) has been moved to the bottom of the page (below the comments). Ottawahitech (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
With regards to your question where stewards are active, please have a look at m:Stewards and m:Stewards policy.
In a nutshell, stewards are allowed to take actions when they cannot locally be handled or in emergencies. Therefore, they are mostly active in small wikis without many administrators, any bureaucrats, checkuser, or oversighters to fulfill tasks these user groups usually would handle. It depends on the local project whether stewards are encouraged to administer or not (for example, bureaucrats on enwiki can remove local administrator rights while the dewiki community decided not to give that right to their bureaucrats so that dewiki administrators need to reach out to stewards to have their rights removed). For some local user groups a threshold of votes or activity (temporary admin rights on some wikis, checkusers and oversights only with 25+ votes, etc.). Besides that, stewards handle global issues like global blocks, crosswiki checkuser activities, and such.
I've held a presentation with an overview of our work in 2017, slides here (another one from 2013 and a couple more in German). Best, DerHexer (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

2021 Steward Elections updatesEdit

UPDATE:I am still totally confused about the 2021 Steward's election at META. Is anyone else on wikiquote interested in this topic?

There over 30 (not sure exactly how many) current Stewards asking the community to be "re-confirmed" and 11 new candidates (some of whom are old Stewards who lost their position previously, I think). Questions from newbies such as myself, are tolerated, but just barely. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Racist quoteEdit

Leon Trotsky contains a quote by the anti-semitic Holocaust denier w:Eustace Mullins:

  • What is the ethic of the parasite-host relationship? Is it immoral? No, it is natural for the parasite to seek a host on which it can feed, and it is natural for the host to attempt to dislodge him. The Jew is obeying his God when he fulfills his life mission of being a parasite, of finding and controlling a host. It is the sense of his own historical rightness, as Trotsky formulated it in Communism, which led the Jew to believe that he was indeed a Chosen People, born to live off the work of others, and to take their goods and lands.
    • Eustace Mullins, The Biological Jew (1967)

Trotsky was an atheist Jew. The words are by Mullins and may be badly misrepresenting Trotsky. I don't know Wikiquote policy but considering how racist it is, I think is should be removed. Feel free to also remove my post with the quote. It was brought up at w:Wikipedia:Help desk#Trotsky. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  • I removed the quote because it "is not about Trotsky but, rather, an analysis of one small point in his philosophy." It also doesn't seem particularly quotable. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
The racist quote was added by user:75.169.31.20 on 30 July 2013 (see: https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Leon_Trotsky&diff=1608139&oldid=1606426}
So it has been on wikiquote for over 7 years, but has only been reported on enwiki (why there?) now? The contributor of this quote was welcomed to WQ shortly after posting, I think. I doubt the welcomer saw the quote, but it would be interesting to hear from someone who was around at the time. Ottawahitech (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Folklore 2021 is back!Edit

Please help translate to your language

You are humbly invited to participate in the Wiki Loves Folklore 2021 an international photography contest organized on Wikimedia Commons to document folklore and intangible cultural heritage from different regions, including, folk creative activities and many more. It is held every year from the 1st till the 28th of February.

You can help in enriching the folklore documentation on Commons from your region by taking photos, audios, videos, and submitting them in this commons contest.

Please support us in translating the project page and a banner message to help us spread the word in your native language.

Kind regards,

Wiki loves Folklore International Team

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Why are some quotes in bold on page?Edit

I was directed to Jesse Owens from Wikidata but there is no explanation why some quotes are in bold. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

  • We have long had the practice of bolding the most notable quotes by the subject of the page. I am not aware that this practice is codified anywhere, and the selection of quotes to be bolded is somewhat a matter of the perceptions of the editor doing the bolding. Its utility is debatable. BD2412 T 07:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Maybe that can be explained in some boiler plate at the top or bottom of every page using bold. I imagine everyone who comes from outside for the first time has the same question. It is like seeing an asterisk and then searching for the note at the bottom of the page and finding none. It can read: "Quotes in bold are the most notable quotes by the subject." (subjective) or "Quotes in bold are the most repeated quotes by the subject." (objective) or "Quotes in bold are the most recognized quotes by the subject." (subjective) --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I have no objection to such a system of notation, but I am questioning whether we should continue subjective selective bolding at all. BD2412 T 23:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Bolding is one of the few stylistic formatting we can do at wikiquote and therefore I oppose the removal of selective bolding in WQ articles. But we should think about if selective bolding should only be applied to quotes that meet some objective criteria. One criteria could be that the quote must have been quoted in at least one published compendium of quotes (book). -- ~ #SheSaid 21:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Again, it would be helpful if there was a boilerplate explanation of the bold system on each page displaying bold. I can't be the only person seeing it for the first time, and having no idea what it signifies. --RAN (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Set two-letter project shortcuts as alias to project namespace globallyEdit

Hello everyone,

I would like to inform everyone that I created a new global request for comment (GRFC) at Meta Wiki, which may affect your project: m:Requests for comment/Set short project namespace aliases by default globally.

In this GRFC, I propose that two-project shortcuts for project names will become a default alias for the project namespace. For instance, on all Wikipedias, WP will be an alias to the Wikipedia: namespace (and similar for other projects). Full list is available in the GRFC.

This is already the case for Wikivoyages, and many individual projects asked for this alias to be implemented. I believe this makes it easier to access the materials in the project namespace, as well as creating shortcuts like WP:NPOV, as well as helps new projects to use this feature, without having to figure out how to request site configuration changes first.

As far as I can see, Wikiquote currently does not have such an alias set. This means that such an alias will be set for you, if the GRFC is accepted by the global community.

I would like to ask all community members to participate in the request for comment at Meta-Wiki, see m:Requests for comment/Set short project namespace aliases by default globally.

Please feel free to ask me if you have any questions about this proposal.

Best regards,
--Martin Urbanec (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Robert Clarkson ClothierEdit

Peek at Robert Clarkson Clothier, do we tag all one quote entries with "This article about a person or group of people is a stub. You can help Wikiquote by expanding it."? It makes it look like something is wrong, or that having a single quote makes the entry incomplete. Is there a rule demanding the tag? If there is, can we make it less ostentatious? Maybe a category for single quote entries instead of something that looks like an error message. I also notice we are still doing the old fashioned links to the other Wiki projects, any chance we can switch to something that takes up less room? See for example wikisource:Portal:Jarvis Andrew Lattin which pulls Wikidata info to display the links to the other sites and adds the image of the person from Wikidata. --RAN (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

It looks like user:UDScott added the tag in 2006.I've never seen it before (but, then again, I haven't done a broad survey). Perhaps @UDScott: can tell us more. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
The question to him: Is it a stub because it only contains a single quote, or is it a stub because it requires more biographical information. I think we should get rid of the message because it looks like an error message, and many people may only have a single notable quote. If we must keep a way to track entries with a single quote, then migrate the stub message to a category, so it doesn't look like an error message. Random readers are not going to start adding quotes to a random page. Long term users can use the category to find people to expand, if they choose to. --RAN (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
The stub tag is used simply to mark pages that only contain a minimal number of quotes (e.g. usually less than 5) and the tag is added to encourage users to add more quotes to the page. The tag links to Wikiquote:Stub, where this is explained. As stated there, these are pages "which have not yet grown beyond a few quotes. These articles have been created, but do not include enough information to be truthfully considered "articles" or collections of quotations. However, the Wikiquote community believes that stubs are far from worthless; they are, rather, the first step articles take on their course to becoming complete." I don't view this as an error message, but rather a suggestion that adding more quotes will make it a more complete page. This sort of tagging has been used as long as I have been visiting this site and IMHO is a fairly standard tagging, without implication that something is "wrong", but rather encouragement to expand. In this case, if there is not likely to be additional notable quotes to add, perhaps it would be better to move the lone quote to a page about Rutgers itself, since more quotes about the university might be found. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Has anyone who contributes here ever worked on an entry because it had a stub tag? I suspect people only work on entries that interest them personally. I admire the hard work that goes into identifying new entries with only a few quotes. If not looking like an error message, it kind of looks like internal advertising. I remember when each Wikipedia entry had a spammy looking link to a Portal and a WikiProject. I just thought we could reexamine the esthetics of the tag. --RAN (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Understood - and I would encourage such discussion. We can always get better and have better looking tags for sure. Feel free to open up a discussion if you have any proposals. As for your first point, I realize that most people do gravitate towards subjects that interest them, but hopefully if a stub is created, it will spark some interest from someone who does have interest in that page's subject. Then there are a few of us that do sometimes go through the list of stubs and try to expand them (I often do this with film and tv stubs, since these are areas of interest to me). Your point is valid, but we can only hope that more users will try to work on these pages that have too few quotes. Thanks for your thoughts. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Those TV and film quotes are the best part of Wikiquote! --RAN (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I disagree! But you know what? I have no problem accepting the fact that others may not agree with me. JK. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Richard Arthur Norton, regarding that we are still doing the old fashioned links to the other Wiki projects, I agree that we should be questioning whether we should continue adding links to other wiki projects by default, projects that are already linked through the sidebar on the left. The example wikisource:Portal:Jarvis Andrew Lattin which pulls Wikidata info to display the links to the other sites and adds the image of the person from Wikidata would be better, and there is also the wikidata infobox which pulls data from wikidata. -- ~ #SheSaid 10:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I love the infoboxes, but they were so divisive when first added, I am amazed that there was little resistance at Commons, and they are still divisive at English Wikipedia, the Classical Music group bans infoboxes from any composer or conductor. I am all for using a standard set of information for each person. Should we import the template and experiment? --RAN (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I will try to test if this template works on wikiquote. -- ~ #SheSaid 16:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I could not get it to work. -- ~ #SheSaid 16:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the Infoboxes, this topic has been discussed (and rejected) before. See Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Template:Infobox, Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Template:Infobox (second nomination), and Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Template:Infobox Person. This of course means that things cannot change, but the consensus in the past was to not add these to our pages. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct consultationEdit

Looks like the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) is holding hearings on this initiative on some wmf-wikis. Can anyone here shed some light on this topic? Speculation? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

This interesting initiative has some pretty innovative ideas that I personally have not seen anywhere else in wikiland. For example;

Looking out for fellow contributors: Lend them a hand when they need support, and speak up for them when they are treated in a way that falls short of expected behaviour as per the Universal Code of Conduct

This can be interpreted simply as helping out confused newbies, but it can also be applied to old-timers who are poorly treated by admins, for example.
I sense reluctance on the part of wikiquotians to participate in Meta discussions. Am I wrong? I hope I am, because if this new WMF inititiative is to succeed it will need feedback and support from the WMF-community. The discussion at Wikidata is pretty sparse. opinions? Ottawahitech (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikifunctions logo contestEdit

01:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Desysop Policy (2021)Edit

Just to let those interested know that there is currently a discussion at enwiki about enwiki's Desysop Policy (2021).

I don't believe the WQ community has a Desysop Policy, and since it has been my experience that when we don't have a policy here we normally follow enwiki's policies, I thought I would bring it to your attention. While I cannot pretend to understand all the finer ponts of this discussion, I personally think trying to figure it out can be a valuable lesson for us.

Here are some tidbits I have picked up at the discussion that I believe will resonate with some wikiquotians:

The community is competent to bestow the tools and the community is likewise competent to take them away

the perception that administrators are more accountable to the outside world can only do the project some good

we want admins who defuse conflict more than we want admins who strut about blocking everybody in sight

Sysops don't serve syops. They serve the project and the community. They therefore should not be answerable only to a tribunal of other sysops

Lifetime adminship is a massive problem in the Wikipedia community

Comments? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC) updated Ottawahitech (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The counterbalance that has to be considered is that administrators are required to settle disputes, which typically leads to those on the "losing" side of the dispute being displeased with the administrator having done their job. If you work at it long enough, you'll have a long line of dissatisfied vandals and POV pushers glad to see you go. BD2412 T 03:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes you are right. Here are some quotes:

This perennial proposal lacks safeguards and as noted by others penalizes admins who work in difficult areas (where we need them most)

My concern is that it will be end up being used to harass admins

I'd like to see some evidence of 'it is too hard to deal with abusive admins'

Ottawahitech (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes admins do stupid things or say stupid things. At other times, they make mistakes, perhaps because they are working in an area of this project that they aren't familiar enough with. We can then (a) desysop them or (b) help them understand what they are doing wrong. Both (a) and (b) can help to prevent the same thing from happening again, but with (a) we are down one sysop, with (b) we are not

Ottawahitech (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  • We do have a desysop policy, which is at WQ:ADMIN. While this change would arguably simplify the process of Arbitration on the English Wikipedia, it is still vastly more complicated than the current policy here on the English Wikiquote. GMGtalk 11:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@ GMG do you mean this?

Removal of administrative rights See WQ:Village pump archive 25#Vote of confidence If three or more users support the need for a community discussion, a vote of confidence may be opened at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship for removal of administrator access or other advanced permissions. These discussions follow generally the same format as a request for granting advanced rights; however, any vote of confidence with greater than 50% support is considered passing..

Thanks in advance, 16:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ottawahitech: Yes. GMGtalk 17:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

EnglishEdit

The little things I will do to make the would a better place

Excessive quoting?Edit

Please comment at Talk:Katherine Maher#Excessive quoting. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Removing Wikiquote from Global Sysops opt-out listEdit

For some reason, en.wikiquote is included in the list of wikis that have opted out from global sysops. This is detrimental in my opinion, because it prevents global sysops from quickly handling spam such as GRP and so on. I would encourage this community to consider allowing global sysops to help, and us at en.wikibooks have had GS for more than 10 years without any detriment. Thanks in advance, and please ping me if needed since I don't watch this page.

I should note that while the GS opt-out criteria mentions >=10 admins (and >=3 active admins), which Wikiquote does satisfy, this does not mean that the community cannot decide otherwise (that is, to allow GS to work here).

Leaderboard (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Leaderboard per m:Global sysops/Local discussions English Wikiquote never opted out of global sysops, we just don't meet the normal criteria for inclusion. Are you proposing that we opt-in? DannyS712 (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@DannyS712: Yes indeed (opt-in as in allow global sysops to operate here). I mentioned opt-out as that's how the wikiset for GS works. Leaderboard (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Bump. Leaderboard (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Bump 2. The same proposal in en.wikivoyage has gotten consensus, and I don't see why this wiki should be any different. Leaderboard (talk) 09:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I am frankly not seeing the downside to opting in to this. BD2412 T 06:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Why exactly is this needed? Are there cases where wikiquote admins have been slow to respond? --DannyS712 (talk) 08:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
    @DannyS712: Yes indeed, judging from the slow response to this proposal at least. And in general, yes, because this prevents global sysops from reacting quickly from cross-wiki vandalism (which you would know) - I've seen such cases here. Leaderboard (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
    Slow response to this is not from admins not being active, there are many who are active - my guess is that its mostly that the format and size of this page make it harder to see individual threads. Looking through your contributions I'm not seeing any reports to admins about any cross-wiki vandalism, so how often are there admins that have been informed but slow to respond? --DannyS712 (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
    @DannyS712: Indeed, that's because I watch passively (and normally in that case I would flag someone on IRC to have the account blocked/locked). I don't think many admins (or users) are actually active either, considering that only three users even commented at your RFA, which is quite low. ~riley mentioned in his RFA that there were only 4 active admins in Wikiquote too. GreenMeansGo notes there that "We need more active admins here". All of these strengthens my overall thoughts that Wikiquote will benefit from allowing GS to operate here (even if this wiki has enough active admins, my observation is that GS can still be an asset). Leaderboard (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
    @DannyS712: Can I confirm whether you have an objection to the proposal? Otherwise I'll ask the stewards to action this as it's been quite a while since I made this proposal. Leaderboard (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, its a weak oppose, but I just don't think its called for --DannyS712 (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    @DannyS712: Here is a case Giovanni Morassutti‎ (part of a larger attack directly affecting Wikiquote) where Praxidicae was unable to halt because this was not a GS wiki, and was halted by an emergency steward action. Leaderboard (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
    And was this reported to local admins anywhere? Wikiquote:Vandalism in progress? Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard? If local admins are not informed, failure to act is not evidence of inactivity, just of not being aware --DannyS712 (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
    @DannyS712: Myself and Praxidicae tried to ping you - it's not very easy to have to report every single case to that noticeboard, especially in a case of several IPs hopping around. Also any admin that looked at Recent Changes would have noticed immediately, and I didn't see any admin in RC during that time. Plus there's hardly anyone on IRC (#wikiquote). Leaderboard (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Vandalism can be reverted without admin tools, if you really care to. And if you want the admin tools, you can apply locally. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
    @DanielTom: That is not a good idea. It is illogical to expect global sysops to apply for adminship at every wiki they want to revert vandalism (such is often considered negatively as hat-collecting) - that way they have to get adminship at >700 wikis! And no, I and Praxidicae struggled for quite a while to handle a large attack on this wiki, and it was halted only by emergency steward actions. Leaderboard (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
    So, the ">700 wikis" you mention all have 10 or more admins each? Keep in mind, global sysops can already act on wikis with fewer than 10 admins, as you indicated at the outset. To your other point, is there a problem in notifying stewards to block a vandal in the exceedingly rare occasions such escalations are necessary? ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
    @DanielTom: No.
    Yes, there is a problem. Stewards, while technically capable of being able to block users locally, are not supposed to unless there is a very strong reason. Plus, there are often cases (such as today's attack) where there is simply no steward around, and global sysops play an important role in such cases. For reference, I was dealing with another attack on a different wiki today with 50 admins that is GS-enabled - that got suppressed only when I managed to flag a global sysop who promptly halted the attacks. Also, I will dispute your claim that it's "exceedingly rare" - it's not the first time I'm seeing such cases. Leaderboard (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Why Is this page archived manually?Edit

Why Is this page archived manually? Ottawahitech (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

This project just doesn't get enough love. :/ —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I guess one could copy and change some archiving code from a bot elsewhere and stick it into another bot. Though, would it be wanted? dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 07:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Closing discussion because of so-called "mudslinging"Edit

A discussion on the WQ AN has just been closed because one person claimed it had turned into mudslinging. No one supported this request, nevertheless it was closed by a WQ admin less than 12 hours from the request The discussion has been simmering on the WQ backburner since it was started on 7 December by User: BD2412, and has had a record number of non-admin contributors. I do not believe there was community agreement to close it.

I am fairly new here and don't know if the space at WQ-AN is considered off-limits to the comunity, But if that is the case then I believe the discussion should be moved over here instead of being closed.

Opinions? Ottawahitech (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion should have probably been closed a while ago. There is nothing it can possibly accomplish. It is not the correct venue and nor is this. The correct venue is appeal to the Stewards on Meta. What they do or do not do is not within our control. GMGtalk 13:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It was claimed that Risto appealed twice more than a year ago and received no reply. And here they seem to say that the stewards will always grant an unlock request, if it comes from an established community body.

Here are some statements from that discussion:

  • It looks like it is not clear whether an appeal made by user who is both locked and locally blocked should be resolved first by the stewards, or by the local administrators.
  • It is the steward's understanding that a global lock in such cases is ultimately inherited from local actions, and that the stewards will always grant an unlock request, if it comes from an established community body, such as the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, or English Wikipedia administrators.
  • According to stewards' policy, stewards do not override consensus. If a project wishes to let an individual in, they should be free to (unless the individual is globally banned by the Foundation or the global community - those cases are relatively rare through). I never witnessed a steward to reject an unlock request if it comes from an administrator/ArbCom – the local projects know best whether an individual should get another chance.

I am not sure if I understand this correctly. But it does seem to say that local commnuities can submit an unlock request for a locked user. Since Risto was quite possibly the most active user on wikiquote when he was still active, and he seems to have been a valuable and constructive editor, such an unlock request could be considered to allow Risto perhaps some project or time restricted editing. Even Vermont seems to have agreed that Risto was useful in a handful of projects and did "good work" on the English Wikiquote. -- ~ #SheSaid 13:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  • It doesn't matter which way you shake it. No one, including myself, is going to unblock someone who is actively engaged in socking, much less petition the stews as a local admin to do something we wouldn't be willing to do ourselves. The best advice I can give is for them to go do something else for six months to a year and then come back and appeal. GMGtalk 15:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

How can I nominate a quote or vote on a nominationEdit

How can I nominate a quote for quote of the day? I see that at the bottom of each day there are suggestions https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/March_13 and one can edit the page but the timestamps suggest there's another mechanism for nomination which adds timestamps, etc.

Call for review, comment and discuss my PhD thesis on Wikimedia movementEdit

Hello,

Just a short message to call people interested to review, comment and discuss my PhD thesis on Wikimedia movement. All the best, Lionel Scheepmans (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

New here! What am I supposed to do here?Edit

Hello, I came from Wikipedia. I wanted to know just as we have a "Tasks" page for Wikipedia where we have tasks to improve existing pages apart from creating a new one. Do we have anything like this here? How am I supposed to contribute here? Or, can we only make new pages here? Thanks. Lightbluerain (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm no Wikiquote maven, but perhaps my reply will cause someone more knowledgeable to chime in. Subject to correction, I'll opine that Wikiquote has far fewer editors than Wikipedia, which means it is far less well organized. Which, in turn, means you pretty much have your choice and can pick the way to improve this site that most interests you. Add and subtract quotes, research and provide better citations for existing quotes, organize existing pages, start new pages you name it! Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
@Butwhatdoiknow:, alright. Thanks. Lightbluerain (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Photographs: storage and fair use?Edit

I found a photograph on Wikimedia Commons of a book cover and used it on a page on Wikiquote.
The photograph in question was later removed from Wikimedia Commons (because apparently Wikimedia Commons doesn't store materials that are claimed by a policy of fair use) and was consequently removed from Wikiquote also.
I would like to re-upload the photo to use on Wikiquote.
Does Wikiquote have a place to store photos independently of Wikimedia Commons (if so, where?) and can photos be stored there if "fair use" is claimed to how they will be used on Wikiquote?
Wheatfromchaff (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct – 2021 consultationsEdit

Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2Edit

The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) provides a universal baseline of acceptable behavior for the entire Wikimedia movement and all its projects. The project is currently in Phase 2, outlining clear enforcement pathways. You can read more about the whole project on its project page.

Drafting Committee: Call for applicationsEdit

The Wikimedia Foundation is recruiting volunteers to join a committee to draft how to make the code enforceable. Volunteers on the committee will commit between 2 and 6 hours per week from late April through July and again in October and November. It is important that the committee be diverse and inclusive, and have a range of experiences, including both experienced users and newcomers, and those who have received or responded to, as well as those who have been falsely accused of harassment.

To apply and learn more about the process, see Universal Code of Conduct/Drafting committee.

2021 community consultations: Notice and call for volunteers / translatorsEdit

From 5 April – 5 May 2021 there will be conversations on many Wikimedia projects about how to enforce the UCoC. We are looking for volunteers to translate key material, as well as to help host consultations on their own languages or projects using suggested key questions. If you are interested in volunteering for either of these roles, please contact us in whatever language you are most comfortable.

To learn more about this work and other conversations taking place, see Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultations.

-- Xeno (WMF) (talk)

20:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to m:Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultations/DiscussionEdit

I am interested in hearing the input of Wikiquote users about the application of the Universal Code of Conduct, especially from the perspective of interactions on Wikiquote. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 23:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Line numbering coming soon to all wikisEdit

-- Johanna Strodt (WMDE) 15:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggested ValuesEdit

Timur Vorkul (WMDE) 14:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

YouTubeEdit

Hello, why can we not use YouTube links in sources? They give good source for statements. Lightbluerain (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Looking for this german Template:Quote (Zitat) in englishEdit

(For not double texting, if OK. If wished, I can delete it there and only post here:) I did ask this search already here: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote_talk:Manual_of_style#Looking_for_a_Template:Quote
OK ? Thank You.
--Visionhelp (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Uhh...@Visionhelp: I don't remember what "template" is in de. But you can check the corresponding wikidata item to see what languages that template currently exists in.

GMGEdit

talk 18:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Derp. Vorlage. It's at Template:Quote. But it looks like it is no longer used or supported. GMGtalk 18:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo. Thank you very much. On Your note to wikidata I found this https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Quote/doc&action=edit&section=T-3.
I am going to try all. Thanks a lot. --Visionhelp (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Got it. This is it already. Many thanks again, GreanMeansGo.

Many People Want to Know Why I Don't Use Manure and What I Have Against It.
I have nothing at all against it; in fact, I have a somewhat exaggerated respect for it. But I no longer need it; the ever-rotting mulch takes its place.
Edit


This is my idol, currently: (Link source https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorlage:Zitat)


--Visionhelp (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)






Call for Election VolunteerEdit

Hi everyone,

Voter turnout in prior board elections was about 10% globally. We know we can get more voters to help assess and promote the best candidates, but to do that, we need your help.

We are looking for volunteers to serve as Election Volunteers. You can read more about this role here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/2021-04-29/Call_for_Board_Elections_Volunteers

Election Volunteers should have a good understanding of their communities. The facilitation team sees Election Volunteers as doing the following:

  • Promote the election in their communities’ channels
  • Organize discussions about the election in their communities
  • Translate messages for their communities

Do you want to be an Election Volunteer for Wikiquote or any of the Wiki projects, and connect your community with this movement effort? Check out more details about Election Volunteers and add your name next to the community you will support in this table or get in contact with a facilitator. We aim to have at least one Election Volunteer for Wiki Projects in the top 30 for eligible voters. Even better if there are two or more sharing the work.

If you have any questions or comments regarding this role please reach out to me or any of the board governance facilitators.

Best,Zuz (WMF) (talk) 09:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

How to ´Space´ to work for following text into a boxEdit


From Interview Publication: Ruth Stout's System for Gardening (from Mother Earth News -- March 2004)
https://www.motherearthnews.com/organic-gardening/ruth-stouts-system-zmaz04fmzsel

(I would like ´Space´ to work here, within my ´Sandbox´. It did it just only once, but not once more since then, despite some tries.)
Thanks in advance.
There are so many things to find in ´Help´. But not really an easy doable overview, the Syntaxes. And what is listed, does not work, as ´markup´. Sorry the complaining.

From Interview Publication: Ruth Stout's System for Gardening (from Mother Earth News -- March 2004)
https://www.motherearthnews.com/organic-gardening/ruth-stouts-system-zmaz04fmzsel
OK. It is not the same as ´Space´ and not as easy as ´Space´. But with this I can ´just´ go on the work of the quotes themes. 

OK. So far it does it, but not the 2nd line to include:

Ruth Stout at Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Stout 
The Ruth Stout System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Stout#The_Stout_system
(In progress: Would like the Space´-box to work here. For the above TWO lines.) 

OK. Found (from try an ´error´), works, this way:

Ruth Stout at Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Stout 
The Ruth Stout System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Stout#The_Stout_system
Books (Works) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Stout#Works
(In progress: Would like the Space´-box to work here. For the above TWO lines. Working now. To see here, at interesst. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User:Visionhelp#Ruth_Stout_at_Wikipedia) 

--Visionhelp (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)