Open main menu

Wikiquote β

Wikiquote:Village pump


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.
All Wikiquote: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 - All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5


Archive
Archives

Welcome, newcomers and baffled oldtimers! If you have a question about Wikiquote and how it works, please 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.



Are any pages considered complete and is wikiquote an endless argument over the most meaningful arbitrary samples?Edit

I was wondering if there were any pages where every known quotation from an individual has been added already, and whether task forces for particular topics of interest might be of use in moving Wikiquote closer to completion. I find it odd that there's a limited number of quotations to add from ancient Greek philosophers, yet their pages continue to grow over the years with seemingly no end in sight despite multiple people working on them. New individuals will continue to cite old texts, however I rarely see any evidence quotes have actually been quoted by someone other than the translator. CensoredScribe (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@CensoredScribe: "I rarely see any evidence quotes have actually been quoted by someone other than the translator." Consider the following quotation:

  • Οἵη περ φύλλων γενεὴ τοίη δὲ καὶ ἀνδρῶν.
    φύλλα τὰ μέν τ' ἄνεμος χαμάδις χέει, ἄλλα δέ θ' ὕλη
    τηλεθόωσα φύει, ἔαρος δ' ἐπιγίγνεται ὥρη·
    ὣς ἀνδρῶν γενεὴ ἣ μὲν φύει ἣ δ' ἀπολήγει.
    • As the generation of leaves, so is that of mankind:
      some leaves the wind scatters earthwards, but the fertile
      woodland grows others as spring returns in season.
      So with men: one generation grows, while another dies.
    • Homer, Iliad (c. 750 BC), Book VI, lines 146–149 (as translated by Peter Green)

Although this is one of the most famous and widely-cited quotations from the Iliad, Google returns only 1 result for "As the generation of leaves, so is that of mankind" (with quotation marks). Of course it all depends on which translation you use. (Here are a few others: Pope's "Like leaves on trees the race of man is found" – 8 140 results; Butler's "Men come and go as leaves year by year upon the trees" – 1 210 results; Rieu's "Men in their generations are like the leaves of the trees" – 993 results; Lattimore's "As is the generation of leaves, so is that of humanity" – 2 230 results; Fitzgerald's "Very like leaves upon this earth are the generations of men" – 144 results; Fagles's "Like the generations of leaves, the lives of mortal men" – 4 320 results; .....) I'll let you figure out the rest. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Why do you not add any quotes, about the Iliad, like commentary from well known professors analyzing it? You currently have just two that mention it specifically from Northrop Frye and Voltaire, are those seriously the only two notable commentaries that have been written on it? Also, are you close to being done with adding quotes to the page for the Iliad yet and how many of those thousands of google search results you think are links to the blogs from unpublished unknowns that are completely worthless here? Including citations for every academic piece of writing on the Iliad would be exhausting but is the sort of thing researchers do. The page currently indicates that no one who doesn't translate Homer has ever actually recited a passage of his before, when like the google search results, there are thousands. I think showing a particular passage has been cited once or twice would be a nice objective way of showing it's wide spread value to society and better represents the consensus of academia on the importance of particular passages. I appreciate you having presented the number of google search results for each iteration, that information does illustrate the general level of continuing popularity of a particular translation for a particular passage. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Let's look at the Frye quotation you mentioned:

  • It is hardly possible to overestimate the importance for Western Literature of the Iliad's demonstration that the fall of an enemy, no less than of a friend or leader, is tragic and not comic. With the Iliad, once for all, an objective and disinterested element enters into the poet's vision of human life. Without this element, poetry is merely instrumental to various social aims, to propaganda, to amusement, to devotion, to instruction: with it, it acquires the authority that since the Iliad it has never lost, an authority based, like the authority of science, on the vision of nature as an impersonal order.

This insight into Homer's mind, and into the purpose of poetry itself, is widely quoted and of interest even to those who have never read the Iliad. Per Wikiquote:Wikiquote, "quotations the essence of wisdom refined to a handful of well-chosen words." I don't expect there to be many more quotations about the Iliad that fit this definition, but of course I can't be sure. Maybe there are. (It is said of Virgil that, in writing the Aeneid, "lest anything should impede his momentum, he would let certain things pass unfinished; others he propped up, as it were, with lightweight verses, joking that they were placed there as struts, to hold up the edifice until the solid columns arrived." Wikiquote articles are constructed in a similar fashion, the way I see it.) This is a collaborative project that will never be "complete". ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It's true that as a whole Wikiquote will never be complete, and historical figures continue to have material written on them, however given the abundance of material written on the subject the page seems rather lacking, it could really use improvement from the inclusion of contemporary experts opinions. Northorp Frie died in 1991, what living authors writings on Homer would you recommend?
Also, do you think William Godwin had anything interesting to say about Virgil, perhaps you've had time to read his entry in Lives of the Necromancers and found a suitable selection to add. CensoredScribe (talk) 05:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
No. I'm not interested in the stupid medieval traditions about Virgil being a magician or a necromancer. Needless to say, if you can find a "quotable" (i.e. not too concerned with particulars – which rules out almost the entire Lives of the Necromancers – and preferably widely-quoted) quotation about Virgil, that is notable and memorable, even if it is stupid, do feel free to add it. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Excluding medieval traditions would result in most of the quotes on religious figures with miracles attributed to them being removed from Wikiquote, and you continue to avoid the question of what living authority do you recommend on Homer, perhaps because you don't know of any, nor are you interested in what any of the living have to say on the subject. Also you just said yourself it's a tradition, indicating it's been repeated in more than one source, so presumably if I just found the source Godwin used, you could have to concede that source has been quoted before, at least the once. Now define widely quoted, how many times one must be quoted to be widely quoted (according to you) and how it is someones words can start a tradition without them being widely quoted. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
According to me, if it is quoted (i.e. presented as a memorable or insightful quote, not a long excerpt) in any reasonably-notable (e.g. book) secondary source (just one is enough) about Virgil, you are welcome to add it to Virgil#Quotes about Virgil. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Daniel Tom, the just one secondary source statement is incredibly helpful. Now if you would just mind answering if there is a contemporary living academic source you are aware of who has been widely quoted on Homer, I would like to know who would be the ideal person to interview. CensoredScribe (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't know of any "living authority" on Homer. But I'm no expert on the subject. "the ideal person to interview"? There are some videos on YouTube of Stanley Lombardo reading from his translations of the Iliad and the Odyssey which you may want to check out. (Here's the famous recognition scene between Odysseus and Penelope.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Using quotations for intros and racism in the United States.Edit

The intro right now for the page Racism in the United States is a single sentence that suggests it started in the 19th century. Daniel Tom, ever constructive, thought it would be in the best interest of wikiquote to revert my edit rather than fix it or make their own improvements to the factual accuracy of the description. They also noted I didn't attribute a quotation in the intro which brings up the question of whether or not a quotation can be used in the intro, as Wikipedia often uses them in it's opening descriptions on a subject. I was also also told, this was POV pushing for the quoted section saying there are lingering socio economic effects. CensoredScribe (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the intro was a bit lacking (so I've expanded it, using the intro from Wikipedia). I would not recommend using a quote in an intro, instead we usually just stick to factual information describing the page's subject. ~ UDScott (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

How to add Today in Science quotes without risking the unprecedented specter of a copyright violation lawsuit against the English Wikiquote.Edit

Currently there are a number of quotes on the pages for Organic chemistry, Botany, Chemistry, Astronomy, Machines, Technology, Nuclear weapons, Nuclear war, Nuclear power]], Wind, Geology History of Science and Science taken from Today in Science History; and thought it better to start a separate thread on the subject for those uninterested in wading through a lengthy conservation with Daniel Tom on my general conduct as an editor to address a larger issue. If it's simply a matter of reformatting the citations that can be done, but if all of the quotes Today in Science History has collected are off limits, or if using only 10 of them is acceptable, I would like to know why that is and how Wikiquote can ever hope to compete with larger preexisting collections of sourced quotations. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

You can't just dump entire pages from "Today in Science History" on Wikiquote. And, as I said, quote selection and formatting is not the only concern, because you also copied the references word-for-word without double-checking them and without attribution. If you are not double-checking (confirming) the quotations and references (one by one), the least you can do is add "as reported in [Today in Science History link]" to the citation. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Would someone like to collaborate on a page, or does no one like me that much or care about teamwork?Edit

I would be willing to assist anyone with working collaboratively on any task at Wikiquote and would like to coordinate efforts through talk page discussions for those willing to speak with me, however I'm afraid no one will offer to do so I've been accused of medical conditions I don't have. It's been months since anyone thanked me for any edit despite the fact I've added quite a bit to major articles, and those few acknowledgements that I'm not a complete failure almost always came from Peter1C or in the very beginning from Kalki. I gather I am not welcome here, as at no point did an administrator say calling someone a mentally damaged five year old was unbecoming of this site, yet I was alleged of ageism and blocked by Kalki. Perhaps if I had done what Daniel Tom did and said I think user I bully has X disease...but than I realized they are just a troll so I'm not actually accusing them of that because if I did that I would be blocked, I'm just throwing it out there for others to latch onto.
Anyways, I'm leaving; if you would like to say your goodbyes or ask me to stay and help out with something, I would appreciate it. I would say this has been fun but being insulted constantly is not remotely pleasant and I could have learned these quotes without adding them and being ridiculed for being lazy by people refuse to work together constructively on anything, even a user talkpage. CensoredScribe (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

becoming an administratorEdit

All of the articles that talk about becoming an administrator say you must have been an editor for a while. This is a vague term. What is meant by "a while"?Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 02:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Usually a period of regular activities over at least a few months are deemed appropriate before serious consideration for administrator positions are initiated. ~ Kalki·· 02:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Would two years normally be enough time? Also, does being an administrator on another wiki or having a questionable sense of taste in regards to page decoration factor in at all? It would be great if there was a more thorough guide to becoming an administrator, listing do's and don'ts. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Two years should be enough, subject to users' opinions.--Jusjih (talk) 02:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────────┘
Having a good record as an admin elsewhere is certainly a plus point. However, every wiki is different and experience on one wiki may not transfer well to another one.--Abramsky (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Will being blocked from Wikipedia affect the ability of a user to become an administrator on Wikiquote? Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Being blocked from Wikipedia can affect the outcome; if the block was long enough ago and you have proven to be a constructive editor, there should be nothing stopping said user. I'd suggest (assuming you were talking about yourself) you request an unblock over at Wikipedia, mentioning the constructive edits you have made here. hiàn 05:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Presentation copyrightEdit

Does presentation copyright prevent a quote from being used if it is already written on another online source?Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 02:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

No, but it means that generally presentations or listings of quotes should not be copied in bulk from currently copyrighted sources, and formatting of citations of any individual quotes should be adapted to general practices here, and use of any distinctive commentaries or distinctive formatting of citations, sections or pages used elsewhere rigorously avoided. The presentation of entire listings used elsewhere, or extensive portions of them in particular forms, should definitely be avoided. ~ Kalki·· 02:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Bulk is a bit vague, is there a rough number for how many is too many? It also seems to come off a bit as being finders keepers in regards to laying claim to famous quotations that are in the public domain, like laying claim to the moon. Mass copying of quotes from Today in Science History has been discouraged, while Real Buddha Quotes seems to be acceptable, with the distinction seemingly arbitrary. I imagine having just said that, this will be goodbye Buddha quotes. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

YearsEdit

Is there a concept of creating articles featuring quotes about a certain year? If so is it for any years or only notable years in history?Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 11:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I would prefer a sortable table like for advertising slogans, but we need certain kind of consensus to unify the future format.--Jusjih (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Participate in Dispute Resolution Focus GroupEdit

The Harvard Negotiation & Mediation Clinical Program is working with the Wikimedia Foundation to help communities develop tools to resolve disputes. You are invited to participate in a focus group aimed at identifying needs and developing possible solutions through collaborative design thinking.

If you are interested in participating, please add your name to the signup list on the Meta-Wiki page.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to learn from the Wikimedia community. We value all of your opinions and look forward to hearing from you. JosephNegotiation (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

One question, are you interested in only opinions and experiences from Wikipedia and it's satellite projects like Wikiquote, or from any that use media wiki software, such as Rational Wiki, Encyclopedia Dramatica and fandom wikis? CensoredScribe (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The Community Wishlist Survey 2017Edit

Hey everyone,

The Community Wishlist Survey is the process when the Wikimedia communities decide what the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech should work on over the next year.

The Community Tech team is focused on tools for experienced Wikimedia editors. You can post technical proposals from now until November 20. The communities will vote on the proposals between November 28 and December 12. You can read more on the 2017 wishlist survey page. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

UsernameEdit

Is there any way to change your username?Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 02:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Just A Regular New Yorker: See m:Changing username. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I haven't dealt with these in years, and name changes are now done only by inter-wiki stewards, and not by officials of individual wikis. Check things out at meta:Steward requests/Username changes on Meta-wiki. ~ Kalki·· 02:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC) // oops — didn't notice this had already been answered. So it goes…

Changes to the global ban policyEdit

Hello. Some changes to the community global ban policy have been proposed. Your comments are welcome at m:Requests for comment/Improvement of global ban policy. Please translate this message to your language, if needed. Cordially. Matiia (Matiia) 00:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

IncelsEdit

Is it really appropriate to categorize by Category:Male incels and Category:Female incels? I don't think so. --Superchilum (talk) 08:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

No. Admin, please delete. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

es:Plantilla:Cita destacadaEdit

It would be cool if we could import this template into English Wikiquote. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@DanielTom: Well, you can! It's all an open license. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

how to place pictures on Wikipedia on WikiquoteEdit

Happily now I know how to place a picture of Wiki-Commons on Wikiquote. But many times I can not find a picture of a modern artist on Wiki-Commons, but I can find some on Wikipedia. How can I use these pictures from Wikipedia, to place them on Wikiquote

I like to place more pictures on the Wikiquote page of Abstract Expresssionism, for instance: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abstract_expressionism. And there are some good pictures on Wikipedia to use, like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%27Boon%27_oil_on_canvas_painting_by_James_Brooks,_1957,_Tate_Gallery.jpg#/media/File:%27Boon%27_oil_on_canvas_painting_by_James_Brooks,_1957,_Tate_Gallery.jpg

How do I handle this. Can somebody please describe the steps for me? FotoDutch (talk)

You can't, because those images are protected by copyright. Wikipedia allows "fair use" images, Wikiquote doesn't. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Strange that there are different levels of copyright for one Wiki.FotoDutch (talk)
@FotoDutch: I agree that it can be confusing and each language edition can choose their own local policy. Compare w:en:A Love Supreme with w:es:A Love Supreme--only the English one has an album cover (tho the other photos could be added to Spanish version). —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Can an anonymous editor create a new page?Edit

Hi, This seems like a friendly place, and I love quotes. But I am not sure how much time I have to contribute, so I was wondering if it makes sense to become a user? Since I think I would like to ultimately create a new page, the question is, will I have to be a confirmed user before I can do that, like on regular Wikipedia, or are things more lenient here? Thanks. 196.251.250.128 11:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

If you already have a Wikipedia account, then you have one here, too--it seems like you're familiar with that site. I'd definitely recommend making an account and we hope you'll stay here. All users can create new pages. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

New print to pdf feature for mobile web readersEdit

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

ProfanityEdit

What is Wikiquote's policy on profanity? Do we quote it as is, or replace with with symbols(###,***,etc)?Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

We quote the provided words; there is no censorship of the provided words here. ~ Kalki·· 02:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

QOTD image too big, on the wrong sideEdit

 
Screenshot of the Main Page today. Shouldn't the QOTD image be smaller, and on the left?

In my opinion the QOTD image should be smaller, and on the left. Agree/Disagree?

Currently the size of the Quote of the Day image simply dwarfs the quote of the day itself.

(Ningauble actually used to reduce the size of the Quote of the Day images – with the edit summary "reduce excessive whitespace", some 40 times –, but Kalki still persists, which is why I'm asking for community input.)

Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes, think the image should be smaller. Image size was discussed several times but Kalki nevertheless has indeed persisted. (I notice that, since it was pointed out today, UDScott quietly reduced the size of today's image.[1])
I do not think it is a big deal for the image to be on the right when it is a portrait facing left. The convention of having the image face toward the text seems sensible enough. It is a much larger problem that the QOTD box design overwhelms practically everything above the fold of the Main Page. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I agree - sorry for being quiet (I intended to respond here, but after I reduced the size a bit, I was called away from my computer until now). ~ UDScott (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Kalki is still making the images too big. ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I've reduced the size again. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
He just keeps doing it. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I again reduced the size. ~ UDScott (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Same problem, different day. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Again. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
In the past, I have reduced the image size (and I have been trying to keep an eye on them. But this one does not appear to be an issue - it is at the reduced size of 222px that we have been using. ~ UDScott (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Mobile version of “quote of the day”Edit

Did anyone else notice what today’s (November 27, 2017) “quote of the day” looks like on the mobile website? The picture on the right is abnormally small and it was nearly impossible to tell it was a photo from the small screen of a mobile device. In general, I find that sometimes things don’t convert well from desktop to mobile. I don’t know enough about editing Wikiquote to fix the problem but I am trying to bring this to the attention of one who does.Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

User Page ProtectionEdit

Is there any way to get a user page protected? My user page has been vandalized by a user claiming that I am a kitten. This is not a joke. What can I do to prevent this from occurring again? Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 02:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Page under deletion which needs to be controlledEdit

Hi, there's TheKingHusker, under deletion process, which is vandalized by removing the template of deletion ("vfd-new"). Just FYI, so that more eyes are better than few eyes to control it :-) maybe a semi-protection? --Superchilum (talk) 11:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC) p.s.: BTW, isn't there something like w:Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention?

Semiprotected for a week. (Other boards for requesting assistance are at WQ:AN and WQ:VIP.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata request for comment on the ideal data import proccessEdit

 

Dear all

We are currently running a discussion on Wikidata about what the ideal data import process looks like. We want to get the thoughts of people who work on different Wikimedia projects who have different needs and knowledge of different kinds of data to make it our roadmap as inclusive as possible, please take a look.

Many thanks

John Cummings (talk) 01:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

More articles not linked to from WikipediaEdit

Here are a few more articles that I've started on Wikiquote over the past couple of years, and that aren't linked to from their corresponding Wikipedia articles ('cause I can't edit en.wikipedia). I notice that when I create an article, admin Miszatomic and (more recently) fellow-regular-user Risto hot sir sometimes add {{wikiquote}} to the external links section of its respective Wikipedia article (thanks guys), but the ones in this list are still lacking it. There is, of course, absolutely no hurry to do this somewhat tiresome task. The ones I'd appreciate to see linked to from Wikipedia the most are in bold.

William MuirPaul DaviesElijah FentonCharles SymmonsHermann Samuel ReimarusCarnation RevolutionPosidoniusBuso RenkinGeorges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de BuffonIsmail ibn Musa MenkEmma DonoghuePokémon Gold and SilverPolizianoAntónio GuterresMarcion of SinopeCharles WilliamsGilbert WakefieldThomas YaldenRichard StanyhurstLucille CliftonTerrance HayesJoseph WartonAllen MandelbaumEdward FairfaxThe Prince and the PauperTales from ShakespeareAulus GelliusDerek ParfitRichard Maitland, 4th Earl of LauderdaleCameron DuncanOs LusíadasDavid FrumColette DowlingGil VicenteAlice OswaldThe Faerie QueeneMasterplan (band)Salvador SobralNguyễn DuBook of LamentationsJohn HooleJuan Luis VivesJohn Miles FoleyCantar de Mio CidStanley LombardoAnthony KennyOlaudah EquianoShi Nai'anCao XueqinRuan JiZhu YizunJin ShengtanNguyễn Gia ThiềuTrần Tế XươngChế Lan ViênĐặng Trần CônBei DaoXi MurongArthur Waley

Thanks, and Happy New Year everybody. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

    •  Y Done, added {{wikiquote}} links to all pages - ~ [[User:Miszatomic|Miszatomic] (talk) 11:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
@Miszatomic: thank you! ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Chat about a structured WikiquoteEdit

From Wikiquote:Village pump archive 51:

Wouldn't Wikiquote be more useful as a database of quotes than as a MediaWiki?

I'm making a software application and I want it to be able to show a random quote, and I've found out that Wikiquote's (MediaWiki) API can't give a quote, only a page of quotes (as on the wiki), so my application would also have to try to read the page for quotes.

Rather than this, a database of quotes (where a quote, not a page, is the smallest unit of information) could give me a random quote, making Wikiquote more useful to my application. Also, it would be easier for a contributor to add a new quote, as you wouldn't have to edit a page, just submit the quote and its author and it could find its way to the right page.

Is there any effort to turn Wikiquote into a database? I am willing to help. I think the best place to start would be to accept new quotes this way.

// the database
const quotes = [
  { quote: "Yo.", author: "A" },
  { quote: "Eh?", author: "B" }
];

// Add a quote.
// add_quote("What?", "Dad")
const add_quote = (quote, author) =>
  quotes.push({ quote, author });

// Get a random quote.
// random_quote() => { quote: "Eh?", author: "B" }
const random_quote = () => quotes[Math.floor(Math.random() * quotes.length)];

// Get all of the quotes by an author.
// quotes_by_author("A") => ["Yo."]
const quotes_by_author = author =>
  quotes.filter(quote => quote.author === author).map(quote => quote.quote);

Apart from the quotes themselves, just this is more useful to my application than Wikiquote as it stands. I'm trying to say there's a lot to be gained for relatively little effort.

That is a possibility that we have discussed on many occasions. I am all for it. BD2412 T 15:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I didn't think to search the Village pump archives before posting this. I'd like to edit the header to suggest doing that, but I don't have permission. --WillWhite (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@86.183.20.21, BD2412, WillWhite: I've been an advocate of this for awhile now. See also m:Structured Wikiquote. I have a domain name for just this purpose. Are you interested in participating? —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: Yes. I'm thinking about using the parsing function in this library to show a random quote from Wikiquote in my application, then for the user to add the quote to a database, e.g. the one you're proposing. --WillWhite (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: Could we have a real-time chat? --WillWhite (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
@WillWhite: Sure. Do you mean IM or video conference or phone call? Do you have in mind talking one-on-one or a community brain-storming session? —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
@Koavf: I was thinking a one-on-one phone or video call, at least first. Do you have Skype? --WillWhite (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
@WillWhite: I could get Skype but I'd prefer to use Google Hangouts or (even better) something that is free software. Would that work for you? —Justin (koavf)TCM 11:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
@Koavf: Jitsi today? --WillWhite (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
@Koavf: I'm in UTC, going to sleep soon. How about you? --WillWhite (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
@WillWhite: And I just woke up (long nite!) —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Memorable quotesEdit

I don't see any of these here yet. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Quotes of the dayEdit

Why are almost all quotes political? What happened to some of the wonderful quotes you used to have from literature, history, philosophy?—This unsigned comment is by 46.1.29.127 (talkcontribs) 22:37, 17 January 2018‎.

Good question. My sense is that the person who picks the quotes is more keen on promoting his political ("feel-good", Democrat-leaning) agenda than on selecting the best, most memorable quotes "from literature, history, philosophy" (see Wikiquote's purpose). Another source of bias is his commitment to religious universalism. No one is perfect. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Despite how you might interpret the choices made, I don't think that it is fair to characterize the selection of the quotes in this way - if you do object, feel free to vote for a better quote (for example, see Wikiquote:Quote of the day/January). We all have an opportunity to help in the selection process, but most do not participate. As they say about politics, what good does it do to complain if you don't vote? ~ UDScott (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I do !vote and suggest quotes myself, sometimes. But I don't think !voting matters very much. Kalki often selects political quotes that no one (other than him) !voted for, and ignores short memorable quotes with many !votes – probably because they don't contain enough wikilinks. This is my honest assessment of the process. I'm NOT saying I could do a better job. And I don't doubt Kalki's intentions are good. To be fair, early on the selected quotes seemed to be much more memorable. Naturally, as the years go by finding adequate quotes (i.e., notable quotes related to any specific day) will prove more challenging. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Pages to be deletedEdit

Hi, look at Special:Contributions/194.17.34.42: a lot of pages with no quotes and the same tagline for every film. --Superchilum (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

 Y Deleted. See the WQ:CRYSTAL policy. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Boldface in all "last words"Edit

In Last words and Fictional last words (and subpages like Fictional last words in animated films), is there any reason all or most quotes are in bold? In other pages like Love and Time, bold seems reserved for the "best" quotes. Or does it mean that all last words are notable, in a way? Maybe it would be a good idea to remove boldface from a lot of the "last words" quotes and leaving just some bold like in other pages. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I quite agree. Be bold and fix it (sorry about the pun).--Abramsky (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Fine by me. I started with Last words in DC Comics. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll be bold, unlike most quotes in these pages after I edit them. ;) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Those quotes are completely bold because they are quoted from characters. To only bold what is "important" (who even makes that decision anyway) would bring only confusion, and take attention away from the whole sentence, which is important in of itself for being their final words.Finister2 (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Finister2: Then why in most pages only a handful of pages have bold quotes? You restored the boldface I had removed from Last words in Batman media, yet for instance Batman: The Animated Series only has a handful of bold quotes. Most quotes in that page are quoted from characters.
Please don't put words in my mouth. You gave this edit summary at [2], but I never said I thought it would be okay with everyone. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I disagree that the whole sentences are important in and of itself as their final words, though I did ask at the first message here if that would be the case. Did you just dismiss the idea of using boldface for just the important quotes and then tried to decide what is important for yourself? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree that removing the bolding is probably the way to go. Having all of the quotes on these pages bolded doesn't really make a lot of sense. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

There mostly there in place of quotation marks, and to give more focus to them over the description.Finister2 (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not generally how we do things here. We do not use quote marks and we do not bold all quotes on a page. Descriptions are instead bulleted and indented to separate them from the quotes themselves. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, UDScott.
Also, Finnister2, you know what I mean. Here are two partially bold quotes from The Sandman:
  • "I am anti-life, the Beast of Judgement. I am the dark at the end of everything. The end of universes, gods, worlds … of everything. And what will you be then, Dreamlord?"
    "I am Hope."
    • Choronzon and Dream, playing "the oldest game", in Sandman #4: "A Hope in Hell"
  • "The million lords of hell stand arrayed about you. Tell us, why we should let you leave? Helmet or no, you have no power here — what power have dreams in Hell?"
    "You say I have no power? Perhaps you speak truly. But — you say that dreams have no power here? Tell me, Lucifer Morningstar... Ask yourselves, all of you, what power would Hell have if those here imprisoned were not able to dream of Heaven?"
    • Lucifer and Dream, in Sandman #4: "A Hope in Hell"
--Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I waited a few days for a reply, then today I restored the un-boldened version of Last words in Batman media. In this discussion, three people seem to support un-bolding, counting myself, Abramsky and UDScott. As of yet, only Finister2 seems to support using bold in all last words. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

May I ask what your motivation for this kind of change is? Did you wake just wake up one morning and decide that something needed to happen about this, or is there a more complex reasoning behind it?Finister2 (talk) 11:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I and others already said the reasons above. But I see you ignored them and reverted the Batman page again. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I did not ignore. You left no note and I thought you went rogue. It wasn't until some time afterwards that I thought to manually check this discussion.Finister2 (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
You ignored the reasons given. You could have said "I disagree with the reasons.", but you are acting as though no reasons exist. When you said: "May I ask what your motivation for this kind of change is?" and when you said below "changing bold to unbold for no presented reason".
Aside from that, you didn't answer the 2nd question I asked at your talk page, which is very important: "why would the last words be different?" In other words, would you like to make all quotes at Time and Love completely bold too, or just the last words? No matter the answer, I must ask: why that answer?--Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I am opposed to using bold to highlight quotes for the same reason I am opposed to highlighting library books. The reader can decide for herself or himself which quotes are the most significant. ~ Peter1c (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

First of all I'm not sure that bolding is the correct way to highlight quotes. It is unclear and there is no explanation. Are these famous quotes? Notable for some reason? Favourite of the author/director/actor?
Secondly, anyways when all the quotes are bolded, there is no meaning to the bolding. As Syndrome says "when everyone's super, no one will be". --SuperJew (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Highlighting some quotes is really subjective, and maybe there's no perfect way to do it. But so is building Wikiquote, isn't it? If all words and utterances from books, films, etc. were equally notable, we wouldn't need Wikiquote. The fact that we choose some quotes from books and films to mention here means they have some importance in comparison with other utterances from the same sources.
Perhaps the most witty and/or memorable quotes merit bold-highlighting. This is a tentative guideline. Some Last words and Fictional last words look pretty bland.
Bold-highligthing is already an established practice, isn't it? (Though I wish we had actual numbers as to how many pages have this.) If some people don't want it, would you rather remove all the current bold-highlighting from Time and Love? It seems many other pages found through Special:Random also have bold-highligthing. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Putting all quotes in bold, like using smaller letters for the citations, is just an alternative way of drawing attention to the quotes themselves. In most articles, the quotes in bold are not, unfortunately, the most famous quotes. In this respect, bolding all quotes may be better than bolding seemingly random quotes because the former doesn't lead to NPOV issues. My preference is to bold only the most famous quotes. Bolding all quotes or no quotes at all is just a stylistic difference. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC) last edit: 19:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

When I first came to Wikiquote, I noticed some articles had practically every other quote in bold. It was confusing, and hard to follow. Nothing was added by bolding the quotes. Some articles benefit from it when used in extreme moderation to highlight major quotes, but on the whole, I think the articles look better, when the quotes are not in bold. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 19:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with this: "Some articles benefit from it when used in extreme moderation to highlight major quotes". You also mentioned articles with "practically every other quote in bold", which does sound very bad in my opinion. I would rather prefer an article with no bold at all than an excess of bold everywhere. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I think it would be better to have them all in bold, than the reverse. It would be easier to draw attention to the quotes.Finister2 (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

As a regular usurer and editor of Wikiquote, I personally prefer the bolding quotes. It allows an easier way to find the actual quote amongst the sources and the description. My main problem with this is why it is being discussed now? After all these years of bolding quotes, people are saying they have a problem with all bolds? Aren't their bigger concerns in the world than changing bold to unbold for no presented reason other than change for changes sake?Finister2 (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC) Finister2 (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I and other people already said our reasons. Please either say you agree or disagree with them, but don't pretend we didn't do it.
As you know, my main problem is with inconsistency. Why Time and Last words seem to have different bolding practices? In the former, a few quotes are bold, most are not. In the latter, all are bold. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Because one is a collection of quotes about a subject, the other is a list of real and fictional words collected together, with a source and a description. The bolding is just used to draw more attention the persons' words than the description behind it.Finister2 (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
@Finister2: You said "a list of real and fictional words collected together", but ALL Wikiquote pages are collections of real and/or fictional quotes. Last words is about real quotes. Time may potentially be about both real and fictional quotes.
I really think you mean you would format thematic and non-thematic pages differently. But this would sem like a completely random and arbitrary distinction. Very confusing. Do you seriously expect everyone to keep using bold-highlighting in pages about a subject and then completely switch to 100%-bold in pages about works of fiction like The Matrix (film)? The Matrix page is one of many that already uses bold-highlihthing, an already established practice. It also uses bold for highlighting character names, which is a completely different thing.
Would you want to make all quotes in The Matrix (film) completely bold like you did with Last words in Batman media? If we copy some quotes from The Matrix (film) to Real (which is a theme page, while The Matrix film has more than a few quotes about the nature of reality), then would you use bold-highlithing for the same quote only in the theme page? That seems like a big deal. I suggest basically formatting the same everywhere as long as it's possible, with no active distinction based on the type of page. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Aside from that, it's not up to you to decide what others are allowed to discuss. It would be convenient for you if we were unable to discuss this issue, because then you would have your way without the need to justify it. Both you and I seem to have strong opinions about boldface. If boldface really were so unimportant to you, you could simply give up discussing and accept whatever happens with the pages. But actually, there's no need for that. Let's discuss it. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Daniel Carrero (talk) asked me to weigh in here. In this particular case, I don't see that bold is very useful. Since every quote is entirely bolded, it doesn't provide any information about the material, so is strictly a design decision, and IMO not a design decision that accomplishes very much. Personally, I'd be happy to see the bold face removed. OTOH, this is an area of inconsistency here, as has been pointed out. Is anyone volunteering to fix all the bolding throughout Wikiquotes? It seems unfair just to single out these pages. Ubiquity (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ubiquity: Thanks for coming. But is all the bolding throughout Wikiquote a problem? I chose specifically Last words, Fictional last words, and their subpages because they seem to be the odd ones out, where bold is used in all or most quotes. This seems out of norm. Are there many other pages where bold is used everywhere like this? If there are any other pages, then probably a bot can find them and automatically remove the boldface from all quotes. Obviously, as a result, they would become pages where no quotes are bold, which would sound excellent to me.
It seems the norm is using boldface to highlight quotes, or just having no bold quotes at all.
I volunteer to keep fixing the "Last words" pages if I'm allowed to, with the purpose of fitting in the perceived norm I described in the above paragraph. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Daniel Carrero asked me to comment. I take the additional time to add bold face only when it's in the presentation of the original quote, which happens frequently with comic books, where extra detail is given to lettering, like customized fonts for characters, though not so much in other mediums. I imagine the majority of these entries are inaccurate in their use of bold text in regards to the scripts for the stories they are from, and the bold was added by an editor later to add hat they thought was being emphasized; I think if we're relying on those personal opinions in regards for altering the text, than who's to say that every other line of dialogue delivered by Captain Kirk doesn't have a comma, an ellipsis or bold text for dramatic emphasis the way the Uncyclopedia page for Kirk is presented? Trying to transcribe an actor's emphasis in presenting the dialogue isn't something that's going to be in the scripts, similarly pauses in speeches aren't typically transcribed by news outlets using a legal transcription style, or else ellipses, em dashes and commas would be more frequent in the speeches of certain politicians. I think just the selection of the most notable quotes is highlighting these texts enough. This page's uniform use of bold text is distracting and makes it seem like all death scenes are loud and melodramatic, the way actors would traditionally project them selves to be better heard in the theater. Though format is a minor issue, if the text were in all caps needlessly or another color or font, there would be a major objection that it effected readability or looked unprofessional. So unless the script specifically says something is in bold text, I'd not add bold text just because the scene is physically or emotionally intensive or the people speaking are over a certain number of decibels; I don't believe that speech to text recorders in closed captioning use bold text even when the dialogue is being shouted, like in sportscasts when someone is about to make a goal. I'd say deleting the bold text and requiring a citation it's actually bold in the script, transcript or book is an improvement; good call Daniel Carrero. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
All caps and italics are used for emphasis more than bolding.Finister2 (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for coming and weighing in, @CensoRedScribe. I agree with this: "This page's uniform use of bold text is distracting and makes it seem like all death scenes are loud and melodramatic, the way actors would traditionally project them selves to be better heard in the theater."
Many of those last words seem especially bland on paper, even if in the films/comics themselves they are part of a more dramatic and meaningful context. Like this one from Last words in Batman media:
Is that a phone?
In my opinion, if everything in Last words and Fictional last words were normal (not bold), instead of completely bold, it would be a major improvement. To be clear, I'm not really sure about using bold to imitate when comics do it. Maybe we should NOT use bold even in this case. I say this because, in my experience, American comics use boldface a lot, to highlight a few arguably random words per sentence.
In Sandman #63, there's this dialogue. The boldface from the comics is unchanged.
Larissa: See this? It's a hundred dollar bill. I'm giving you half of it. If you're still here when I get back, I shall give you the other half.
Taxi driver: Okay, lady. I shall be here, unless there be guns. If there be guns, I will be gone.
This is just a normal dialogue which I probably wouldn't add in any Wikiquote page. But if we did add it, I think it would be better if completely not-bold. This way:
Larissa: See this? It's a hundred dollar bill. I'm giving you half of it. If you're still here when I get back, I shall give you the other half.
Taxi driver: Okay, lady. I shall be here, unless there be guns. If there be guns, I will be gone.
--Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

If we're focusing on the lists in comparison to pages about subjects and people, I think there's been some confusion; the pages on subject are quotes that focus on that subject, while the lists are a collection of words given by people and characters, with a source and description given, the bolding is just to put more emphasis on the actual quotes and less on the description.

Also look at these two;

  • This is my world. (Lois: "No! No!") You are my world.
  • This is my world. (Lois: "No! No!") You are my world.

Without the bolding, it can be hard to tell which words belong to the speaker, as opposed to the interrupter. Just food for though.Finister2 (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Finister2: Above, I replied to the idea of formatting separately the theme and non-theme pages.[3] This is where I called it an arbitrary distinction, to say the least. I repeat, would you use 100%-bold just in The Matrix (film) and bold-highlighting in Real for the same quote just because they are in different pages? And would you expect everyone else to do the same?
In your example, I very much prefer the non-bold version:
This is my world. (Lois: "No! No!") You are my world.
It's not hard at all to tell which words belong to the speaker, as opposed to the interrupter. The interrupter is between parenthesis and starts with "Lois:". It even has "No! No!" between quotation marks, which I find excessive. I would probably remove the quotation marks. The (Lois: "No! No!") is also completely italic. It has an excess of emphasis, not a lack of emphasis.
An alternative method might be just using multiple lines:
Clark: This is my world.
Lois: No! No!
Clark: You are my world.
--Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Here's an idea: At least de-bold all or most "Last words"Edit

@Finister2, Abramsky, UDScott, Peter1c, SuperJew, DanielTom, Just A Regular New Yorker:

Correct me if I'm wrong: here in this discussion, so far, some people like me support using bold just to highlight things. Some people here would rather not use bold at all.

Some possible uses of bold that have been mentioned here:

  • to imitate wherever bold is actually used in the source (which appears to be common in American comics),
  • or as some sort of emphasis of sounds or screams (which seems controversial at least),
  • or to highlight famous quotes or the favorite of the author (which nobody seems to support, it was just mentioned, I guess?),
  • or to highlight witty or notable quotes

But it seems @Finister2 is currently the only person here who would like to have all "last words" quotes bolded. He/she also seems to support having a separate non-bold style for thematic pages like Time, based on what he/she said in this revision of the current discussion.

Finister2's opinion is currently a minority. I suggest, at the very least, removing bold from all quotes in Last words, Fictional last words and their subpages. I recently found Last Lines, created by Finister2, which also has all quotes bolded. I suggest de-bolding it too for the same reasons.

Aside from that, in my opinion, it's still a good idea to highlight some witty and notable quotes, very sparingly, like I did in this revision of a Batman page which got reverted by Finister2. But alternatively, I could live with just having all the quotes with normal formatting, i.e. NOT bold at all, not even for witty/notable quotes. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems the ping template has a limit of merely 7 people, so here's an additional ping: @Ubiquity, CensoredScribe. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Update: I renamed Last Lines to Last lines. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the suggestion to de-bold articles where all the quotes are bolded. As I said earlier, there is no meaning to it, if it's done to all of them.
And in general, I can't understand the point of the bolding (meaning that an average user would even less understand), so I'm for de-bolding in general. --SuperJew (talk) 06:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

For those who suggest retaining bold face in more-or-less arbitrary fashion, how do you propose we show text which was bold when it was initially printed? —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Koavf: Thanks for coming after I asked on your talk page. I suggest removing the boldface that is found in the printed text, especially in American comics where seemingly random words are often bolded. Can someone mention any examples where it's a good idea to do the opposite, that is keeping the text bolded as in the printed source?
To repeat an example given above, here's a quote from Sandman #63:
Larissa: See this? It's a hundred dollar bill. I'm giving you half of it. If you're still here when I get back, I shall give you the other half.
Taxi driver: Okay, lady. I shall be here, unless there be guns. If there be guns, I will be gone.
If this dialogue found its way to a Wikiquote page for any reason, I would prefer de-bolding it like this:
Larissa: See this? It's a hundred dollar bill. I'm giving you half of it. If you're still here when I get back, I shall give you the other half.
Taxi driver: Okay, lady. I shall be here, unless there be guns. If there be guns, I will be gone.
--Daniel Carrero (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Bolding is actually rarely used for emphasis in the original publication of most works (which is one of the reasons it is useful on such collections of quotes as exist here), and the usually rather random use of bolding in comic book text need not be retained in quotes. This section began as a dispute specifically on the quotes for "Last words", and I must state that the proliferation of pages for "Last words in whatever" is not something I have closely followed, and I was not inclined to immediately weigh in on the subject. I have realized that there have been occasional disputes on the tendency of some people to bold ALL of the words on such pages in the past — and I tend to agree that such bolding ALL such quotes is not appropriate, and thus I have no objection to the removal of "blanket bold" practices which some have engaged in, but truthfully, the styling disputes of any of these pages are not something which have greatly concerned me. However, the drift of the discussion here on a few occasions to suggestions for the removal of all the bolding from all the pages is something I definitely object to. Selective bolding of quotes by editors is something which has been promoted since the first months of the project in 2003, and quoting some remarks I made in regard to the issue when it arose in 2006:
…bolding practices here have thus far only rarely been an issue of contention. The few occasions it has been an issue it has usually been raised by people who feel nothing should be bolded at all, but that so far has not been a dominant consensus here, and I have occasionally emphasized that, especially on the larger pages, I find the total lack of bolding to be very aesthetically unappealing and bland. I have never attempted to ignore, deny, or equivocate about the fact that to any human being, there are many quotations and statements that are inherently more notable than others, and that this is a place where we are gathering and sifting them in various ways, according to our various interests and inclinations, and I have always asserted that bolding is and should remain an option available for people who are interested in developing the presentations we are engaged in creating here on the various pages.
In the many years since 2006, the issue of selective bolding of prominent statements remains something which has only occasionally arisen, and though I have long acknowledged it is sometimes overused — especially in cases where ALL quotes on a page are in bold —  I continue to support the practice of intelligently selective bolding, as I have since the beginning. ~ Kalki·· 08:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
@Kalki: Thanks for coming after I asked on your talk page.
I agree with you: "bolding is and should remain an option available for people who are interested in developing the presentations we are engaged in creating here on the various pages". I also agree with this: "it is sometimes overused — especially in cases where ALL quotes on a page are in bold". It seems we have a consensus for removing all the "blanket bold". I'll do it one of these days (no rush, I guess). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Removing blanket boldingEdit

@Finister2, Abramsky, UDScott, Peter1c, SuperJew, DanielTom
@Just A Regular New Yorker, Ubiquity, CensoredScribe, Koavf, Kalki

Update:

As per consensus in this discussion, I started to remove blanket bolding from all last words. But the user 31.205.7.7 reverted almost all of them, thus restoring the old blanket bolding.

Edit summaries used by 31.205.7.7 include "what kind of idiot approved this", "what is this shit?", "the hell is going on here", "this is stupid", "Why the shit is one line bolded at the bottom" and "thats better". That goes against the current discussion and sounds like vandalism to me. Should that user be blocked?

Full report follows.

Important notes:

Part 1: I completely removed blanket bolding from all the following pages (except most were reverted by 31.205.7.7 and got the blanket bolding restored).

[non-fiction]

[fiction]

Part 2 -- I removed blanket bolding from these pages, except I left a few bold quotes that I found notable and/or witty. I attempted to use bold sparingly here.

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Admin nominationEdit

Please see Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Koavf. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Adding Cite tool to toolbarEdit

Hi all

I've been editing Wikipedia, Wikidata and Commons for some years and starting to get into Wikiquote. I'm trying to add references to the pages I'm adding information to (in Visual Editor) but there is no Cite tool in the toolbar to generate a citation from a URL like the other Wikimedia sites I'm used to editing. I can add citations if I draft the article on Wikipedia and then move it over but it would be much easier to have the citation tool working on Wikiquote. Is it a conscious choice to not have it available? Looking around I can't see many pages with references.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The so-called "cite" tool would be better named a "footnote" tool. What it does is place citations in footnotes at Wikipedia and other sites. Here at Wikiquote (at least en) we put the citations in the main text of the articles (as a bullet point or a section heading), not in an appendix or footnote. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

QotD not displaying, also Wikiquote in the hospitalEdit

The QotD exists: Wikiquote:Quote of the day/February 10, 2018 but is a redlink on the Main Page. See https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikiquote:Quote_of_the_day/February_10,_2018 where it is not linked to the Main Page (as of now).

Also: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2018/02/09/community-digest-51/Justin (koavf)TCM 01:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

QOTD was displaying okay for me — but it often needs a main page purge to update for everyone — I have just done that, so it should be alright now. ~ Kalki·· 01:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Non-notable QuotesEdit

Is there a page for quotes that are not from a notable person? Many times I encounter a phrase that is profound and insightful, but I can't share it on Wikiquote because it was said by a "regular" person. If such a page doesn't exist, would it be against Wikiquote's official policy to create it? Is it appropriate to place these quotes on Anonymous? Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

There are many statements which are not sufficiently notable to be included here, and many potentially notable quotes of not sufficiently notable people, but apart from clearly evident spam, such quotes as might be by people or sources of insufficient notability can be generally posted to one's user pages, but there are no provisions for putting such quotes anywhere within "article space", and if they are not significantly noted as anonymous quotes elsewhere, should not be posted to the anonymous page. ~ Kalki·· 00:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Changing Title of an ArticleEdit

I have been browsing the help pages, but I am still unclear on how to change the title of an article. I believe that Category:Jews should be renamed Category:Jewish People. Feel free to change it for me if you agree. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC) I prefer a bot to change it as it has so many items.--Jusjih (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Japanese poetsEdit

Risto hot sir has requested that I ask the community about what should be done regarding the numerous articles listed under Category:Japanese poets. You will know what I mean after you read a few and start to see the trend. They are all a possible copyright violation, they are all of non-notable people who don't even have a Wikipedia article, they are all from one source and they all clog up this category. You can read more about this here, here, here, and here. - Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment I'm very eager to see what the community thinks about this.--Risto hot sir (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC) - Only Japanese people know if these poets are notable.--Risto hot sir (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment I am not referring to the notability from a literary perspective, but rather according to the guidelines established here. We have argued about this before and I don't intend to continue the argument here. The purpose of this post was to fulfill your request and to involve other editors. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment JARNY seems to have an obsession to delete these Japanese poets' sites - which hardly many people visit. Bigger problem is the longest sites, like the 3rd longest, Top Gear. Isn't that a massive copyright violation according to JARNY's principles? And all quotations are from one source.--Risto hot sir (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Help!Edit

AstaDev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). I don't know where else to go. This user is maliciously vandalizing everything. Help! Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind. Kalki saved the day. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Hoaxes?Edit

The Adventures of Rugrats & Rolie Polie Olie and Penn Jillette tells Angelica Pickles - A Custom Adventure with Rugrats & Rolie Polie Olie: are they real? There are no sources online. --Superchilum (talk) 08:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

These are the closest things that I found [4] - [5] Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
In this case, both articles on Wikia are on test or parody wikis. Probable hoax then. hiàn 04:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Editing News #1—2018Edit

20:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Not appearing to be linked with WikidataEdit

Hi all. When I encountered the article Eden ahbez, I found that it appeared to not be linked with Wikidata - the "Wikidata item" tool didn't appear and it didn't appear on the Wikidata item user script I was using. I had previously purged the page several times and cleared my cache, to no avail. Any thoughts? hiàn 03:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for rapid cleanup of theme pagesEdit

Dear fellow editors, in reviewing the theme pages created by User:Nvvchar, I am finding that many of the articles contain

  • Quotations only incidentally related to the article topic
  • Quotations sourced from collections of quotations
  • Quotations from non-notable sources
  • Formatting that is not compliant with Wikiquote standards (and not consistent)
  • Numerous typographical errors

I have been flagging the pages with the Theme-cleanup template. My review of these pages is very disheartening, as the cleanup operation seems like it will take several months of full time work to complete. I am concerned that leaving all these pages in the state they are in creates a negative impression about the quality of the Wikiquote site, and would like to proceed with cleanup. As a solution, I would like to propose a rapid cleanup process:

  • quotations that are are clearly notable, correctly formatted and relevant are retained on the page
  • all other quotations are moved to the talk page for later review and correction.

Let me know what you think.

Thanks and best regards, Peter1c (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. I wouldn't remove quotes based on formatting alone, but non-notable poorly sourced quotes can and should be moved to the talk page. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I’ve encountered many articles that are badly formatted. Many of them are made by unregistered users. The biggest problem is that the sections are poorly made. There needs to be a mass cleanup. Some articles have the cleanup tag on for months with no one addressing it. Something needs to be done. I say, go ahead with the plan. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Support IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Please test pings in edit summaryEdit

1. Read this:

"You can notify users in edit summaries. They will get a ping just as if they had been mentioned on a wiki page. phab:T32750"-- meta:Tech/News/2018/10

2. Sign up at https://en.wikiquote.beta.wmflabs.org/ using a different user name and password (not the one you use here). You may create multiple accounts if you like, just put a note on their user pages.

3. Edit a page and put a username link in edit summary. Confirm that you are receiving the notification correctly.

4. Test at different pages and in different ways.

5. Report bugs to Phabricator.

6. Share this comment with other people on other wikis, in different languages.

--Gryllida (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

People from...Edit

At the end of articles, it is common to add categories that say "People from...". Should those categories represent where the person was born, or may they even be used to represent a place where the person spent a large portion of their life? J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 00:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion the place where the person was raised is meaningful too, and if he/she represents the state or is a governor (like Schwarzenegger).--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
It may be meaningful, but that doesn't mean that the person is from there. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 22:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
@Just A Regular New Yorker: How so? If I was born somewhere and then my family moved two weeks later and I lived somewhere else the rest of my life, is it not fair to say that I was from the latter place? —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps, but it is misleading. The Barack Obama page used to say that he is from Hawaii and Illinois. Once we are doing that, what's the limit? It think that to avoid all confusion, we should use the word "from" literally, which in this case, means that the person is born there. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 22:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
That's how I thought before: only the birth place, but then Ningauble reverted one person from Oklahoma 'cause he was raised elsewhere. And then I noticed that especially People from Oregon has many people not born there.--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't suppose anyone has ever heard of a journal of video game studies, or a news paper that reviews video games?Edit

I've been trying to look for academic writing on video games to supplement interviews, unlike a news paper review for a best selling book, art exhibition, TV show or film, I don't think the reviews in PC Gamer, Nintendo Power or Electronic Gaming Monthly are sufficiently notable enough to include. I thought this worth discussing here for anyone interested in expanding out coverage of video games, or explaining why the medium is inherently non notable. From what I've heard and seen, even some of the more active editors here have stated they have played video games and our quote limit for games has been discussed as being overly stringent. CensoredScribe (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@CensoredScribe: CiteSeerX, Google Scholar and Google Books give several results on the topic. Marsha Kinder, Mark J. P. Wolf and James Paul Gee among other academics have written books on the subject according with a quick search. Rupert loup (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Why was the births category deleted?Edit

I was under the impression good categories didn't need to immediately be populated if the applicability of them to numerous pages was obvious, so what is the rationale for why was this deleted, was it because I didn't add a certain number of entries by a certain point after the categories creation? The categories weren't actually empty, there just weren't many entries, exactly how many pages I need to add to avoid speedy deletion? The categories are used on wikipedia and apply to every person page, the deletion seemed rather arbitrary and counter productive. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Facebook articleEdit

I just noticed that the Facebook page suddenly disappeared. It broke the linked words to the page also. Though still it can be accessed by its url. Rupert loup (talk)

Would it help to have categories for video games by year or console?Edit

I think years would definitely help but I'm not sure if by console or developers is needed any more than categorizing films by the actors or cinematographers that appear in them, which we don't do because it would take up too much room to list everyone involved in a film. By film studio might be an acceptable category for movies given the large amount of creative control the studios have on the finished product. Do you think it would help? CensoredScribe (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about the video game questions (although I am inclined to not have so many categories and do not really see the need), but as for the question regarding films by studio, this question has been considered before (see Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Category:Films by studio) and found to be not needed. ~ UDScott (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
The comparison to categorizing books by their publishers is apt for both. I think directors are unique for wikiquotes purposes in being useful creators of works to categorize films by, but I don't think more than one or two lead designers for video games have their own pages for quotations on wikiquote, so doing this for electronic game designers would be of much less help for learning more quotations. On a related note, I think screen writers can have almost as much of an impact on a film as the director, however based off the number of interviews I've read, people are generally less interested in hearing what they have to say compared to directors, or even the actors whom are not used for categories. Correct me if I'm wrong in this, but if I'm not mistaken, the reason films and TV shows aren't categorized by their actor on wikiquote is because they seldom wrote any of their own lines, (with the extremely rare exception of an improvisational program like Whose Line Is It Anyway? or reality television, but occurs with some frequency with famous lines in films.) Though a bad idea for a category, I think pages for the Hollywood studios and book publishers themselves could be interesting as their own pages, there's plenty of interviews and memoirs discussing the studios and we have a category for companies; I noticed we have pages for fast food restaurants but no book publishing companies, even those well known for their niche markets like Harlequin Enterprises or Tor Books, just individuals who were publishers. I'm surprised given there aren't more pages for the prominent newspapers like The New York Times or news networks like Fox News or BBC News as well, as unlike book publishers, their editorial stance is more frequently presented on a wide variety of issues, and they feature prominent in public discourse. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Acceptable descriptions for works.Edit

I was wondering what the consensus is on providing brief one or two sentence summaries for works, particularly video games. I recently had such a description reverted without explanation as to why, for the game Spyro 2: Ripto's Rage! and as I don't particularly like reverting other editors, espescially administrators. I was hoping someone here might be able to provide insight as to the basis for this dispute and how best to resolve it. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikiquote is not an encyclopedia. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
That's correct, however normally there is an intro for pages though consisting of a single sentence describing the basic plot of the work. This isn't just for video games, TV and film either, just take a look at the pages for Ulysses (novel) or Tropic of Cancer which no one seems to have previously objected to the existence of the descriptions for as being too "encyclopedic" for wikiquote. This seems a rather uncontroversial move which is why this level of hostility to the notion seems rather unfounded, I would appreciate an explanation for the opposition. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Like DanielTom said: WQ is not WP. The lede already provides a link to WP where this info can be found. The fact that some articles may have this information doesn't change this fact. Using other articles as an argument (Whataboutism) is not welcome. W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 13:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

MonsterHunter32 mass-censoring pages againEdit

MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is mass-censoring pages again, without even discussion on the talkpage. Can someone please stop him? --Jedi3 (talk) 11:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm only removing his non-notable and non-related quotes. Besides Jedi3 can discuss anytime when I'm free. Do remeber that this user while talking about discussion is still edit-warring at Somnath temple until a few days ago, where he still hasn't finished the argument at Talk:Somnath temple. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Even though I decided to stay away on admin advice, Jedi3 again reverted me with false claims. Despise the argument over even one of his quotes never being resolved, he used the false reason "see talk" to add back his non-notable content. He could only add it back, because I decided to let it go. However, he used false claims like he had some victory in the argument over the quotes.

Here are his reverts, [9], [10], [11], [12], [13].

Not withstanding most of my edits aren't about Islam, they are mostly about Muslim rulers, Jedi3's disruptive edits have also extended to European Christian rulers and ancient India.

He actually made 6 reverts, another one without any reason : [14]. He has lied multiple times, but I don't want to edit-war.

This is not his first time making false claims, his made-up and unrelated quotes: [15], [16], [17]. Despite me pointing out with original sources and teh quotes themselves about his false claims in these edits, he still refuses to accept it, see his denials despite being exposed: [18], [19]

Some false claims of "massive blanking" despite only one quote being removed: [20], [21], [22].

It is also clear, that Jedi3 hasn't bothered to verify his quotes from the original sources, and is just adding based on whjetevr he reads especially from hindutva-leaning authors. just recently he showed thew truth of his edit process, when at Babur, I couldn't find the quote Jedi3 added I simply shifted it to disputed before it could be verified. Only after I said so, Jedi3 bothered to verify it, however it isn't exactly the book of the Hindutva-leaning SR Goel claimed: [23]. He has shown the same behavior of not verifying his claims: In the last part of my comment here, I pointed out with the original sources he used for a quote that it is not about Muhammad bin Qasim. He however has refused to accept his wrongdoings about it: [24], [25]. Similarly, at Talk:Sikandar Butshikan, he indirectly admitted to copying quotes from Wikipedia without checking if they're true when I pointed out his quote doesn't exist in the orignal source.

Action needs to be taken against this disruptive person otherwise it's a mockery of moderation and the Wiki policies. I didn't edit-war with Jedi3 and reported him to Kalki and UDScott too. But no action has been taken. That's why i was forced to remove his non-notable quotes. Please take action against him. I haven't stopped him from discussion. It is he who often abruptly stops discussion. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


MonsterHunter32 should be blockedEdit

MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) should be blocked for his massive vandalism and mass blanking of quotes without even discussion on the talkpage, which other editors have also called a massive and almost indiscriminate removals and which as disruptive vandalism are surely a blockable offence.

He has been warned enough already.

He has been told enough times already that he should at the very least observe this rule:

All quotes removed by User:MonsterHunter32 must always be moved by him to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning (for each removed quote), as required by Template:Remove. Otherwise, the status quo (uncensored) version should be kept and/or restored.

Other editors have noticed the same, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bishonen#Need_your_help_again and https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User_talk:UDScott#MonsterHunter32 and other places.

Also see Daniels' latest comment here https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=2391342

Do the admins think that the editors’ time is so worthless that users like MH32 will continue creating problems one by one, and each time others will take the pain to go to various noticeboards to seek a justice only to find that MH32 is back again with his problematic behavior? How many times do we have to come back here before we decide that this is a net negative to the project? How much time does he have to waste before enough is enough?

I will also gladly respond to any editor about any questions regarding the invalid and poor excuses that MH32 is giving for his massive censorship, most of which are deliberate misrepresentations or worse, including his most recent one at Babar (where he claimed that he couldn't find it in the source, even though the page of the source he linked does discuss the very issue MH32 is complaining about in the footnote). And what is needed, after the pages are protected and MH32 is blocked, is some input and comments from other editors about the deleted quotes, which I have already asked for many times, since the discussion with someone like MH32 who refuses to make the slightest concession that others might have a different opinion on any issue is unproductive and third party opinons are needed. --Jedi3 (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Please block disruptive Jedi3Edit

User:Jedi3 keeps on falsely claiming I am "censoring him" despite me leaving intact many of his notable quotes no matter what they are. I've already explained to him that I won't remove any notable quotes. He must stop with his false bad-faith accusations

Jedi3 has been constantly edit-warring despite being warned by admins and told plainly some of his quotes aren't memorable and seem to be only meant for POV-pushing. While criticising me, Kalki criticised Jedi3 as well tating the biases are leading to "lapses of both logic and fairness".

Also after he failed to prove his quotes as notable, he keeps on falsely calling them eloquent, poignant, witty, pithy etc despite me already explaining to him at Talk:Somnath temple as well as Talk:Aurangzeb that his quotes don't even fit within the dictionary definition of what he keeos calling them.

Also persistent history of Jedi3's edit-warring from the history of these articles: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33].

Jedi3 again reverted me with false claims. Despise the argument over even one of his quotes never being resolved, he used the false reason "see talk" to add back his non-notable content. He could only add it back, because I decided to let it go. However, he used false claims like he had some victory in the argument over the quotes.

Here are his reverts, [34], [35], [36], [37], [38].

In some of these cases there were only one quote or the quotes were not as Jedi3 had added them. Despite pointing out so, he doesn't accept it.

He has edit-warred even after being warned and blocked in the past. Right after UDScott warned him, he still kept edit-warring at multiple articles: [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44].

Jedi3 was blocked by UDScott for a week. But he resumed edit-warring: [45], [46], [47].

This is not his first time making false claims, his made-up and unrelated quotes: [48], [49], [50]. Despite me pointing out with original sources and teh quotes themselves about his false claims in these edits, he still refuses to accept it, see his denials despite being exposed: [51], [52]

His vandalism has caused a lot of disruotion especially as it prevents me from adding quotes and making useful contribution. :Here are the quotes I added at Aurangzeb: [53], [54], [55] and [56]. Also at the same time, Jedi3 kept edit-warring, sapping most of my time in dealing with his constant edit-warring. I told him not to edit-war while calling for cooperation. He didn't listen. See [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64]. Also same thing has happened at Noakhali riots. He kept edit-warring over one non-notable quote that i removed and in the process also kept removing the notable quotes I added. these are my additions: [65], [66] and [67]. I went away for some time as I can't keep editing forever. Then Jedi3 tried to edit-war here as well, impacting my quotes in the process as well.: [68] and [69]. This despite his removed quote only being one in number.

Also Jedi3 keeps claiming Template:Remove: "Quotes should never be removed without a comment in the edit summary, and should almost always be moved to the Talk page with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning."

It is also clear, that Jedi3 hasn't bothered to verify his quotes from the original sources, and is just adding based on whjetevr he reads especially from hindutva-leaning authors. just recently he showed thew truth of his edit process, when at Babur, I couldn't find the quote Jedi3 added I simply shifted it to disputed before it could be verified. Only after I said so, Jedi3 bothered to verify it, however it isn't exactly the book of the Hindutva-leaning SR Goel claimed: [70]. He has shown the same behavior of not verifying his claims: In the last part of my comment here, I pointed out with the original sources he used for a quote that it is not about Muhammad bin Qasim. He however has refused to accept his wrongdoings about it: [71], [72]. Similarly, at Talk:Sikandar Butshikan, he indirectly admitted to copying quotes from Wikipedia without checking if they're true when I pointed out his quote doesn't exist in the orignal source.

It says almost always should be moved. Regardless I tried to move and discuss in the past but there was no result. He even abruptly stops discussion in the middle. Notice the time difference between his subsequent comments at Talk:Somnath temple (24 days), Talk: Aurangzeb (6 days), Talk:India (4 days). The last article India wasn't even related to our dispute, yet he started repeating the same claims he made at the noticeboards and other talk pages there.

Please block this disruptive edit-warring vandal immediately. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


Table for a summary of some of the steps taken for dispute resolution.

Action Jedi Comments
Asking admins about observing rules, especially also Template:Remove. I did ask to confirm that Template:Remove should be observed by MH32 and should be enforced, to which it was replied "I agree that prior to removal, since there is disagreement regarding quotes, they should be moved to the talk page where they could be discussed."
Notifying admins of edit warring despite warnings and notifications about observance of rule (discussed above) and asking admins to enforce rules. I did do that. And I asked on your talkpage "What else can I do if he refuses any meaningful collaboration, consensus seeking and discussion?"
Notifications to MH32 on his talkpage I gave many notifications.
Using edit summaries (in addition to talk page discussions) I did use edit summaries (in addition to talk page discussions). See also please don't put elaborate comments in edit summaries; put them on the talk page instead. Edit summaries are not considered reading material (another comment to MH32 from another editor)
Use article talkpage to discuss deleted quotes. I did use article talkpage to discuss deleted quotes.
Moving quotes to talk per Template:Remove After MH32 refused to do it in almost all cases, despite being asked so many times, I moved quotes to talk for him.
Applying Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion I did apply Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion
Asking you what happens if MonsterHunter32 continues censorship and edit-warring. [73] And asking admins that they should enforce the rules per Template:Remove, and that if MH32 continues to refuse to observe Template:Remove, he should be blocked, or the page should be protected. On 22 March I asked you if what happens if MonsterHunter continues with his edit-warring and with the massive censorship of sourced quotes without moving the quotes to talk and without giving full reasoning for the censorship, as told to him is required just before and so many times before by multiple users.
Explaining all edits and restorations on the talkpage (following Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion) Jedi explained all edits on the talkpage. On many articles, MonsterHunter32 did not even once use the talkpage (including at Talk:Muhammad bin Qasim, Talk:Swami Vivekananda, Talk:Historical negationism). In other cases, where he used the talkpage, he did not give full reasoning why he removed the censored quotes. Only in very few cases did he address SOME (not all) of the censored quotes on the talkpage of the article. He used poor excuses like that explaining the deletion of sometimes 10 or more quotes in the same article with 3 word edit summaries is enough. But he was told please don't put elaborate comments in edit summaries; put them on the talk page instead. Edit summaries are not considered reading material (another comment to MH32 from another editor)
Asking the community for opinions. I did ask the community for opinions and comments, see Admin noticeboard and many other places. Jedi: "I am asking the community to comment about the censorship of this user that I have already alerted about here Talk:India#Censorship_of_sourced_quotes_by_User:MonsterHunter32 and at other places, but it didn't help. What should be done about the continued massive removal of sourced quotes by MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) when he refuses to even move the quotes to the talkpage with full reasoning for each quote as was asked by multiple users many many times? [74]
Asking you again what happens if MH32 again refuses to agree on the rule based on Template:Remove. Also asking you to please help ensure that MonsterHunter32 observes it. Also asking to please let me know if you have a different interpretation of any of it.[75]
Notifying MH32 again that the rule must be observerd by him You have been notified of this rule dozens of times and you have chosen to ignore it dozens of times. But if you do not observe this, you will be blocked. Previous time he deleted the notification. This time he didn't delete it, but he ignored it again, as he also ignored your warnings.
Notifying you that MH32 has continued edit-warring, without reverting MH32 again. Jedi said "You said, I agree that prior to removal (by MonsterHunter32), since there is disagreement regarding quotes, they should be moved to the talk page where they could be discussed. Observing this rule above based on Template:Remove is the bare minimum, but it will not solve the tendentious edit warring of MonsterHunter32:"
Notifiying MH32 that he must stop the edit-warring Jedi made again many notifications.[76] [77] [78] But each time MH32 ignored it and just continued.


Jedi3's masive disprutive editingEdit

Here's the truth of Jedi3's disruptive actions. He is back to edit-warring now, see his latest revert: [79]. How can anyone be able to discuss amidst such a disruptive edit-warring?

Here you can see Jedi3's history of disruptive edit-warring in the past. While he keeps claiming censorship, he deliberately omits I've left many of his quotes untouched as well. This table I tagged earlier, but can come in handy. Some of its content is ouitdated. Theis differfence bvetween his comments and abruptly stopping discussion at It says almost always should be moved. Regardless I tried to move and discuss in the past but there was no result.

Also I've given reason for all removals in the edit summary. Also Jedi3 keeps talking about Template:Remove]. but here is actually what it says: "Quotes should never be removed without a comment in the edit summary, and should almost always be moved to the Talk page with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning."

Regardless of it not mandating every time, I still tried to discussed with him despite not being mandatory every time. But he even abruptly stops discussion in the middle. Notice the time difference between his subsequent comments at Talk:Somnath temple (24 days), Talk: Aurangzeb (6 days), Talk:India (4 days). The last article India wasn't even related to our dispute, yet he started repeating the same claims he made at the noticeboards and other talk pages there.


Article Number of non-notable quotes removed Jedi3 stopped edit-warring? Last edit-warring revert? Jedi3's disruption allowed MonsterHunter32 to move quotes to talk? Template:Remove requires moving? Satisfactory reason given? Jedi3 completed discussion on one quote anywhere?
Aurangzeb No. Still edit-warring as of 29 march. Apart from now, he never discussed at Talk: Aurangzeb for 6 days Moved. The new 10 quotes he claims I "censored", were only removed due to his edit-warring. I've already said he could restore them if they are notable. Another quote he claims I removed is still there. NOT ALWAYS. YES. NO
Somnath temple No. Still edit-warring: [80]. 24 days of difference between subsequent comments at Talk:Somnath temple One moved. The other not, as I was too busy arguing on Talk:Aurangzeb with Jedi3. NOT ALWAYS. YES. Other given too in edit-summary. NO
Talk:Swami Vivekananda No. Still edit-warring as of 29 March. Too busy reverting Jedi3's edit-warring reverts who hasn't stopped. NOT ALWAYS. YES. Reason given in edit summary. NO
Talk:Historical negationism No. Still edit-warring as of 29 March. Too busy reverting Jedi3's edit-warring reverts who hasn't stopped. NOT ALWAYS. YES. Reason given in edit summary. NO
Talk:Slavery in India No. Still edit-warring as of 29 March. Too busy reverting Jedi3's edit-warring reverts who hasn't stopped. NOT ALWAYS. YES. Reason given in edit summary: [81], [82], [83] NO
Talk:Muhammad bin Qasim No. Still edit-warring as of 29 March. Too busy reverting Jedi3's edit-warring reverts who hasn't stopped. NOT ALWAYS. YES. Reason given in edit summary: [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96]. Second one as already said is not about Qasim especially. NO
Malabar rebellion No. Still edit-warring as of 29 March. Too busy reverting Jedi3's edit-warring reverts who hasn't stopped. NOT ALWAYS. YES. Reason given in edit-summary: [97] NO

What "cooperation" and censorship this edit-warring user is talking about? He himself doesn't care to cooperate and "censors" and berates when someone takes action against his disruptive edits. He is the most disruptive person I've ever comer across. The list above isn't complete with many other of his acts. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Someone should also tell Jedi3 Wikiquote is not Wikipedia. You should not link a Wikipedia policy like Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion. Only add link of a Wikiquote policy here.

I suggest he also read from the same Wikipedia policy of STATUSQUO says that if your edit is reverted you should discuss instead of reverting - "Similarly, if you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit – leave the status quo up, or try an alternative way to make the change that includes feedback from the other editor."

If Jedi3 can disprove what I said about his quotes, then no problem. But he won't stop edit-warring and keeps making bad-faith disruptive edits. I can't do anything anymore about it. His latest edit-warring reverts: [98], [99]. It seems he is hell-bent on getting either of us blocked. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments about Jedi3Edit

Jedi3 (again) selectively omits his own criticism This is what other editors have said about Jedi3:

  • Second, I also agree that many of the disputed quotes are not very memorable and might be pushing a POV. Therefore, I believe that both users are at fault in this disagreement - UDScott
  • Please stop the ongoing edit-warring you and another user are currently engaged in. I have no idea who is correct in this dispute that involves several pages. - UDScott
  • I have no doubt that you both have your rather intense and prominent biases for and against various views, attitudes and assertions, and I perceive that there are lapses of both logic and fairness in both of your inclinations. - Kalki
  • * What Jedi3 forgot to mention User:DanielTom said about me at AN, "Jedi3 is obviously concerned that MonsterHunter32 is actively censoring quotes critical of Islam and wikihounding him." How? The only thing most of the articles relate to Islam is that the Muslim rulers were Muslims or some of their actions may be because of Islamic fundamentalism. Most quotes I removed are not about Islam except maybe a few non-notable ones added by Jedi3 which he added into articles of Muslim rulers or a particular religious conflict/riot like Noakhali riots.
He claims it despite me adding quotes about negative acts done by Muslims. At Aurangzeb I myself added a quote talking about temple destruction by Aurangzeb. Even at Noakhali riots I added a quote holding a Muslim responsible. I added them only because they were notable. Also I made few changes to ancient India as well. I however only remove content that is clearly not notable or memorable. The user has similarly made quotes against Christian colonial rulers in India only to further his agenda. Even if his quotes are not memorable he has added them.
  • Even though another user removed his quote saying the article is about Ambedkar, not Elst, though he presumably made a grammar mistake. The reason used Jedi3 to revert? Falsely call the user a vandal.

Wikiquote certainly isn't a place for disruptors like Jedi3 who make false claims. He should be blocked.

Also Jedi3 was again recently blocked for his disruptive and repetitive mass-postings at many talk pages which was removed by the aadmin Kalki, see User talk:Kalki#Brief block of massive posting actions. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)