Wikiquote:Village pump archive 17


Village pump archive 16

From November to December 2007, originally posted to Wikiquote:Village pump.

Citing Wikipedia in intros and the sources of translated quotes

To better comply with GFDL, English Wikisource s:Template:Header normally cites Wikipedia as the sources when making an intro. Perhaps we should do the same thing here.

How should we cite the sources of translated quotes?--Jusjih 21:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. If you know the translator why not mention it? On the other hand I've been working on Jesus and no translators are mentioned. Steve Dufour 03:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is saying "from Wikipedia" good enough? For user-made translations, how about "translated by (whatever username)"?--Jusjih 01:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re Jesus: If you quote an in-copyright translation of the Bible (and that should include the Authorised Version, which has perpetual Crown copyright under English law) you should acknowledge it.--Poetlister 15:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your mentioned perpetual British Crown copyright is also mentioned on English Wikisource s:Template:PD-nonUK, but I do not know which section of the British law mentions it while no other countries in the world is known to honor this.--Jusjih 03:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a matter of royal prerogative dating back to its original publication in 1611 [1] and indeed to its predecessors. I would imagine that this applies in all countries recognising the Queen as Head of State, such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand, but we'd need an expert opinion.--Poetlister 16:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy alert: server problems

Please note that the Wikiquote server seems to be having some problems with losing session information. The effect is that logged-in users may find their edits credited to their IP addresses. Those who wish this information to remain private should be sure to check that the server recognizes they are logged in before they save a page they are working on. If your login name doesn't appear at the top of the page during an edit, simply click on "Show preview" to force the server to try again. It should eventually show your user information instead of your ID, at which point you may safely "Save" your edit. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a transient problem, or chronic? – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 12:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, this problem occurs only on rare occasions, and usually goes away after a few hours or days. Actually, I haven't seen it myself since I posted this message. It may have only been happening for a few minutes yesterday. But maybe it's just as well I posted this note, as the info will be available for later readers.
As one doesn't normally watch the top of the page for the usually unchanging user links (using the default Monobook skin, that is — some skins place these links in the left margin), another way to notice this happening is when any of your preferences (skins, date formats, signatures, etc.) suddenly don't look right. This often means that the server has temporarily "forgotten" who you are. (That's another of the many good reasons to use "Show preview" before saving a talk page — you're more likely to notice that your signature has been replaced with an IP address.)
There are other common reasons this may happen (like your computer's security software messing with cookies), but if you get messages like "session has expired" or "session data has been lost", or if you find that simply refreshing the page or doing a "Show preview" mysteriously makes the problem go away, it's probably a temporary server issue. At least that's my observation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, re-attributing from IP to username has been suspended for long time, so we should be even more careful. Please reply here if the problem is solved.--Jusjih 01:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean the session-loss problem, as I said above, I haven't seen it since shortly after I brought it up. I had no special knowledge of the server status, so I can't say what may be happening that caused the temporary problem, or if it's been solved. I was just responding to the results.
I've noticed occasional slowdowns, usually on both WQ and WP, often at the end of the year. I've assumed this to mean that the wikis are suffering expected growing pains, and that the fundraising drives could hardly come at a better time. (Actually, a quarter earlier than the apppearance of problems would be useful, although perhaps not as fiscally effective. ☺)
I don't want panic folks about this infrequent problem. It's just something to be aware of, if one cares about keeping one's IPs private in rare situations where one makes a bunch of edits to a page that may end up with logged IPs and usernames interspersed, implying a connection. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting a fictional character

Hi guys,

I'm trying to build up a page of quotes from Quellcrist Falconer, who is a fictional character (mostly only quoted) from Richard Morgan's Altered Carbon and its sequels. For the first two books, she is merely quoted, but in the third she kinda becomes a main character (or rather, half of one). I have all of the page references of each quote in all three books, but as I only have my copy of the first on me I have only put together the quotes from the first, on my user page. Any tips before I make this an article, or whether I'm allowed? Sort quotes by the IRL book they appear in, or by the fictional book (if any) she's quoted from?

(Also, I've figured out how to get the line breaks (and double-line-breaks) in quoting verse right; I'm having trouble getting such quotes look right next to their attributions and other quotes. Any tips?)

Rawling 22:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how other people feel about the notability of this character, which would probably be the determining factor as to whether it's an appropriate article (assuming the quotations are insubstantial relative to the whole series). As a matter of style, I would only note that it is important that such quotations be accurately attributed (to Morgan). 121a0012 01:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and remember also that quoted dialogue, like other forms of nested quotation, still needs quotation marks. 121a0012 01:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the reply.
Of course at some point I'd be attributing the whole content of the article to Morgan; I'd have to explain somehwere (if briefly) who Falconer "is". On another couple of your points:
  • (assuming the quotations are insubstantial relative to the whole series) - I guess this is up for debate, but Quell comes up quite a lot considering she' doesn't even appear as a character in the first two books, and becomes even more substantial in the third when she actually appears in... person.
  • which line(s) are you referring to with the nested dialogue/quotation marks remark?
Rawling 09:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-English entries.

I mentioned this in a deletion discussion, but I think it really merits discussion here. On Wiktionary when an untranslated foreign-language entry is added, we throw a {{notenglish}} template on the page, which says that if it is not translated within 30 days it will be deleted. Should we import that template (and that rule) to this project, perhaps setting a shorter timeframe? BD2412 T 01:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes translation won't be enough. An unsourced translation of an unsourced quote is pretty unreliable. If the foreign language quote was already a translation (for example, an Italian entry about a German-speaking subject), the potential for accuracy is low. --Ubiquity 03:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but no translation at all should lead to automatic deletion. BD2412 T 03:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can just use Prod - no need for a separate template.--Poetlister 16:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a {{notenglish}} template here; there aren't any hard rules about its use, but I've stuck it on pages that had no English translations, and later nominated them for deletion if translations hadn't been added (which is almost always the case). I offer no opinion at this point about whether should add something like "untranslated after 30 days" as a speedy-deletion case, but the usual outcome of having that templated added is deletion, usually by VFD. —LrdChaos (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Poetlister's point is excellent - suppose we make a practice of prod'ing entries after, say, two weeks with the {{notenglish}} template (I would not be inclined to go thirty days for quote entries). BD2412 T 22:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with putting a 30 day sign on the template. --Steinninn 05:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WQ:PROD formalization

Hi there,

I propose hereby that English Wikiquote adopt WQ:PROD to its deletion system and policies formally, which is officially given "draft" status at this moment.

We English Wikiquote community had a three month trial of WQ:PROD, during that the community did some slight modifications and made discussions on this draft. After the trial ended, all the community was invited to review the trial on Wikiquote talk:Proposed deletion. In almost half and one month, no complaint has come yet to its talk and here WQ:VP, and in the discussions about deletions WQ:PROD has been mentioned as if it were already an official part of our deletion system, and sometimes used even after the trial had ended.

I ask therefore the community to endorse and adopt it as our official policy. In convention, three endorsements without dissent, which may be expressed within a week from this call, makes it effective as official policy or whatsoever based on community consensus.

Thought? --Aphaia 05:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I already registered a significant dissent several days ago, under "General review", to which no one has yet responded. I'm afraid what's happening is that most of us (myself included) haven't been paying enough attention to this situation. This would seem to suggest a need for more than the common "acclamation by lack of dissent" practice. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
copied from the talk: Sorry to miss the discussion on the above (= on that talk) and my hasty request on WQ:VP, I failed to notice it on my watchlist and thank you all for input your thought. I have no time to join this discussion away from my usual workspace - hopefully I'll be back this weekend. --Aphaia 10:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I've just read Jeff's comments. As always, he is very thoughful and thought-provoking, but I see no fatal objections to roughly the current system for PROD.--Cato 23:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't exactly a rush to comment, is there? I see no problems with PROD; I've used it myself and deleted (or in one case refused) others' prods. Poetlister 21:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Everyone is welcome to contribute whatever genuine quotes they wish. The more contributors the closer a fair balance and a "happy medium" might be approached in the articles. Very few regular editors here are pushing any definite agenda, beyond those nearly universally honored ones such as honesty and civility. Wanton blanking of pages is considered vandalism, and the tone of your comments seem more of the nature of troll-droppings than of a sincere interest in improving the project. When your block expires you, like anyone else, no matter what their opinions, will be welcome to do so. ~ Kalki 21:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just so the community knows, the block Kalki refers to is a 3-day block I imposed for mass deletion of 3 articles' material and disruptive "shouting" of unspecific accusations across 4 talk pages. Ordinarily I don't like to block a new IP for disruption unless there's a more sinister content, like vandalism or harrassment. But this person reacted rather quickly and "violently" to Kalki's simple advice after blanking an article by spreading his non-specific accusations across a number of articles and pages. I've advised him/her to review our civility guidelines and try to be more cooperative, specific, and helpful in addressing any arguable problems s/he finds. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]