Wikiquote:Village pump archive 29


Volunteers still needed


Hi all,
Although we removed the centralnotice that was up, the Wikimedia Foundation is still looking for volunteers to serve as subject area experts or to sit on task forces that will study particular areas and make recommendations to the Foundation about its strategic plan. You may apply to serve on a task force or register your name as an expert in a specific area at

The Foundation's strategy project is a year-long collaborative process which is hosted on the strategy wiki, at Your input is welcome (and greatly desired) there. When the task forces begin to meet, they will do their work transparently and on that wiki, and any member of the community may join fully in their work. This process is specifically designed to involve as many community members as possible.

Any questions can be addressed to me either on my talk page here or on the strategy wiki or by email to philippe at

I hope you'll consider joining us!

Philippe 01:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Philippe - I've just tried the volunteer link above and it aint working. Should I take it personally? :)

Markdask 08:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC) (New member)[reply]

Finishing a task left uncompleted last year


Last year, after indicating suspicions on the Village Pump, I announced that I was disregarding and commenting out the votes of a couple then recent usernames, which I and several others strongly suspected were merely sockpuppets of another user. I never completed this task at that time, and am in the period of October and November when it seems they were primarily used. Though sockpuppetry for voting was never actually proven to be the case, these usernames were used for the most part merely to vote on QOTD suggestions, or to protest in various ways that this was all that they wished to do, and provided little or no contributions beyond that. Despite the lack of proof, I continue to strongly believe these accounts were sockpuppets used improperly for voting purposes, often using the extremes of the ranking scales to strongly skew the general voting results. Hence, I intend to continue the effort I began last year, to remove or at least comment out rankings made with the names User:Waheedone and User:Fossil in the days and weeks ahead, as I encounter them, in all QOTD voting pages. ~ Kalki 20:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've put Advertising slogans into a table format. Seems workable (and useful) to me - any thoughts? BD2412 T 22:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio speedy delete


Note change atWikiquote talk:Speedy deletions. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines set forth in Wikiquote:Sourced and Unsourced sections require a substantial overhaul, as I believe we have agreed as a community to extirpate unsourced quotes altogether. Please let me know if this is an incorrect understanding. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. Cirt (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. I'd also like to propose the addition of some specific language on misattributed quotes:
A missatributed quote is one that has been incorrectly attributed to a certain author. Misattributions may arise for any number of reasons, including:
  • innocent errors in translation or restatement of an original quote
  • incorrect identification between two authors of similar types of quotes
  • slander of the purported author by attributing detestable comments to that author
  • overzealous defense of a belief by attributing statements in support of that belief to an authoritative figure
Wikiquote's policy on misattributions is to include them, but to clearly identify them as misattributions by placing them in a "Misattributed" section, and to identify to the greatest extent possible the actual author and how the quote became misattributed.
What do you think? BD2412 T 19:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Provided that the "misattribution" was not done by Wikiquote itself (in that case the offending quote should just be removed), and provided that this "misattribution" was identified as such in independent reliable secondary sources - and not through a self-determination by individual Wikiquotians. Cirt (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will only comment here, rather than participate in drafting the guideline, because I am an identified incompetent. This is my presumably stupid, paranoid, and arrogant comment:
  • Whether or not to report a misattribution should depend on whether the error is widespread and repeated in sources that are otherwise considered reliable.
  • If Wikiquote is the first to identify such a misattribution and verifiably cite a prior source that reliably proves the error, then it should report the fact and take pride in doing so.
In general, Wikipedia-like "notability" criteria should not be used to remove individual quotes. It is but one of several criteria of quotability to be weighed with other factors. Most of the crud recently removed from a much-discussed controversial article merits removal on the basis of those combined factors, especially considering the emphasis appropriate for WQ:QLP. Many quotable quotes that are not individually noted in secondary sources are nonetheless worthy of inclusion. ~ Ningauble 20:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Petulant sarcasm retracted, with apologies to the community: my bad.) ~ Ningauble 02:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Cirt is concerned with the situation that occurred with Rush Limbaugh, where an anon put false quotes on the person's page which were apparently later picked up and published by what we would consider a "secondary source". We don't know whether the anon who put those quotes there was manufacturing something purely for spite, or whether they had their own incorrect source (they themselves may have first seen the comment attributed to Limbaugh on a blog or in a forum). However, when a quote becomes the topic of discussion in this manner, I think we do have a duty to report that it is a misattribution. BD2412 T 20:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the context[1] of the particular much-discussed quotes. I stand by the points above, although I might amend the first as "repeated in other sources that are otherwise considered reliable," lest someone presume Wikiquote is a reliable source of attribution.
There is a duty to act on errors when they are identified, but whether to simply remove them or to report them depends on where they are repeated. The cited book looks unreliable on its face: it pointedly discloses that only some unspecified portion of its statements are from a cited source, so it hardly merits any more rebuttal than the ambiguities of a crafty patent-medicine man. Nevertheless, such quotes may indeed merit inclusion as "disputed" if they appear in, and are cited from, sufficiently quoteworthy public discussion or denial. I do not think speculation that the book's author may have been repeating graffiti found here creates any more obligation for Wikiquote than speculation that he found it written on a subway wall would create for the transit authority. The author would be ill advised to claim either one as defense for repeating rumors, were such the case, and we would be ill advised to claim that such was the case.
On my second point above, Cirt's statement may have been broader than intended. I would interpret it literally to prohibit this contribution where I refuted a widespread misattribution by showing that the quote predated the life of the purported author, even though I found no published mention that it was erroneous. Perhaps I was being presumptuous. ~ Ningauble 23:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This example given by Ningauble (talk · contributions) would seem to be "original research", however it is simply matter-of-fact by the dates chronologically, so I suppose I could be fine with that sort of thing. ;) Cirt (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiquote is not Wikipedia. There is no problem with original research here; indeed, it is preferred, just as we prefer primary sources. Wikipedia has good reasons for its policies, but they are specific to WP's function, and are not relevant to WQ's very different function. 121a0012 02:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the update is fine, but I also believe there are still some open questions about what we should use instead - some suggestions had been made in VP on how to better divide the page that should be finalized and added to guidelines (not necessarily here, but it is a related topic). ~ UDScott 20:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Lede
  2. Sourced
  3. Attributed (must also be sourced, but has less sourcing info, perhaps no date given in source, just the quote, and no info on when/where/what capacity/what publication it was said)
  4. About
  5. See also
  6. References
  7. External links

That is a good structure. :) Cirt (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would add Misattributed under Attributed. BD2412 T 17:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If properly sourced, agreed. Cirt (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, Benjamin Franklin (by way of example) has separate sections for "misattributed" and "unsourced" quotes. I think all them should simply be listed as misattributed. For example, there's an example of Bill Clinton attributing to Franklin something for which no source in Franklin's writing can be found. This should be deemed misattributed, not unsourced. I think we can safely operate under the presumption that a quote newly attributed to a noted figure who has been dead for two centuries, for which no earlier source can be found, is an error. BD2412 T 19:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this comment by BD2412 (talk · contributions). Actually, there are some in the Unsourced sect of Benjamin Franklin that are sourced, just misattributed. Cirt (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that in order for us to list a quote as "misattributed" we've got to show two things. First, a verifiable source showing that someone has attributed the quote to the purported author (as with Clinton's asserting that this was a Franklin quote), and second, some evidence that the attribution is a mistake (either by reference to the correct author, or by reference to an unsuccessful search for evidence that the purported author made that statement. A quote can not really be called "misattributed" - and should not be included at all - if no one is attributing the quote to the author - as with the quote presently listed as unsourced on the Benjamin Franklin page which states "We do not quit playing because we grow old, we grow old because we quit playing". BD2412 T 21:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! Agreed. :) Cirt (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

QOTD suggestion pages


As many of the date pages for QOTD suggestions have become quite long, and have begun to make the "monthly" display of them rather excessive, I intend to begin revising them so that only the previous years selections display on the "QOTD/[month]" pages, with links displayed to the individual ranking/voting/suggestion pages. I have thus far done this only with the date of October 1 as a demonstration of how the new display style would appear in Wikiquote:Quote of the day/October, but will await further commentary before proceeding onto other pages. (Some people might need to refresh the page to see the new style.) I might finish up reformatting the October and November pages within a week or so, if there are no other suggestions on the matter. ~ Kalki 19:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This new format additionally permits a display of the ranking system used near the start of the suggestions on each of the individual pages, something the previous format would have made excessive. ~ Kalki 20:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or just archive older pages by year to an archive, as a subpage of each page. Cirt (talk) 05:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I much prefer keeping the existing pages with these slight modifications and not creating new ones, and will probably get to work on doing October today. ~ Kalki 08:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All pages for October have now been revised to the new format, and display without the long list of suggestions within each on the Wikiquote:Quote of the day/October page. I will probably start updating the pages for November and the other months within the next few days. ~ Kalki 14:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Existential questions


Some of you will recall that last year at Meta the question of Wikiquote's continued existence was debated on meta:Wikimedia Forum/On disbanding Wikiquote over the issue of copyrights.
Please note that the existential question has been raised again, this time at the foundation's Strategic Planning project over the purpose and value of Wikiquote and all of Wikipedia's "sister projects", on strategy:Talk:Emerging strategic priorities/ESP 3 key questions#Supporting Reference Content. The project's Expanding Content Task Force has been specifically charged with answering the question.
Interested Wikiquotians may wish to offer input to the Strategic Planning project, whether or not they have applied for and been granted membership in the Task Force. ~ Ningauble 03:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I almost prefer the time when, despite much less participation and much less software safeguards against vandalism, the most I had to concern myself here was actual vandalization of a few wikis, and not the continual eroding and vandalization of the wiki-process itself.
As with last year's torturously tedious debate prompted by the rather hostile and presumptuous attitude and proposal of a single person, which at the end finally came to a close without a single vote to actually seek the "disbanding" of Wikiquote, despite the evidence of some desire on the part of a few people for such an end, I really don't take this too seriously at this point.
I was about to react with a few words of amused but extreme contempt at the original assertions of the person who prompted last year's debate, as I might to any other troll, when I saw that in some ways more moderate voices were responding to the presumptuous proposal, and with many far more intense and immediately imperative concerns, I decided to stay out of the whole discussion unless I perceived that there was any actual need for me to get involved.
I might actually have some time to get involved in these proposed discussions within the next month or so, but really am appalled at the blooming number of self-glorified discussion-forums that seem to be considered "essential" or "vitally important" by their participants and initiators to everyone else on all Wikimedia projects, because they are presumed to be by these relatively few participants. These areas of the Wikimedia activities seem disproportionally frequented by the most avid lovers of finding new ways of "policy creation" which allow them, or others of very like mind, to assume control over others, and even be placed in positions of authority and command over them. The whole concept of the wiki-processes, as I understand them involves an emphasis on preserving the freest possible collaboration among people, which permits the natural growth, development and mutation of good ideas, with an emergence of their proper influences, and a minimization of presumptive command-control authority-structures to impede that process, but unfortunately these seem to be growing all the time lately, both in numbers and in the presumptions of their authority. ~ Kalki 08:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might find your arguments more convincing to other people if you cut out all the random 'emphasis'. I see that there's an intelligent, concerned person there, but others may not be so understanding. 121a0012 02:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of Simple English Wikiquote


Thoughts would be appreciated here. Majorly talk 12:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 N CLOSED. The global community at Meta has voted to close Simple English Wikiquote. (The developers have not implemented the closure yet – it is on their list of things to do.) ~ Ningauble 19:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment/Vote of confidence on Kalki


Wikiquote:Votes of confidence/Kalki


Please see Wikiquote:Votes of confidence/Kalki. Cirt (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, is there any needs to add the site in JackPotte 15:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary Hover: a JavaScript on double-click


Wikinews proposes a script to display the Wiktionary definition in a small board, when one double-click on a word. It's already been installed in the following Wiktionairies gadgets: in French and in Italian. The interface of the board depends on the user's language preferences.

To add it here, we should vote for an administrator, in:

  1. MediaWiki:Gadget-dictionaryLookupHover.js, copies without the guillemets : "importScriptURI('');"
  2. MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition, adds "* dictionaryLookupHover|dictionaryLookupHover.js"
  3. MediaWiki:Gadget-dictionaryLookupHover, describes the gadget. JackPotte 15:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for feedback on Ernest Seyd


Ningauble rightly points out that my recent change to the Ernest Seyd page is quite different from other Wikiquote material. I realize that and did expect that there would be some reaction to it.

The "quote" from Ernest Seyd was already here. I think it needs to be debunked and I'd like to give some background on it so that it's not just "he said v. he said". The story's not really told anywhere on the Web. Perhaps Wikipedia would be a better place for most of it—currently "Crime of 1873" just redirects to "Coinage Act of 1873". On the other hand, on WP it might be criticized as too much original research.

I'd like to know how others feel about this type of material. Personally, I think Wikiquote could use more of it. It wouldn't be appropriate to add long anecdotes to the Abraham Lincoln page, but for Ernest Seyd, I think it is appropriate.

I think it could be a significant advantage for Wikiquote to have background information where it is interesting. I like books such as The Quote Verifier and They Never Said It, but they can only cover a few quotes. And books like The Yale Book of Quotations can only include a few short notes here and there. For Wikiquote, there's no real length limitation for the site as a whole. It's a strength of the web, and Wikiquote should go with that strength. It's not going to be used by uncritical quote-dump web sites.

We've entered a golden age of quote research thanks to sites like Google Books, the Internet Archive, Project Gutenburg, the Papers of Benjamin Franklin, the Collected Work of Abraham Lincon, etc. (Did I mention Google Books?) Wikiquote should seize the day, and become the definitive source for quotations: comprehensive, authoritative, and interesting.

While we have to watch out for pages being too long or too cluttered, for the site as a whole, more is better. We should be bold and make Wikiquote more than any quote book can be.

KHirsch 19:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KHirsch - IMHO, what you are essentially asserting is that this is a disputed quote.
The format of the explanatory content may be different than others might have used, but this is not a unique situation.
FWIW, I agree that context is important and in some cases essential, if a quote is to be properly understood. That's just my opinion; I am not in any sense an authority, nor would I even claim to be a significant contributor here at Wikiquote.
If I had been making this edit, I might have considered putting the full story of this hoax on a page at Wikipedia, along with a briefer version of the story here at Wikiquote, with a reference pointing to the Wikipedia page as a source for more information. CononOfSamos (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restrict Kalki to one account during Vote of confidence


Please see Wikiquote:Administrators'_noticeboard#Kalki_refusing_to_restrict_to_one_account_during_Vote_of_confidence. Cirt (talk) 07:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I state there and elsewhere, Cirt's efforts to impel me to not use accounts (which are openly identified as my own, upon their user pages), for making legitimate edits to pages are actions which I view as merely efforts to reduce the profile and clarity of some of my own developing arguments in defense of my assertions that such alternate accounts should not be restricted, save in the ways they always have been, such as not being used to make fraudulent votes. In part of my developing arguments I wish to present what I had planned to do with a few of these accounts, and what I now intend to do with them now that they are openly declared to be mine, if not prevented by new rules further restricting editing activity here. I do believe they could yet play a role in making this site more interesting, appealing, and the ongoing debate can yet play an educational role for all involved. Even Wikipedia is not so absolutely restrictive on the use of usernames as some have strongly implied things should become here, and this is NOT Wikipedia where the primary task is to compose accurate expressions about people or things, but simply to quote ideas already expressed by others, with sources cited, and, where it seems necessary or appropriate, to provide a few informational notes to provide them proper context. As the origins of the actual text is provided by the sources, not by the contributing editors, identifying contributors in any way is far less important a thing. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 10:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply a central notice for users to be notified about the proposal at AN. There is no need for TLDR. Cirt (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I simply do not choose to let overly simplistic assessments which are highly skewed to displaying only one position about legitimacy of actions go without some response. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 10:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And simply noting "Please see [link]" (above), is not "highly skewed to displaying only one position". It is just a link to another page where the discussion is taking place. Cirt (talk) 10:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simply linking "Kalki_refusing_to_restrict_to_one_account_during_Vote_of_confidence" which is a very simplistically summarization, strongly implies I am doing or have done something innately wrong in refusing to comply with your particular requests. I have complied, and shall continue to comply with the entirely reasonable request not to use any accounts NOT clearly identified as mine. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 11:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is just a link. The explanation is at the other page. Cirt (talk) 11:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spam blacklist


Moved to MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Spam_blacklist. Cirt (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions to help with Wikimedia Strategy.


Hi Wikiquotians.

I've come over from We're interested to know two things about how you work here on Wiktiquote.

First, do you have any competitions? On en:wp there are quite a few different competitions that seem to help motivate editors to do good work and more of it.

Here's an example:

More can be found at:

Does Wikiquote run anything like that?

Also on en:wp there are a number of WikiProjects which help editors to bond as smaller communities within the larger one.

Here's an example:

More can be found at:

Can you point to any sort of sub-communities within Wikiquote which help editors bond as a smaller group within the project as a whole?

Answers to these questions will be valuable to us as we work on Wikimedia Strategy. I will be grateful for any information you can provide. --bodnotbod 18:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikiquote does not run any contests. This is a small community, without organized subgroups. There is a Copyright Cleanup Project, which is not so much a sub-community as a clearinghouse page for all interested editors. ~ Ningauble 19:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ningauble (I would still appreciate input from others too). So would you say that, for the most part, people on English Wikiquote tend to know each other? I'm also interested to hear what people on Wikiquote think about their community; are you losing good editors? Are there any ongoing frustrations that long-term editors experience they wish would go away? How does the community handle new people that come to the project and who may make mistakes? --bodnotbod 15:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to Copyright Cleanup, I know of Wikiquote:Bartlett's 1919 Index. And the Quote of the day is a collaborative effort as well. I think that contests could be very doable for this project and could bring in more users that stayed active here. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My impression, as a long-time (but low-volume) wikiquotian is that there are a very few high-volume editors who do most of the dirty work (vandalism, copyvio cleanup, etc.) and a large number of subject-specific editors (like me) who work on relatively few pages but deeply within those subjects. Many of these subjects are followed by only one or two editors. (We see this in both the popular-culture pages, which see the greatest amount of anon/newbie "churn", and in more literary/historical pages.) As for group projects and whatnot, the closest I think WQ has come to that is the "Quote of the Day" project, which I left a few years ago because I did not like the way the administrator who ran it was treating the contributions of other editors. (Saying things like "well, X clearly has the most votes, but I don't think it's uplifting/serious/important enough for this day so I'm going to use Y instead".) 121a0012 02:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Saying things like you just said, I believe is an extreme distortion of the attitudes I have exhibited to people's rankings and votes in selecting the QOTD in the last several years. It is extremely rare that I have not gone with the top ranked quotes, and usually that is because of some exceptional occurrence like a recent death. I know that I might have not always pleased everyone in all my selections, but it has been very rare that my fairness in making the final selections has been questioned, the most vocal and prolific protestations thus far being done by Zarbon, whose suggestions have nonetheless often been used, sometimes even when I myself have had an extreme distaste for them, but felt that I had to go with the top ranked quotes, despite low participation by others, which gave those few which he doesn't rank extremely low a definite advantage. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 02:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]



how do you protect a page ~ Anthony 5432 20:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only administrators can do that.--Ole.Holm 10:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Quote. Let it stand for time and open the minds of all who shall pass through


This is the quote from Damon Stone

Some have told me "the glass is half full". Others have told me "the glass is half empty". "In another dimension The glass is overflowing" < This is the part I would like to say is mine. I have no intention on saying the first 2 lines are anything to do with me. But I tend to think outside the box due to my Unfortunate or fortunate brain wiring


MY QUOTE unless somone can prove it has been said or quoted previous to this is

In another dimension the glass is overflowing

Im unfamiliar with this "wikiquote" Please feel free to edit and place my quote in it,s propper place and or point out where this has been said or done before.

I am the person in charge of Qualia Qualia Saintlike. AVATAR Famous inside Entropia only . The Name Qualia Qualia Saintlike is Just a nickname i decided was most aporpriate for the type of game i was going to make a nickname for. I do not intend to have it as a quote or other.

Let it be said I made this quote avalible to the world and all may use as long as they know who said it first. Admin e mail me or just set this quote into its propper home and let all passing be inspired

—This unsigned comment is by Qualia420 (talkcontribs) .
At this point, the only appropriate place for such a quote would be on your user pages, as articles should not contain anything more than brief, relatively innocuous comments by the editors, which provide factual information for quotes of already famous individuals or works. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 14:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category question


 Y Resolved

Thought I'd see what people thought about a category I was thinking of adding before I started. I've set up a Portal for the University of Oxford on Wikipedia (here) and one of the possible inter-project links is a link to Wikiquote. However, there's no obvious target at present; I suppose I could link to a search page, but that would include false positives such as books published by Oxford University Press. One possibility would be to group together academics and alumni of the University in a category (or each in their own category?), linked in some way to Category:People. It would connect people such as Robert Burton, Brian Klug, Fergus Millar and various others. Any thoughts on whether this is a good idea, the name (if not just Category:University of Oxford) and the parent structure? Bencherlite 13:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be just academics of the university (that would include Lewis Carroll, C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien) or university graduates too? And if we have this, what other universities?--Ole.Holm 14:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Doh! Forgot to check on here for the obvious names like Lewis and Tolkien... just did a "search" for "Oxford University"!) I was thinking of perhaps one for academics and one for alumni. An alternative, I suppose, would be to have a page entitled "University of Oxford" with links on that to the Wikiquote pages of academics/alumni - or would Wikiquote convention mean that a page entitled "University of Oxford" would be for quotes about the University? As for which other universities, I'd do the same for the University of Cambridge, for the same WP portal-based reason, but I don't know how far beyond that you'd want to go - presumably only if there are enough names for a university to make a category worthwhile. Bencherlite 15:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We generally categorize people by occupation, including field of study, and sometimes by schools of thought, but not by institutional affiliation (except for officeholders) or alma mater. I don't think this would really add value, and would lead to categorizing people into granfalloons that have little or no bearing on the ideas quoted. ~ Ningauble 17:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Ningauble - I just don't see the value for most users of doing this. And where would it end? Would we have categories for every school? ~ UDScott 17:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, this is why I asked here first rather than charge ahead on a Project with whose customs I'm unfamiliar, particularly when there wasn't an existing category structure into which this idea would fit. To repeat an earlier question, though, would University of Oxford, with links to the existing Wikiquote pages of academics and alumni, be permitted? Or should University of Oxford instead assemble quotations about the university? Or neither? Bencherlite 18:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A page on University of Oxford would have to be a theme page, and should contain quotes about the university itself - provided that these are "quotable" quotes! BD2412 T 22:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this; as the portal already has a "selected quotation" section, with 25 (at present) randomly-selected quotations about the university, it seems pointless for me to go over the same ground twice here by creating a theme page. But if anyone else is interested, 25 relevant quotations, with citations, are sitting waiting for you at w:Portal:University of Oxford/Selected quotation. Bencherlite 23:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]



I've created {{Geography-stub}} I see there is a Category:Places. Should I have called it "Places-stub"? I much prefer my name, but will stop using it pending advice. Ningauble says

I don't have a strong preference, but I think I like "Place-stub" better because it could be used to sweep in odd little articles about buildings, schools, &tc. that show up occasionally. On the other hand, they are fairly rare, and could just as well be treated as generic themes. So, I dunno.

--Ole.Holm 20:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to add a box at the top of an article for "Recommended to merge/move to ..."


As is probably common knowledge around here, the Christianity article is often debated as NPOV. There have been at least 3 instances on the talk page for that article to clear it up (by removing all the specifically anti-Christian quotes, which constitute the majority of the page), and they all received an answer in the form of, "Wikiquote's policy to achieve balance in articles is to add, not remove. So if you have any relevant, good pro-Christianity quotes to make this article how you would think it's more balanced, go ahead and add them" leaving them off with the unfacable project of adding hundreds of pro-Christian quotes, so nobody does it, and the problem remains. Now, I understand the whole idea of "add, don't remove," but there are so many anti-Christian quotes (a ton of the articles on that page aren't even about Christianity, or even mention it. Many are anti-God, anti-religion, anti-creation, etc. There are even Quran quotes and the like. All of the which are valid to be on WQ, but not on the Christianity article unless they deal with Christianity) that if a pro-Christianity quote were added for every anti-Christianity one, it would unnecessarily flood the page.

So what I want to do to resolve this issue is split that article into two new articles: "Pro-Christianity" and "Anti-Christianity"

What I'm wondering is, how would I go around putting a note box (like the current "neutrality is disputed" one) on the top of this page recommending that the page be merged/moved/split into two new (to be created) articles.

In its current state, it is just unacceptable, and to be honest, is kind of putting me off from WikiQuotes, which has a lot of potential to work. 05:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add sound to your home page?

Eh, tenured wikiquotians!!!


Um, the reference desk is getting somewhat ignored, I'm wondering if everyone experienced here's on vacation or busy.... I'm a noob who's been taking a break for a while, but if I have to I'll take over for a bit at the reference desk. A bit of help would be appreciated :) . . . . !

Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 03:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have a reference desk? BD2412 T 00:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prepare to be amazed: Wikiquote:Reference_desk! --Aphaia 07:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black and white movies-30's&40's a la TCM


Actor and Actress unknown, to me . { Title unknown } : Her head turns to his , 10 inches from his ear , she says " Too much kindness is bad because it kills ambition." ( To good to pass up; have many more, where should they be Situated ? } Thank you .


There have been accounts in several projects that replace images from Commons:User:Cme in articles where far better images are available. Some of them have already been blocked due to more disruptive behaviours, but user:Pediainsight is still active in English Wikipedia and Wikiquote ([2] [3] [4] [5]; he even puts his images in place of others that were declared featured pictures in Commons due to their quality [6] [7]). In Wikipedia other users have already warned him [8]. In Wikiquote I seem to be the only one that's taken part, and he ignores my requests here (as in other projects). Could some other userr act somehow? Thanks. --Javierme 21:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that the selection of images can sometimes be contentious, and a matter of taste and various sensibilities. I have restored the image of waterfalls which you prefer to the Water page, as it seems more impressive and appropriate, but though some images fail to impress as fully appropriate on the chess page, I don't see that there is anything clearly inferior to the disputed selections there. I would recommend a slightly smaller image size and don't see that the Bobby Fischer image making a face which you both seem to accept as all that appropriate to a general Chess page, though it would be fully appropriate on his page. I am currently attending to many other things other than wikiquote issues, but just thought I would make a few very brief comments here. In the very few cases where there have thus far been contentions about images, they have usually been settled into generally acceptable selections after some discussion. It can take a little time for general preferences of those who wish to get involved in any such disputes to become clear though. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 22:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have just used an uncropped version of the Bobby Fischer image I mentioned above, which makes it somewhat more appropriate to the page, as it does show a chess board and not just a smiling person. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 22:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to feel we have too many photos on some pages. We should if possible have one, such as a picture of the person on a page devoted to him/her (and I have added a few myself) but some are overloaded.--Ole.Holm 10:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it'd be possible to have just one image per page, if there was a consensus on it. I don't think four images are too many in a page with 70 quotations in, but I'd follow that guideline if it was a general preference in this wiki (in which case, it would rather be explained in the MoS or in help pages). As a comparison, policy in es.wq is "Avoid inserting an excessive amount of images in the same article. Galleries are welcome in Commons, not in Wikiquote. Placing several images may fit an article with a long text, but not a brief one". Another guide in the same page is that it's generally recomended not to specify size of images, so that each user can see thumbnails in the size selected in their preferences, but size may be specified in the placement or size of file requires it. But I'd understand each wiki to have different rules in matters of aesthetics. For instance, it also seems that it.wq don't use quotations as captions below the images in order to avoid priviledging some quotations over others, which is completely different to the usual practice in English or Spanish Wikiquote. --Javierme 23:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think use of properly illustrative images is fine, particularly in theme articles. We should probably have a guideline relating to the total size of the article, however. BD2412 T 00:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't insist on alimit of one per page, but would argue that some have too many. Miguel de Cervantes has twelve, including one of modern windmills to illustrate the quote about windmills.--Ole.Holm 19:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the buildings in File:Campo de Criptana Molinos de Viento 2.jpg are traditional windmills of La Mancha, like the ones that inspired Cervantes, so the image is good for the caption. Of course we can doubt if the quote is so notable as to be a caption in a WQ article. --Javierme 22:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote project organization at


Hello. I am an admin on Bosnian Wikiquote [9] project and I have a question regarding the main Wikiquote page located on the address. I noticed that there are 10 languages prominently placed in what looks like a “circle of friends” :) predominantly representing 10 wikiquote projects with most number of articles. Bosnian wikiquote project has well over 3400 articles and it is a mutually understandable language for nearly 25 milion people predominantly living in the Balkans. My question is, would it be possible to include Bosnian language into this prominent circle of wikiquote projects either as additional language or as a replacement for one of the languages with less articles. This would help us generate more traffic on our project and attract more users who read and understand Bosnian language to our sizable library of quotes.

I am not sure if this is a place to ask for this so any information about how to go about this request will be appreciated. Thanks --Dado 17:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That portal page does look a bit out of date because it does not reflect the current ten largest projects, nor does it list all of the currently active projects. I am not sure who maintains the page, as it is external to the wiki. If you raise the issue at meta:Wikimedia Forum, someone there should be able to update it using current statistics. ~ Ningauble 13:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The specific talk for that page is template, and there any user can request an update. If selection was made merely on the current number of articles, Bosnian WQ would replace the French one, since bs-WQ is currently the tenth. But if the other criterium mentioned by Dado (the amount of people that understand the language) was taken into account, not only fr-WQ should remain, but also other languages could be considered before Bosnian. --Javierme 23:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information --Dado 19:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]