Wikiquote:Village pump archive 34


I have semi-protected the discussion at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Paramahamsa Nithyananda to prevent the further deluge of anon "testimonials" in favor of the author. We get the point; enough is enough. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is very rare for a VfD discussion to be semi-protected. I only recall it being done once in the last two or three years. I agree that it is appropriate in this situation. I am afraid the behavior of these devotees does not reflect well on their master's teaching. ~ Ningauble 13:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki 1.18 rollout edit

MediaWiki 1.18 is scheduled to be rolled out at en.Wikiquote on Monday, September 26, 23:00-03:00 UTC (Wikipedia Signpost, 2011-09-19). This will be a stage 2 beta (i.e. "guinea pig") release to identify bugs before it is rolled out at en.Wikipedia and other large (i.e. "important") wikis a week later on Tuesday, October 4, 23:00-03:00 UTC. It may be hoped that this trial will involve less breakage than the 1.17 release several months ago; but if you encounter any difficulties please report them so the bugmeisters can get to work. ~ Ningauble 16:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for publishing the notice, Ningauble! More details about this upgrade can be found on the MediaWiki 1.18 announcement on We don't anticipate any problems, but if you do encounter any, please see the blog post for more information on how to report problems. Since this wiki will be one of the first to get the software, we're particularly interested in your experience with it. Thanks! -- mw:User:RobLa-WMF (local user page) 00:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote scorecard edit

The monthly project scorecards at have been improved recently, as reported at the Wikipedia Signpost this week. A glance at the English Wikiquote Scorecard for August shows over 1/2 million page views per day, trending upward over the last couple years, and about 300 edits per day, with the number of editors trending downward for four years. ~ Ningauble 16:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So far, of the original ~900 subjects covered by Hoyt's, about 500 have been integrated into Wikiquote. Fewer than 200 remain to be merged into existing subjects; and fewer than 200 more need to be completed and moved into regular page space. As always, any help in moving this project along would be greatly appreciated! BD2412 T 04:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By this I mean, please help if you can. It's very simple to do - just pick a page off the first list, tidy up the formatting, add those quotes to the existing page, and remove any duplicates, and merge the edit history of the project page into that of the existing page; or pick a page off the second list, tidy up the formatting, add a lede and categories, and move the whole thing to mainspace. Some of them are very short, a dozen quotes or less, and are therefore fairly easy to tackle. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although I have not been working on this myself, I just wanted to say that your work is not unappreciated. You are doing an impressive job! ~ Ningauble 14:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I do appreciate the moral support. However, if I could get nine other Wikiquotians to commit to doing one page from this collection per week, that will be enough to finish off the whole thing in less than a year. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wickedictionary edit

Recently, an editor has added quotes from the published version of Wickedictionary, which is basically a tongue-in-cheek version of Wiktionary, to articles on the subjects addressed in those quotes. As Jeff Q observed in another discussion:

the oft-cited source for Abbott quotes is his own Wickedictionary, produced by vanity publisher CreateSpace (now owned by, which is why I suspect Abbott may be behind this sudden mass addition. Last time I checked, vanity-published material is of questionable value as a source, at least in suggesting enough notoriety to justify inclusion here. (Abbott seems notable enough for his own Wikipedia article, but as an engineer, not a writer or published quipper.)

I am inclined to agree with this assessment, but I don't want to jump to overly harsh actions without the consensus of the community. I therefore seek consensus on the proposition:

Quotes from Wickedictionary are, as a rule, not sufficiently quoteworthy to be included in Wikiquote.

Cheers! BD2412 T 14:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that using this as a source is not appropriate for our site. The quotes may be entertaining, but I do not consider them to be quoteworthy enough. ~ UDScott 14:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It is a very wholesome thing for people who work in technical fields to cultivate other interests, but it is not wholesome for a wannabe to practice or promote their hobby on Wikimedia sites. If perchance, at some future time, Mr. Abbott's self-published efforts become notable in the world at large, then the situation would be different. ~ Ningauble 16:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, I too am skeptical about Abbott's notability. Even wikipedia:Derek Abbott is tagged as sounding more promotional than encyclopedic, supporting the idea that the quotes here have a similar purpose. If and when we discover Abbott's quotes have been recorded in disinterested reliable sources, inclusion here would be more reasonable. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Resolved. Since there are no objections, and since this is also implicitly endorsed by one of our regular unnamed contributors who has just removed one of these quotes with the comment "CreateSpace is a self-publishing service" (dif), I am going ahead and removing all Wickedictionary quotes from theme pages now. ~ Ningauble 14:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the community decision and I appreciate Ningauble for his clean-up! --Aphaia 19:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record we have a mention to this website once before: on WQ:AN in 2009 by Cirt (now in Wikiquote:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/014). --Aphaia 22:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed a relaxation of our limitations on quotations from films and TV shows at Wikiquote talk:Limits on quotations#Moving to relax. Please join the discussion there. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have always believed that very strict numerical limits were improper strategies to be embraced here, and even accepting such as a thing as a tactical convenience, the ones which have developed were excessively stringent. I fully agree they should be relaxed, and encourage others to weigh in on the appropriateness of that. I probably don't have time to indicate many of my reasons today, but will probably add more comments of my own within the next week or so. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 00:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Selecting quotes for Wikiquote edit

How can I select quotes for Wikiquote "Quote of the day" ? --1.618 08:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some brief guidelines are available at Wikiquote:Quote of the day. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FN P90 edit

Okay, what the hell!?!? NOTHING on FN P90 is quote-worthy. Not a single bit. And it's a fairly large page, nevertheless. There is no way that somebody is able to compile such a compendium of quotes is not somehow involved with the product. Something must be done. I repeat, there is NOTHING quoteworthy on that page....

Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 03:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And NOTHING on FN Five-seven is quoteworthy!!??
Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 03:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Garbage pseudo-advertising like this should not be making its way onto Wikiquote. I don't even want to spend my time reading through the AFDs for both those articles because they're filled up with too much garbage from User:ROG5728 who clearly has a sole-purpose account to promote this.
Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 03:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having initially nominated both of these for deletion, I sympathize with your concerns. However, we had a process and were unable to muster a consensus for deletion. That being said, if these subjects were again nominated for deletion, I would continue to vote in support of their deletion. Furthermore, I think the outcome of the VFD does not prevent them from just being merged into Guns, or into a page for whatever kind of gun they are (e.g. Handguns or Machine guns). Cheers! BD2412 T 18:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Alas, we have a hard time mustering a quorum these days, much less a consensus on what is and is not quoteworthy. ~ Ningauble 18:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you guys for your response; apologies for my frustrated attitude. There was an old proposed policy regarding quotability; is there any chance it could be worked on again, to get it up to standard, so that there could be a reasonable, objective (as objective as judgements of "quotes" could be, that is) standard for cleanup and quotability? Otherwise Wikiquote could continue to become rather "unruly."
Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 22:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have created at Wikiquote:Missing sister projects template pages a list of pages for which Wikipedia has links to Wikiquote through its "sister projects template", but for which Wikiquote contains no corresponding page. The existence of such a link does not necessarily indicate that Wikiquote should have a page on the topic, but these are worthy of investigation. Some of these are surprising to me, such as Elizabeth Dole, Basketball, Pennsylvania, Denmark, and Zombies. Others, such as Nanikhir High School, likely do not merit a Wikiquote page, but might be resolved with a redirect if an appropriate page exists, just so that the link on Wikipedia will lead somewhere here. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unicef Ad? edit

Am I missing something or is there no actual quote on today's main page? All that there seems to be is a link to support Unicef. Does this strike anyone else as spammy? Thenub314 23:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, an external link to a fundraising promotion does seem to meet the general description of what is meant by "spam". ~ Ningauble 14:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation "Answers" edit

Hi. :) I just wanted to let you all know that the Wikimedia Foundation is testing a potential new communication system intended to provide a central address to which community members who need assistance from the Wikimedia Foundation or who have questions about the Foundation or its activities can reach out and find answers. This system is being unrolled on a trial basis to test its efficiency and usefulness to communities.

What happens to your question will depend on what type of question it is. Many questions are general interest, and answers to these are being posted to wmf:Answers. Generally, at least to begin with, I will be writing these answers myself, although staff members have assisted with some questions already and I don't doubt will assist with more. Some issues will not be general interest, but may require attention from specific staff members or contractors. These will be forwarded to the appropriate parties. Questions that should be answered by community may be forwarded to the volunteer response team, unless we can point you to a more appropriate point of contact.

I imagine most of you are familiar with how the Wikimedia Foundation works, but it's probably a good idea for me to note for those who are not familiar that the Wikimedia Foundation does not control content on any of its projects. They can't help with content disputes or unblock requests, and they are not the place to report general bugs or to request features (that would be Wikimedia's Bugzilla). The letters I've answered already have included primarily questions about finances and the Foundation's work. I've been asked to get feedback from staff on diverse subjects ranging from the amount of latitude permitted to a project in drafting their "Exemption Doctrine Policy" to whether or not groups seeking grants need tax exempt status first.

If you have questions for or about the Wikimedia Foundation, you can address them to answers Please review wmf:Answers/Process for specific terms and more information. --Mdennis (WMF) 19:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Agnew edit

I noticed that you'd deleted your page on Aggers. I'm working on making his en: Wikipedia page a Featured Article, and it'd be great if a Wikiquote page was re-established. The Wikipedia article has considerable, well-sourced information about Aggers quotes, notably the "leg over" incident - and also the "rubber" one. There's also a hilarious comment Aggers once made that Derek Pringle recalls, but that may not be notable enough to grace these pages... Anyway, help gratefully received. --Dweller 14:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC) (en: talk)[reply]

Erm... anyone? --Dweller 17:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ! Sorry it's taken you so long to get a reply. Our last version of the Jonathan Agnew page was deleted because none of the quotes were sourced. If you would like to recreate it with sourced content, feel free to do so. If not, I'll put it on my to-do list and hopefully create it in the next few days. Good luck with getting the WP article to FA status - it's already looking good ! --A Divine 17:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

song lyrics edit

wouldnt it be a great idea to put song lyrics on wikiquote? or would that be a copywright issue? it just sounds like a good idea if its legal

Iamthevoxpopuli 00:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Song lyrics are quoted on the pages for their authors, or their author's bands. Full quotation of lyrics of modern songs are not permitted, as that would involve copyright issues. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 00:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ok cool thankss 00:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Changes to Policies and Guidelines edit

Apologies for being a dormant user for so long, but I've made some changes to the important Policies and Guidelines article. The majority are just formatting improvements (in my mind), as with integrating some bold statements into the the text more appropriately. Every edit is done separately, with a justification on the edit list. Another change I made a few times was the discrepancy between "w:" and "non-w:" links. I made them all consistent as non-w: links, as, I believe, by having them on Wikiquote we are assenting to them as meaningful locally, to Wikiquote. However, perhaps people will disagree with me, and they should have "w:" on them (though I would hold this is rather meaningless to the new user). Either way, I hold they should be consistent. There were also some statements after links which were in different formats--I made them consistent, sentential statements, which tried to clarify what they meant, rather than being single word, etc..

Thank you for your time and consideration, Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 23:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, (forgot to mention), I thought a name should not be in its informal version on a policy page, and should be someone's actual, formal name (that is, I changed Jimbo to Jimmy).
Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 23:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further, I am trying to catch up on policy and process, so perhaps I can help, but on the Community Portal page, I see "Votes for deletion archive - Current system is broken," though I can find no discussion of this important "Current system is broken" statement. What does this mean?
Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 23:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your interest here! Link to the page where you made the changes please? -- Cirt (talk) 08:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was at Wikiquote:Policies and guidelines. I only took a glance, and didn't see anything radical. I will take a closer look when I have time next week. I will also clarify about the VFD archives, which were in a state of flux several years ago but are now "mostly harmless." ~ Ningauble 01:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New quote page on film director, additional quotes appreciated edit

Started new quote page on film director, John Roecker, additional quotes (either by the film director himself, or about him) would be most appreciated, if anyone else cares to add to this page with verifiable primary or secondary sources. ;) Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 08:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my stupidity but.... edit the heck do you create an Article on WikiQuote? Over on Pedia, on the main page, it allows you to click on a certain button to get to a new article edit page. Here, all I see are directions about what to put in/on a new page, and not a link to a blank article to start with? Am I just tired and missing something? Thanks. — CAWylie 13:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest place would be here: Help:Starting a new page, which you can also get to by clicking Help on the navigation menu on the left side of the page, then 'Starting a new page'. ~ UDScott 13:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Different sorts of stubs edit

I think I am getting to grips with the various sorts of stubs. I see there is one for religious leaders. Should that not be renamed to cover clergy in general? I have just created Robinson Duckworth; he was a distinguished enough clergyman but scarcely a religious leader.--Collingwood 20:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Religious leader would be appropriate — one does not need to be a major religious leader to be a leader — and similar designations are made for military leaders of any rank. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 21:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with the stub tag, though I do feel that the level of detail in stub categorization is largely superfluous. They are just stubs.

More problematic are the article categories for various and sundry types of leaders. The notion of being a leader seems too broad and vague to be useful for clearly delineating distinctly different categories. This was raised at Category talk:Business leaders where, e.g., the guy who runs the corner gas station might be deemed the leader of his three or four employees, and where motivational speakers could be deemed leaders if any businesspeople follow their advice. ~ Ningauble 15:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kalki: thanks, all is clear. Ningauble: it certainly seems superfluous to have Business leaders and Businesspeople, not to mention a great source of possible controversy.--Collingwood 22:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Ningauble's remarks, I too think "Business leader" is superfluous and somewhat presumptive, and Business people would be sufficient in that regard. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 00:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

true peace edit

"...true peace cannot be attained or sustained until the citizens of both sides get to know each other and develop a basic dialogue that leads to tolerance, and later to understanding and respect, for their ethnic and national differences." quoted from "On Peace" by Daniel Zajfman appearing at (November 18, 2011). The author makes a strong case for true peace through scientific collaboration.: —This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) .

Thank you for your remarks. Many forms of collaboration proceed with and without and within and beyond deliberate volition on the part of many of the participants — in an unfolding of the processes and potentials of many dimensions of Life, Energy, Awareness, Reality and Necessity. Wikis and Wikimedia and it's projects are certainly parts of such processes, and proceed best when there are many participants encouraged to contribute — and few if any are provided any excuses for imposing or attempting to impose authoritarian practices or needless and often quite detrimental rules and constraints on the potential contributions of others. ~ Kalki 15:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]

I actually find it quite surprisng that on en-wikiquote there is no article about this work. It has gained quite a notoriety throughout the world.--Maksymilian Sielicki 13:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually somewhat surprising — but all things happen when they MUST, within the patterns of Necessity. Your creation of the article was a very good beginning, and I look forward to adding a bit more material myself, as I have already begun to do. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 15:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International reaction articles on 'pedia edit

Something that's a pet peeve of mine on Wikipedia is articles such as this, which invariably contain lists upon lists of quotes, which is obviously our remit. It's a worrying thing that intermedia collaboration has fallen by the wayside recently. The question is, would we be willing to have them here? There's no point in trying to get them transwikied if the target wiki doesn't want them... Will (talk) 04:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have no strong objections to such articles existing on WIkipedia if collaborators there find them useful, informative, convenient, sustainable and in some ways more tailored to many common Wikipedia needs, desires, or formatting conventions and practices than those which exist here. Drawing upon that article some interested people could extend our articles here without necessarily eliminating that one. What I do tend to be more irked about is when people more familiar with conventions, styles and practices convenient and useful there casually or obliviously seek to maintain or impose them upon pages and policies here, where they can often be far more detrimental and disruptive than useful.
I probably would be FAR more involved in activities BOTH there and here if not for some VERY mistaken assumptions at work among a few people which have eliminated or significantly reduced some of my benevolent options and beneficial activity. Because of as yet uncontested FALSE suppositions and errors, over recent years I have had my apparent status reduced in some ways that somewhat reduce some of my effectiveness in presenting opinions even here — and currently prevent me from editing in even minor ways on Wikipedia because of many of the as yet unchallenged accusations, slanders or grievous logical and ethical errors of Cirt and a few others who have been duped by a few easily created, developed and maintained FALSE impressions, which can be strengthened by an APPARENT abundance of evidence of "wrong-doing" on my part which is NOT really that AT ALL, upon thorough, considerate and competent examination. I have borne many restrictions and regular irritations without a great deal of resentment of others errors and extremely unjust suppositions and distortions of fact, though I do have a great deal of as yet unvoiced objections and assertions to make regarding many things, and expect to have far greater freedom in the months ahead in making clear rather precisely and powerfully SOME of the errors which I have long been observing and considering — as I deal with MANY of the errors and injustices against the liberties and rights of human beings of which I am aware, and consider which are those which I can most effectively oppose in the most significant ways. I know this has strayed from the subject of your original comments, but as some might surmise, from my perspectives ALL things are connected with ALL others in various ways, and I do NOT always seek to have things remain conveniently or obscurely compartmentalized in ways which diminish or deny the significance of such facts or opinions as many can hold dear, even if they are not clearly and strongly in the consciousness of most. I know that my occasional mention of such facts and opinions as these can irk those who do not wish to very often be reminded of the fact that there are MANY people who are suffering and constrained in unjust and ultimately needless ways EVERY day because of the indifference and errors of others — and I have long sought to be an effective spokesperson and defender of them in many ways — and I am well aware that for all the hostility or errors of a few, it is but to a relatively TRIVIAL extent I have, thus far, briefly become one of them here — as I expect will be made VERY apparent in coming months and years, as MANY of the reasons for my own actions and attitudes become far more evident and presentable to many, in the course of human events. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 11:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]
This does indeed stray from the subject. It is true that all things are connected, but when the question is about whether we would welcome some contribution I fear that raising the specter of grievance and discord presents a most unwelcoming prospect. ~ Ningauble 15:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be a great idea to have such pages here. -- Cirt (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no reason why we would not want to have them, if they are well sourced. BD2412 T 15:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia articles such as that one exhibit a serious challenge for encyclopedia writers: It is far easier to amass collections of facts and examples relating to a subject than to condense information into an encyclopedic overview of the subject. The problem seems inherent in an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and will probably never go away.

    I share the disappointment about the paucity of intermedia collaboration. I think it results not only from a lack of interest, but also from a clash of cultures. As Kalki notes, unfamiliarity with differences in conventions, styles, and practices can be problematic.

    There may be some material in the example article that, selected with an eye toward "quotability", could be incorporated at Muammar Gaddafi#Quotes about Gaddafi; but I suspect a mass transwiki of the article would just languish among other materials that have not been selected, organized, and formatted in the manner of Wikiquote's conventions. ~ Ningauble 15:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does "Sourced" imply an original source? edit

Charles Darwin #Sourced has a bunch of "As quoted in..." quotes. I find this confusing, as it's either sourced (and we know where Darwin said it) or it's unsourced, or at best it's "attributed." Darwin's works are widely available, so I see no reason for any "As quoted in" quotes. If a quote hasn't actually been found in his work or at least in something published by someone who knew him, I'd regard it as apocryphal.

I looked at Wikiquote:Sourcing but it's not clear to me what the policy is on the use of "As quoted in..." --Chriswaterguy 14:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no formal policy for this. For secondary sources I like to preface the citation with "Quoted in..." or "Attributed in..." depending on the strength of the claim. (I.e., if the source gives no provenance I call it an attribution, on the principle that "if it ain't cited, it ain't a quote.") I wrote an essay about types of sources here to further confuse the issue. ~ Ningauble 15:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with Ningauble's essay. We aim to find the quote as presented in the hand of the author, and would ideally have every quote sourced that way. However, not everything that comes out of the mouth of an author is published by that author's hand, and there are secondary sources that have considerable reliability. Where a source reports a quote that another denies, or that the author denies, or that is unlikely to actually have been said or written by that author, we report the dispute or misattribution as such. BD2412 T 16:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have often found authors remarking as an aside that so-and-so said something. Sometimes I know that this aside is wrong. We could get into a dreadful mess if we accept all such "sources", even with cautions, so I would deprecate the practice. I am inclined to accept dictionaries of quotations, where presumably an effort has been made to verify things, but even there I like the idea of saying "Attributed in...".--Collingwood 18:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is part of the reason we have Wikiquote:Misattribution. BD2412 T 18:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]