Wikiquote:Village pump archive 35

Archives

2003 2004 2005: 01–06 · 07–09 · 09–12 2006: 01–05 · 06 · 07–09 · 10–11 · 12 2007: 01 · 02 · 03 · 04 · 05–06 · 07 · 08–11 · 12 2008: 01 · 02–04 · 05–06 · 07–08 · 09–10 · 11–12 2009: 01–02 · 03–09 · 10–12 2010: 01–06 · 07–12 2011: 01–05 · 06–08 · 09–12 2012: 01–02 · 03–04 · 05–08 · 09–12 2013: 01–06 · 07–12 2014: 01–04 · 05–08 · 09–12 2015: 01–03 · 04–08 · 09–12 2016: 01–03 · 04–07 · 08–12 2017: 01–06 · 07–12 2018: 01–06 · 07–12 2019: 01–06 · 07–12 2020: 01–06 · 07–12 2021: 01–06 · 07–12 2022: 01–06 · 07–12 2023: 01–06 · 07–12

Images on Main Page

A comment by Jc-S0CO about today's main page (since retracted) and comments in the above thread prompt me to raise an issue about images associated with the Quote of the Day that are displayed on the Wikiquote Main Page. This issue is distinct from their concerns about ideas expressed by the selection of images, and concerns the amount of imagery included on the Main Page.

Until a couple years ago, it was customary to display a single illustration adjacent to the quote of the day. It later became common to include two images and, more recently, there have been increasing numbers of images comprising photomontages that sometimes, as today (this one), completely dominate the page. Whatever the merit of these compositions, Wikiquote's Main Page is not the appropriate place for them. The Main Page is the principle landing page for visitors to the site. The inclusion of an image adding visual interest to the page is a good thing, but too much is not.

→ In order to avoid distracting from and detracting from the purpose of the main landing page, which is to introduce visitors to the site, I propose that illustration of the quote of the day be limited to one image, not larger than a conventional thumbnail. ~ Ningauble 15:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, but for the less tech savvy among us how large is a conventional thumbnail roughly. But I am just not sure if you mean something like 32x32 pixels which is kind of how I think of an icon/thumbnail but is perhaps a little small for the task at hand. Could you link to a past page that works well, that we we have a visual to go by. Thenub314 15:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

By "conventional thumbnail" I meant the size the software uses by default when you use the "thumb" file attribute without specifying a size. The default is 220px in the longer dimension (changed from 180px about a year ago[1]). The exact size does not matter to me, as long as it is in this ballpark. ~ Ningauble 17:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Samples from two years ago this month feature single images of modest size, often as small as 99px. Samples from one year ago this month employ multiple images, as many as ten at once. The montage prepared for this coming Thursday[2] uses no less than fifteen images, including several arranged in the form of an original doodle. ~ Ningauble 15:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, fifteen that is quite a bit. I do think one should suffice as general principle. This idea has my full support. Thenub314 17:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out many of these "15 images" were very minor and had relatively trivial or no effect in increasing the visual area of the graphics. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 19:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I, Kalki, who have long done the actual work of selecting these images, as well as the quote of the day, from among those highest ranked of those available, of course oppose this effort to constrain the scope or dimensions of thought provoking images that can be used with the quotes. Other than one objection I believe made by Ninguable previous to this, there have been very few complaints about these selections over the years. One was made last month in regard to an amusing play on words and the Ides of March and the March of ideas — and a presentation of a vast array of symbols of ideas evoking the statement of that quote, and there were two complaints of the extensive array of images used in the Good Friday montage, one initially complaining about the presumed anti-religious tenor of tableau, which was rapidly retracted, and the other about the presumed pro-religious tenor of them, which I believe balance out and well indicate the proper ambiguity of how the quotes and associated images images can be interpreted, in relation to the profound comment on art by Nabokov, and the profound comments on the arts of Life, made by Jesus.

This current discussion was begun ignoring the very specific and contradictory nature of those two complaints about the presentation of concepts and ideas, and using it to extend complaint to the suppression of the use of more than one thought provoking image at all.

The month in which I started using TWO images as the standard format was August 2009, and I immediately considered it far superior aesthetically to the one image layout, and the next month, September 2009 was thus the first month which fully used the format the entire month. It began with the powerfully important declaration:

Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants thereof. Lev. XXV X Inscription on the ~ Liberty Bell ~

The first large-format montage used was for Wikiquote:Quote of the day/October 25, 2009 for the very large quote of a famous speech from Shakespeare's Henry V, on heroism and resolve upon St Crispin's day, which used images related to that battle and other historical battles which occurred on that day:

This day is call'd — the feast of Crispian: He that outlives this day, and comes safe home, Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd, And rouse him at the name of Crispian. He that outlives this day, and sees old age, Will yearly on the vigil feast his friends, And say, "To-morrow is Saint Crispian;" Then will he strip his sleeve, and show his scars, And say, "These wounds I had on Crispin's day." Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot, But he'll remember, with advantages, What feats he did that day. Then shall our names, Familiar in his mouth as household words, — Harry the King, Bedford, and Exeter, Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester, Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd. This story shall the good man teach his son; And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by From this day to the ending of the world, But we in it shall be remember'd, — We few, we happy few, we band of brothers. For he to-day that sheds his blood with me, Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile, This day shall gentle his condition: And gentlemen in England, now a-bed, Shall think themselves accurs'd, they were not here, And hold their manhoods cheap, whiles any speaks, That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day. King Henry V as portrayed in Henry V by ~ William Shakespeare ~

Having more than one image to use with a quote stimulates awareness of the fact that there are usually MANY complex ways to consider or relate many ideas to any statement. I have increased the use of images, in recent months, and am far more inclined to create thought provoking montages of images which in some way correspond to ideas evoked by the quotes, to the extent I have had the time to do so. I refrain from making further comments on the matter at this point, beyond saying that any proposal which would seek to impose a limit to using only one image with such a long quote or even a short one, or to needlessly restrict the options available for stimulating thought and discussion is one I find very presumptuously restrictive in ways I definitely and strongly oppose. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 19:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

While I am inclined to be a little less restrictive than suggested above (meaning that I would not be upset by having 2-3 images, or even a few more for longer quotes, rather than just one small one), I do believe the ever expanding use of images does need to be reigned in a bit. But I do not believe, as Kalki suggests above, that this is about restricting ideas or limiting the stimulation of thought. Instead it is about being practical and offering a easy entry into the site for users. When there are many images,it can be a bit confusing and difficult for users, especially those unfamiliar with the site, to navigate. That's all this is about in my humble opinion, nothing more. ~ UDScott

This current discussion was indeed begun ignoring the nature of complaints about concepts and ideas. I was prompted by those remarks to finally raise the issue of clutter because I believe such remarks demonstrate that it creates a distraction. I tried to be clear that this is not about the ideas expressed, and I said so in good faith without any ulterior motive to suppress ideas. ~ Ningauble 16:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I fully accept and am quite confident that you have in good faith done many things upon which we can sincerely and vigorously disagree as to the utility or proper motive, as have I — though much of the good intentions of some of these things can be or have been ignored, obscured or derided by the casual or intensely deliberate, and sometimes even clearly malicious accusations or claims of others. I have MANY rather Holist perspectives about most things, and fully embrace the notion that ALL things are interrelated in various ways to various degrees — and I have NEVER been one to ignore that fact to so great a degree as many people often do, and this leaves me far more willing to forgive and accept the errors which many people abide with in resentments and confusions, and to be more openly hostile to many assumptions which people casually accept and think of as merely trivial or even virtuous.
To get to a major and obviously significant point here, which relates to many others, you contend that so prominent a use of images "creates a distraction". I recognize that so extensive a tableaux of images as were used on Good Friday should be rare event, if ever repeated at all, but assert that the occasional use of a montage or 2 major image fields and relatively minor images included within the central field with the quote can be used to create visually and intellectually interesting tableaux — usually with very strong and sometimes with very subtle and harder to discern relationship to the quotes of the day.
I believe that this might inspire at least some people to become more involved here, not less, and indicate that at least some of the normal participants in the project have profound and interesting perspectives upon many matters, and are not inclined to simply echo platitudes in empty way or present very shallow arguments with little appreciation of many of the complex implications and corollaries of much that is being said or indicated in many of the quotes.
I very much love the current QOTD, by Henri Poincaré, "If all the parts of the universe are interchained in a certain measure, any one phenomenon will not be the effect of a single cause, but the resultant of causes infinitely numerous." I would have liked to have had more time to consider adding at least a few more images that came to my mind, including images of Gabrielle Giffords and other signifiers of complex relationships of many of past, present and likely future events, but had not the time or inclination to do so amidst some current disputes — but I do believe that the images selected were far superior to the VERY pared down alternative suggested by a relative newcomer here. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 19:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Lest anyone reading this discussion be misled by Kalki's remark above, I must point out that I am not any sort of newbie at Wikiquote. I have been an active participant and an administrator at Wikiquote since 2008, and there is no justification for calling for my opinion to be discounted on the basis of inexperience. I also take strong exception to the insinuation that I am too simpleminded to appreciate the quotes without the benefit of an illustrated stream-of-consciousness tableaux. These ad hominem attacks are not relevant to the merits of the question. ~ Ningauble 02:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I made the comment that "the images selected were far superior to the VERY pared down alternative suggested by a relative newcomer here" in reference to the extreme paring down to the layout done by Thenub314 (talk · contributions) at this edit — and I don't know how exactly you were moved to imply I might have intended to mislead anyone by such remarks, but forgive any mistakes in what I was referring to. I must confess I am more amused than irritated at some false assumptions in your remarks that you take "strong exception to your insinuation that I am too simpleminded to appreciate the quotes without the benefit of an illustrated stream-of-consciousness tableaux. These ad hominem attacks are not relevant to the merits of the question" — as if your observations in no way insinuate many things of no direct and immediately obvious correlation to some of the issues raised. I am very aware of rhetorical flourishes and their uses — and the importance of rational cohesion and versatility and deficiencies of it in various forms of argument. You here clearly are making the claim that I definitely am insinuating that you and others are "too simpleminded to appreciate the quotes without the benefit of an illustrated stream-of-consciousness tableaux." — I assert that I have done nothing of the sort — I do believe that MOST people can have many forms of their appreciation of truth, beauty, reason and life in general enhanced by various artistic and aesthetic presentations — and this is hardly a new or all that controversial type of assertion — people have been making it at least since the times of the ancient Greek philosophers. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 04:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps there is some ambiguity about whose proposal to pare down images was meant when responding to me under a thread I started by proposing to pare down the images. In either event, I think that the impression it makes on newcomers is highly germane to the design of the Main Page. Perhaps there is also some ambiguity about whose argument was meant in arguing against my proposal with remarks about platitudinous, shallow arguments and lack of apprehension. In any event, I can agree with the proposition that some of the normal participants in the project are not dimwits, but I fail to see how the quantity of images on the Main Page demonstrates that proposition. ~ Ningauble 14:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I recognize and fully concede that the March 15 and Good Friday montages were quite excessive in some regards — but I thought that excess appropriate relative to the "Beware the March of Ideas" quote in March — and I may have overcompensated a bit on Good Friday with the images of the crucifiction, because I believe this might be the first year a quote of Jesus wasn't actually used for both Good Friday or Easter — and because I thought some of the highly ranked quotes on ethics and aesthetics already suggested on the pages could be worked into relevance to a general Easter theme with the use of images. I generally gravitate to using only 2 major images normally, but I do think minor flourishes in the quote column using small images tends to enhance the appearance of the layout, and that an occasional montage works well, especially with larger quotes. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 23:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

But "works well" for what? For "stimulating thought and discussion" on a general theme, or for featuring the quote of the day on the Wikiquote Main Page? My own anecdotal experience from "real life" is that when people remark on the main page they usually talk about the pictures and almost never remember the quote of the day, or even what the quote was about. I do not believe the current practice serves the purpose of our main landing page, but rather detracts from it. This is not Wikiartgallery! ~ Ningauble 16:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I am rather pleased that your conscience is stimulated enough that you have here expressed some evident passion and serious sarcasm at the expense of my motives and aims — even though I am actually impelled by my own conscience and many of my ideas of what human aims should generally be, to contend against many of your points and expressions of what you believe many important aims should be. We both seem to have some fair and proper divergence in regard to what we believe general aims of people should generally be, prior to, and reflected in some of our disputes as to what should or should not be policy here.
From a very broad perspective designed to stimulate thought and discussion, are not the images to some extents quotations as well — and our compendium of quotes indeed a developing gallery of the very fine art of expressing and indicating thoughts and ideas in both familiar and unfamiliar words, symbols, phrases, and other composite creations which use each and all of these in various ways? There is a pragmatic poetry in even the most mundane use of language — even if it is rarely advanced so much as it could be, and NEVER perfected in all ways which might satisfy the minds of many.

I think many familiar with me would not be inclined to claim that I am strongly inclined to shrink from controversy or argument in ways that might be construed as cowardice — yet courageously and ironically, I would actually say far MORE often than not that I AM. I very often refrain from entering into arguments — or pressing them in all the ways I might, though not for reasons I would actually hold to be cowardly, when I believe that engaging in some rather trivial arguments over some relatively trivial point would be largely a waste of my own or other people's time, or even detrimental. This can be for various reasons, including my awareness that there are far more important or vitally urgent matters for me to address, or that I clearly do not have all the resources or materials available to muster up an adequate offensive strategy against certain errors, fallacies, or deliberate crimes, nor even an adequate defense from some of the most common forms of distortions, deceits and casual or vicious attacks by those promoting or defending some positions or aims contrary or opposed to my own.
I will probably be willing and able to engage in discussions on many of the matters presently under contention here much more thoroughly in the weeks to come, and will take what measures I can to prepare to do so — and invite others to do the same. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 19:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Your blanket denunciation of people who have disagreed with you about various matters in the past is completely irrelevant to the present issue under discussion. Most people who are not newcomers here are well aware of those disagreements, and are aware that they have nothing to do with the quantity of images on the Main Page. These ad hominem or ad misericordiam arguments about people who have not even commented in this discussion are not even remotely relevant to the merits of the question. ~ Ningauble 02:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I am appalled at the distortions quite evident in the accusation that I make "blanket denunciation of people" — I make a blanket denunciation of some forms of presumption and behavior, and there are many forms of such I have hardly begun to touch upon. You state my "blanket denunciation of people who have disagreed with you about various matters in the past is completely irrelevant to the present issue under discussion" — as if I was attacking individuals by attacking some forms of attitude and behavior, and as if I was not making the very generally relative points that there are many ways to make many points — and many ways to inhibit, impede, denigrate and diminish the ranges of discussion and observation available to people — I generally hold such impulses to be among the most deplorable, NOT among the most admirable tendencies of people's behavior and attitudes. I could fully and emphatically agree that when people label a person in certain ways they inhibit fair examination of many things — but when forms of behavior and practices are excluded from some forms of praise or denunciation — or are implied to be merely denunciations of people — then there is clearly an engagement in some forms of confusions of issues, perceptions and actualities in regard to many significant things. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 04:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I am reminded of the old joke about a child who was told to apologize for calling his sister ugly, and said to her "I'm sorry you're ugly." Criticizing the attitudes and behaviors of those who promote positions contrary to your own is precisely what is meant by argumentum ad hominem. Unless the alleged deliberate crimes and vicious attacks have a specific relevance to the question of how many images are most appropriate for the Main Page, it is a confusion of issues to raise it here and I suggest you use a separate thread to seek redress for your grievances. ~ Ningauble 14:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I just found out that one set of the images in the montage for the QOTD for 29^th April 2011 regarding the scheduled launch of the Endeavour has become less relevant in some regards — as the launch of that shuttle was delayed until at least Monday because of complex and necessary considerations — and yet it retains worth and value for the stimulation of thought in relation to the QOTD, because there were complex reasons presentable as to why it was properly delayed to the disappointment of millions, as well as complex reasons why the marriage of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge occurred to the delight of millions. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 19:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I determined to try to stay away from this conversation, but the wiki-addict in me doesn't want to let it go. I personally feel there needs to be some balance. Being a mathematician I think of things as follows. The average veiwer will only spend a few moments looking at the page, as the number of images increase you decrease the amount of time that they will spend thinking about any one thing. As the number of objects tends to infinity, the amount of information conveyed about anything tends to 0. I personally feel that we have past the point where people are spending any significant time looking at the quote itself or the images are surrounding them. I never meant to suggest an official policy, just a well understood rule of thumb. I do maintain the layout is very well done, but it is simply too busy.

To see if I could find any evidence to support this I pulled aside a college who never saw the site and showed him todays main page and asked for his impression. He immediately asked if this was a page about the royal wedding. After a few seconds I explained it was a site about quotable quotes. It took another several seconds for him to notice there was a quote in the middle of the images. He then spent several seconds wondering what the images had to do with each other before reading the quote. Without any context he thought the image in the lower left might be a television show. He had a difficult time making out the Poincaré disc at the given resolution, and never noticed the monad at the bottom. Once I pointed out the site also contained quotes, missattributions, of many famous people by clicking on Poincaré's name he spent several minutes exploring the site. Commented that he knew a few quotes misattributed to Karl Marx missing from our page (if we are lucky maybe he will decide to add them). But the main point is that he a very hard time figuring what the site was about. And he is by no way just being thick, if you aren't already familiar with the site then the number of images distracts from reading any of the text about being an online compendium and' distracts from reading the quote. Until peoples initial reactions are simply "This is a religious site" as was the case a few days ago or "This is a site about the wedding" as was the case today. (Captions on the images may not hurt either if is not immediately obvious what the images are.) Thenub314 22:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Throughout my time here I have, for various apparently defensive, offensive or ambiguous reasons, let slip a few things about myself, but ultimately I sought to remain relatively mysterious in many ways and present few definite credentials whatsoever, beyond that of being a person whose actions and assertions are ambiguous and cleverly idiotic enough to provide strong evidence to the discerning of someone apparently interested in stimulating greater awareness and appreciation of MANY perspectives and MANY forms of truth, not simply a few narrow fields of vision.
I am yet definitely someone who knows enough of mathematical and rational imperatives to assert that a sampling of the complex observational skills and focus of one college [or rather a college student or professor, I am assuming] — can hardly be taken as definitive in any way, beyond that of indicating characteristics of the one entity sampled, and the aims and ranges of perception of the person or persons doing the sampling. To the extent I have had the time and oppurtunity, I have generally enjoyed engaging in debates throughout my life, and face to face, I believe that most of my adversaries have enjoyed them with me, as usually there are advances made in important aspects of understanding by all involved. Still I have sometimes grown weary of the necessity of continuing to engage in them because of sloppy reasoning and a lack of appreciation for both rational and irrational factors — as well as Holist and Synergetic principles and aspects of Reality which are often beyond the immediate observation or imagination of most human individuals — no matter how advanced their training in particular fields of calculation or assessment. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 01:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thenub314's anecdote is entirely consistent with my own anecdotal experience described above, which involves a half-dozen people rather than just one. Holism is not well served by overemphasizing any one feature. ~ Ningauble 03:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Certainly "Holism is not well served by overemphasizing any one feature" of any one aspect of the whole of Reality — nor even a few — but to emphasize a few is far better than emphasizing of one, or seeking to rigidly and adamantly inhibiting the emphasis of any — or any more than one — and Holism is certainly not the only form of thought and interest I seek to stimulate by well chosen images within a few layouts or montages, and have been doing to some extent for many years with very few actual complaints — those 3 made about the admittedly extensive and perhaps excessive layouts of March 15 and Good Friday being very rare occurences — in response to very rare extremes. I certainly have no plans to extend the imagery related to small quotes to that extent again, even in relation to similarly historically significant events or ideas.
Any forms of rational debate or dispute is not well served by anyone insisting that someone has no right to criticize the attitudes, dispositions or behavior of those who are criticizing theirs — which to some extent inherently implies that only submission to some charges is acceptable. People have every proper right to freely exchange criticism and praise of certain ranges of ideas and behavior — and to state their beliefs that such are evident or not evident in certain actions or expressions. I certainly do NOT in any way seek to inhibit anyone's right criticize me or anything they find faulty in what I do or say — but neither do I seek to be confined to mere politely demure responses to some accusations and charges, in ways that only encourage many of the most bold or craven of people to many forms of assaults on general rights and true respect for the human dignity involved in expressing themselves freely and frankly. Everyone is quite free to think me a profoundly stupid idiot, to the degree they are inclined to — and to call me that, if they are so inclined — I find it far more appalling to imply anyone to be little more than a malicious deceiver or even a villain — no matter how refined the language or words or phrases which might be used. I want to make as plain as possible : that is something I have NO desire or intent to do. I do contend that to the extent it has been done to anyone, for what ever reasons, there should be no great surprise that there should be recurring mentions and objections to the fact, so long as they believe injustices abide.
I confessed that I have generally enjoyed face to face debates with people — because a general geniality can be clearly maintained even among harshest disputes on issues — but genuine emotion is not deplored or denigrated, nor are intensive attacks on some forms of attitude or opinion mistaken or misconstrued as improper attacks upon the rights or dignity of people as might be inclined to embrace them. My experience with written debates online have often been far less pleasant and far more burdensome, because I cannot easily gauge the levels of understanding or appreciation of some expressions in those to whom I speak — which is one reason I have generally sought to avoid many of these — but there are some disputes one cannot honorably decline to entirely refrain from. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 04:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I quite fail to see how my remark under which the above post is positioned could be considered an accusation of villainy; and I think it is quite an exaggeration to characterize my remarks elsewhere in this thread as such. Digressions from the disagreement over whether the Wikiquote Main Page is the appropriate place for displaying photomontages, and ambiguous or nonspecific remarks about people who disagree with you, are not villainous. They are just distracting. ~ Ningauble 14:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

PS: I am going to be away from the computer the rest of the day, so don't worry about distracting me. I can't speak for anyone else, but then my proposal does not seem to have attracted much interest anyway. ~ Ningauble 14:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────┘
Well for what it is worth I have tried my hand for a simpler design at May 5th. Perhaps having a specific example of something upcoming will help bring some focus to the discussion. Thenub314 16:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This is probably beating a dead horse, but I have recently been viewing wiki's via a mobile device. Today's main page was especially difficult to read. At most there seemed to be two words on a line. Just food for thought, modern computer screens are getting wider to accommodate movies, but phones tend to have very narrow displays, so anyone working on a main page should resize the their browser window a few different ways to get a sense of how it is going to look on different displays. Thenub314 02:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with the comments by Thenub314 (talk · contributions), above. -- Cirt (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Today's developments at Talk:Main Page and OTRS reinforce my opinion that Kalki's artistic and symbolic expression's on the Main Page are indeed a distraction that detracts from the main page. Today's example struck a particularly strong note, but for the past several months these well-meaning efforts to share personal insights on the Main Page strike me as giving the appearance of graffiti that has no place here.

A compendium of quotations is inherently a non-innovative reference work, it is not really the right place for these original compositions. A far better use of space on the main page would be to display citations for the quotes being exhibited there. ~ Ningauble 22:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I was also a bit uncomfortable with all of the Swastikas but was hesitant to say so, as I didn't want to offend anyone whose religion actively uses the symbols. Of course as should be clear from my previous comments I agree with simplifying the visual display. Also Ningauble's suggestion of displaying the citation might help new user's see that we care about verifiability. I have simplified the ones I can, I couldn't edit the ones already locked. Could someone else do that? Thenub314 00:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, my changes have been reverted, perhaps with the exception of one of them a few days out. I have no interest in an edit war I will leave it alone. But perhaps we could come to some consensus here. It doesn't make sense to continue on blindly, several editors have commented that we should move to more simplistic designs. We have OTRS complaints about the main page! Changes are in order. Thenub314 02:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Crucified swastika.svg It is hopelessness even more than pain that crushes the soul. So the decision-making of daily life involves not, as in normal affairs, shifting from one annoying situation to another less annoying — or from discomfort to relative comfort, or from boredom to activity — but moving from pain to pain. One does not abandon, even briefly, one's bed of nails, but is attached to it wherever one goes. 卐 卍 ~ William Styron ~ 卐 卍

The above quote and image montage is the one that was used for the Wikiquote:Quote of the day/June 11, 2011 page this year — before some post-facto efforts at censorship occured, which have currently replaced it with a quote and set of images used last year. I am WELL aware that some might object to ANY use of the swastika , no matter WHAT the context — so acquainted are they with its use by genocidal fascist bigots in the early twentieth century that they are inclined to ignore, disregard or seek to suppress awareness and appreciation of the thousands of years such symbols have been used by people of quite different dispositions and intentions, specifically the wide uses by ancient and modern pagan, Jain, Hindu, Buddhist, and Falun Gong traditions as well as a few others. The images are related to many of the issues Styron's comment and general works raise. I am considering what further points to make in regard to this issue, as I go about doing many other things, but believe the images should definitely be restored as originally posted, and things proceed in honest and fair disputes in regard to related issues — including the revival of interest in suppression of the use of thought provoking images and symbols with the quotes of the day. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 02:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I for one disagree that we should restore the above montage. We have gotten several complaints now. First about the site being too christian, now about the above swastikas. Instead of adding any sort of meaning to the main page, which I am guessing is the intention, we are only serve to annoy distract the readers. And in these cases upset them. These extreme layouts ultimately harm the WQ. Thenub314 03:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

There are people of sincere belief, but shallow or limited perceptions who are very inclined to complain quite readily about many things, especially if they themselves suffer from some forms of deep seated prejudices and have animositiies to particular people or groups which they can gratify with various excuses — which is certainly one of the impulses which drive varous forms of facism. The images were actually presented as a means of furthering awareness of some of the profoundly pathetic and tragic aspects of human history and emotions which Styron chose to address in his writings. ~ 03:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I am reminded of a few statements of E. B. White in considering some of the comments made in relation to the images used with this quote:

Security, for me, took a tumble not when I read that there were Communists in Hollywood but when I read your editorial in praise of loyalty testing and thought control.

It is easier for a man to be loyal to his club than to his planet; the bylaws are shorter, and he is personally acquainted with the other members.

As long as there is one upright man, as long as there is one compassionate woman, the contagion may spread and the scene is not desolate. Hope is the one thing left to us in a bad time.

I am a member of a party of one, and I live in an age of fear.

I find it alarming that people are so ready to indulge in acts of censorship and suppression of dialogue on major topics rather than actually discuss matters. The images chosen were actually chosen on the eighth, and I am not surprised that the intentions with which they were used were misunderstood by some — but I am somewhat surprised that some people are so willing to insist there should be no further efforts to understand them or the importance of recognizing many forms of ambiguity in human expressions and efforts — and to simply seek to suppress imagery and symbolism which is not immediately understandable or obvioius to all people. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 03:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

To continue this conversation, today's main page exhibits one of the problems with ornate designs. The page contains, as is typical lately, a new 'image' cleverly built out of tables and an old image. In the case when I viewed the page in a somewhat smaller window then I might normally that various parts of the table were wrapped in a weird way. Causing one cross below the Psi and one above nest to it. This is not a big issue, but as a few of us would like to encourage simpler Main page display's one could place to start would be to stick to images that consist of a single unit. And not include synthesized pieces. Thenub314 22:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(PS, I am as much responsible for this difficulty as anyone else, as I collaborated on the design of the page in question.Thenub314 22:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC))

I'm a newcomer, but I've been on Wikipedia for a while. I strongly agree with Ningauble et al. and disagree with Kalki.

First of all, I think that to disagree with the assertion that the images distract the eye or clutter the frontpage is ridiculous. It is absolutely self-evident that they do. Furthermore, the number of images is very important, even if they don't take up that much space. This is basic graphic design: more detail means more distraction for the eye. Try comparing a Japanese magazine with a few pages of sheet music. That Kalki isn't aware of this is one indication that Kalki should not be given this responsibility. The general composition of the images is almost always poor, seeming almost random. I object to the swastika composition purely because it is ugly.

No, images are not quotes. Quotes are quotes. Images clearly fail to be quotes because they are not verbal media. I was frankly shocked about the use of images on the site, which goes far beyond simple illustration. On this point, we come to the crux of my objection. I will write this in bold, as Kalki is wont to do: The image of the day should be a chance to choose a completed work of art (quotation) by someone who is not you. By combining interpretive imagery with quotation, you are using the mainpage as a canvas for your own thoughts and beliefs.

I have read almost all of the discussion, but some of Kalki's posts were a little too tedious to get through. Frankly, I would be offended if I were talking to Kalki. You are constantly acting as if you are enlightening the others. Stop that. By doing that, you are making a statement about the relative validity of everyone's opinions. You also talk of "imagery and symbolism which is not immediately understandable or obvioius to all people". I can't imagine that the purpose of the site would be that individuals could take a quote and attempt to influence how it is interpreted by others. Your writing makes frequent reference to yourself, how you think and what your beliefs are. The arrogance is further emphasised by suggesting that the montage used on Good Friday "should be rare event, if ever repeated at all" - in other words, that Christian holidays are especially worthy events. As a non-Christian (and most people are), this seems strange.

In case it's not clear, I support 1 small image, or possibly 2 as a compromise. 3 is certainly too many. I'm sorry, Kalki, if I seem too harsh on you, but I believe it to be much more reasonable to be honest about my standpoint than to go on (and on and on) about how brilliant I am to accept everyone's viewpoint, while flatly disregarding what they say. Vanhedrarn 03:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I happened to visit the main page today (I rarely go there), and I noticed that today's quote of the day is framed by eight images occupying five times as much screen space as the quote itself (more if one includes whitespace framing elements within the montage). This strikes me as far too much. The montage is so large that it completely fills the window size I normally use, and even if one uses a larger window it dominates the page, pushing everything else but the masthead "below the fold".

Although only a few regular contributors have commented in this thread, the only one who has supported using large photomontages is the one who does so. I encourage Kalki to consider the opinions of others that, as UDScott puts it, this needs to be reigned in a bit. ~ Ningauble 15:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to echo/agree with the comment above. Thenub314 05:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Until such time as we have nailed down an appropriate image policy for the Main Page specifically, we should have no images for the Quote of the day. We have seen that there is not consensus that the images associated with the Quote of the day are being used according to our site policy of Wikiquote:Neutral point of view. -- Cirt (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with the QOTD being accompanied by a relevant and appropriate image, or bracketed by a pair of them. Of course, we should never have a dozen swastika variations there, even if they are intended to evoke something other than Nazism, because common sense tells us that they will, in fact, evoke Nazism. BD2412 T 21:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Proverbs pages

A large number of foreign language Proverbs and Tongue twister pages have recently been deleted because they did not cite sources (log), and more are currently proposed for deletion or listed at Votes for deletion. Previous discussion about clearing out these unsourced pages can be found here and here.

See also Wikiquote:Sourcing#Proverbs. As noted there, it can be difficult to find the true origins of proverbs. However, famous proverbs are very widely repeated so it is generally quite easy to find them in print literature that can be cited. For English proverbs, at least, if it can't be found by searching GoogleBooks then it really can't be considered proverbial because there is a centuries-long tradition of books that collect and discuss proverbs. (There are some "things my grandmother always said" that I have been unable to find, though I grew up thinking they were proverbial. I don't know whether she made them up, or heard them in the pop culture of her day, but I have to conclude they are not famous proverbs.)

There is also a side discussion at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Proverbs pages regarding the structure of proverbs pages generally. Thanks to the abovementioned literary tradition, there is a truly vast number of citable proverbs in current and historical circulation. They are far too numerous to be listed on one page, so it has been suggested that it may be better to distribute them in theme articles to which they relate, rather than trying to group them all together. This would also avoid contention about borderline cases that may be considered either proverbial or "merely" quotable for subjective reasons. ~ Ningauble 19:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Considering the uproar on UDScott's talk page (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User_talk:UDScott) it would seem the users are unhappy with this policy, and it probably should be put up for discussion to reverse the deletions and change the policy.24.183.134.74 20:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, it is a fundamental policy of this site that quotations should be sourced. I am aware that plenty aren't, and for example recently sourced two for Gene Kelly, previously a completely unsourced page, but it is something to be strived for. English proverbs should be easy enough to source, using the several published dictionaries of proverbs. probably there are similar books in many other languages. The trick with proverbs is proving that a quote is a proverb. I can easily source "Who comes tonight? We ope the doors in vain" as it was my last edit [3], but is it a proverb? Surely not.--Collingwood 20:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sourced quotes are the aim of this project (it even says so right on the front page). Further discussion is always welcome, but this topic was first discussed over a year and a half ago (see the above links to past discussions) - it's not as if this happened out of the blue. ~ UDScott 20:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to invite you to take a look at the new Russian Proverbs page, (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Russian_proverbs) now sourced, although I need to do a second pass through the culled statements for variations and different word orders that are sourced. This represents personal financial investment and close to 20 hours of work from someone who barely reads Cyrillic, much less being able to read entire proverbs (with archaic words) at any sort of speed. I mention this simply because the entire Wiki project is built on the shoulders of the people willing to spend their own time to contribute. Doctors, engineers, professionals, enthusiasts, and people with real world experience, just to name a few, built the entire Wiki project, and while the admins here may be the stewards of this place, it took maybe 20 minutes of your life to discuss and delete what took me 20 hours to simply source, not even to add.

I mention this simply because many people like me have been pretty unhappy at the treatment of the proverb pages. What about the people that don't know how to talk to any of the people who deleted it? I'm not saying to discard the sourcing obligation, but as has been mentioned, proverbs are different. Sure, you can find books of sources, but a dictionary changes every year, and my source for the language of the Soviet Union, understood incredibly widely across the globe, was published in 1995. Amazon has books on Tagalog proverbs from 1968 and 1948, but they're not available anyway.

Considering a proper citation for a proverb could be "My Mother" it would seem the bulk deletion of the hard work of other contributors is simply mean. You've said, time and time again, it's trivial to source them. Well, do so. I can promise you, it's not trivial. For as much as people keep asking for citations and saying it's easy to find a citation, a citation of a work with no citations is as worthless as not having a citation. There is no possibility of scientific rigor on a site like this with anything other than hard evidence, and even that can be wrong.

Consider, the first half of the classic phrase, "Theirs not to reason why," can be attributed to 13 Assassins (Kaneo Ikegami and Daisuke Tengan) or Saving Private Ryan (Robert Rodat) while we should all know it's the Charge of the Light Brigade by Tennyson. Also, with 13 assassins, is it the screenwriter or the person who did the English subtitles, because I'm pretty sure there was some heavy-duty cultural tweaking in those subtitles. The point is, just because the combination of words has existed before doesn't mean anything.

Again, I'm not asking to repeal the needs for citations across the board, and I'm not even saying the proverbs should be given a pass, but to hand wave the difficulty of such as task by calling it "trivial" but not lifting a finger to actually source them yourself doesn't help anybody. The hoops I had to jump through to even get the history of the page to source it was obnoxious. As much as I disagree with the way UDScott did this (although apparently it was the bulk decision of at least the people on the other side have been vocal about this) I was provided with the information on the page to check, which saved me from dredging the archives for the information. Thank you.

But this is not a topic where "One Size Fits All" works. At the very least, where's the harm in leaving proverbs up that need sourcing? They can be sourced, then. Every academic institution in the world says Wikipedia and Wikimedia are unreliable and unacceptable sources, so there's no chance of it being an issue with fruit from a poisonous tree. A template that says they're unsourced even points it out explicitly.

At the very least restoring the history pages to be able to begin a sourcing project would be a class act. The uproar from the users of the site should mean something to you, bureaucratic passing of the buck to rules that are mutable aside. Maybe you should restore the pages, re-open discussion, and proxy in the the arguments made by the people against this move. But I've put my money where my mouth is here, and my work is prettymuch done. What you do now really isn't my problem, I took care of what was in front of me. 24.183.134.74 19:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

If there is a consensus in favor of it, I would not object to restoring the deleted proverbs pages in project space and having work done on sourcing them there. With proverbs, at least, there are no BLP or other defamation issues. I would also like to point out, by the way, that despite some complaints to the contrary, there are plentiful sources for proverbs. For example, I have been working on another project, the Harbottle - Dictionary of quotations French and Italian, 1904, currently at French Wikisource, which is a public domain quote book containing quotes in French and Italian, along with the English translation of each. Many of the quotes in the book are proverbial in nature, and all are partially or fully sourced. Of course, the 1904 book itself is citable as a source. As for the argument that Wikipedia and Wikimedia are already considered unreliable in academia, that is a very good reason to be working towards demonstrable reliability. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to restoring deleted quotes from the proverbs pages - but to their talk pages to await sourcing. I realize the deletion of these pages caused an uproar, but I also know that these pages had been tagged as needing sources for quite some time and discussions had been held on multiple occurrences over nearly two years. I concede that it is not an easy task to source all of the quotes - but I also do not feel that the task rests on the shoulders of the limited admins here that are already far overburdened with many other tasks - I am often just able to try to keep up with new pages that need help and to fight vandalism, and am often unable to add to the site as I would like. We all have different areas of focus here and we just do not have enough people or time to do all that is needed. But all that being said, your efforts to restore this page are laudable and welcomed. ~ UDScott 21:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I think moving it to the talk page is a wonderful middle ground if nobody objects. I also don't expect the admins to source the articles, just to not say it's trivial to do so. If I didn't believe in the Wiki projects, I wouldn't have done any of this work. I spent months policing release dates and vandalism on Wikipedia for a few pages simply because it needed to be done. I probably wouldn't even have cared if the history was there, but I guess all in all, disagreements aside, we had a discussion and all turned out well, at least for the Russian proverbs. I'm afraid my Italian is non-existent (probably to the chagrin of my ancestors) and I have absolutely no intention to learn French, but I could be persuaded, if e-books are freely available, to check over Spanish and German proverbs as well. I'm just not in a position to buy sources for any given language. 24.183.134.74 01:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the work you have done using an authoritative source. Thank you. Your remarks above show that you do recognize the value of reliable sources, and the work you are doing is of far more value than those who just complain or argue that things they heard on the street should be considered proverbial.

I confess overstating the case in calling it trivial, I was primarily thinking of my experience with English proverbs. For a language with which one is not fully conversant, or one for which historical literature is not readily available on-line, it can indeed be non-trivial. (I came across a good, reliable source of Chinese proverbs compiled in 1900, but I haven't even a clue how to type the Han characters.) I do consider the work I did on English proverbs trivial in the sense that it involves very little analysis or judgment beyond deciding which sources are reliable ones; but that is not to say it isn't tedious and time consuming. It is real work, and I didn't mean to trivialize it. I meant to chide those who make no effort at all, not even a trivial one, to cite sources for their contributions. ~ Ningauble 16:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I have restored French proverbs with the two that were actually sourced on the page, and the rest, which remain unsourced, on the talk page. The Harbottle link I referenced above should enable more to be sourced. Note that it is laid out alphabetically by the content of the quote. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe what you guys did. Can you please restore... they are a good resource. 134.159.131.34 10:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Good work

I'd like to take a moment to commend Thrissel's work on making Scottish Gaelic proverbs into a fully sourced page. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I second the motion. It is a real pleasure to see someone get into the spirit of quotation, and invest the time and energy to create a high quality article. Thank you, Thrissel, for adding real value to Wikiquote. ~ Ningauble 16:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment about some "About" sections

There are a couple article discussions regarding "Quotes about" sections that could benefit from community input:

• Talk:My Life in Orange
• Talk:Ma Anand Sheela

These involve assessments of quotability, which can be difficult to resolve objectively. More eyeballs may or may not provide a better perspective. Thanks for considering looking at them. ~ Ningauble 20:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I have commented on both. ~ UDScott 21:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this notice. -- Cirt (talk) 06:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

please, please, pretty please give proper citations!

Please! Be almost the only site on the web that doesn't allow attributions to pose as actual quotes.

If you just say "blah blah blah" and give the cite as Shakespeare. That is bloody useless.

A citation is chapter and verse. Without that it is only valid as a made up quote with a possibly, maybe, but who can prove it anyhow, attribution to some author.

Stop this horrible trend on the net with naked and useless citations of just the authors name!

Please!

GJaron (talk · contributions)

Not wishing to discourage contributions, I believe citation to a work and date is usually sufficient, and being far more meticulously precise in my use of words than most people tend to be, I reject the notion that all quotation must be by "chapter and verse" to be valid or useful; but regardless of all that, the policy here for some years has been to insist on citations to at least the work quoted, with as much information on the date and location within cited publications as is available. Though there are some pages where many quotes do remain without citation by source, these are gradually diminishing, and sometimes by more drastic measures than some actually believe to be appropriate, with the wholesale deletion of ALL information on the pages, but those interested in having things conform to their particular notions of what standards should be often seem more numerous than those who welcome exploration, preservation and consideration of many views. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 18:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• We are trying very hard to do better than those other useless sites. Thanks for urging us on. ~ Ningauble 18:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• I hope I'm doing my best and when I see an unsourced quote here (and there are many) I usually Google for a source. Of course, very few sources give chapter and verse that can be quoted.--Collingwood 21:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'd like to add to that, please do not cite the fictional character or the actor portraying them as the "source" for a quote. I can't tell you how many times I have seen something like:

  Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.

  Han Solo

• or

  Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.

  Harrison Ford

• or even

  Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.

  Han Solo (played by Harrison Ford)

• None of these correctly identify the author (in this case, George Lucas). BD2412 T 22:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hoyt's done

Wikiquote:Hoyt's New Cyclopedia Of Practical Quotations is basically done. Of the approximately 900 themes collected in that work, all have either been merged into existing articles, or have had articles created, except for Wikiquote:Hoyt's New Cyclopedia Of Practical Quotations/Proverbs which is being held aside pending our determination of how to treat pages of proverbs generally. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks are certainly due to you for your diligent efforts in working on this — and I hope you are rewarded with the discovery of even more interesting and delightful tasks at presenting humanity's wit and wisdom in the future. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 20:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks indeed, BD. Wikiquote is richer for your cyclopedian work. ~ Ningauble 15:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

By editing some theme articles, I noticed how many important themes would have very few (good) quotations, or none, without this huge work, which is amazing. Nemo 15:09, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Absurdism

Anyone else feel that Absurdism is quickly getting out of hand? I've tried twice to ask Kalki about what criteria is being used for selection for the page (see User_talk:Kalki#Absurdism), but I'm still no closer to an answer (it appears to me that whatever criteria are being used they are the result of a logical fallacy). I just worry that this page will become so bloated as to become something beyond the bounds of the original theme. And it seems to me that it is becoming a personal essay of sorts about the topic, choosing quotes for inclusion based on Kalki's personal view of the world rather than an objective selection that is tied to the topic in a more obvious way. I also worry that this will set a precedent for anyone else who wants to cherry pick quotes to fit a theme of their choosing that do not really fit. Anyone care to comment on Kalki's talk page in the conversation I started? ~ UDScott 21:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a fair case to distinguish quotes about absurdism from quotes alleged to be absurdist. For example, the Bible quote, "If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles", does not say anything about absurdism. However, the Keirkegaard quote beginning "What is the Absurd?" clearly is about this. BD2412 T 21:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

As I MUST be leaving SOON, and have been delayed significantly already, I will simply make a quick comment that a I find many of these remarks perfectly valid and yet absurdly unperceptive of much of significance, and I mean that in a genuinely good natured way. I can agree that the absurdist remarks made by the brilliant genius commonly called Jesus (whom I also call that as well as Yeshua), are such as many might not recognize for having an absurdist stance, and might arguably be removed, but I do NOT believe that this or ANY other page should require explicit reference to the concepts being mentioned, and such has actually NOT been a policy here, though preferences for such quotes are generally advisable. Other people created and did splendid work on the page for Christian anarchism which I clearly took some of my inspiration from in creating the page for absurdism. I actually do feel the theme has been so extensively neglected and overlooked by a broad variety of dullards for so long that it is about time to make a rather extensive presentation on the matter. I agree the current material on it should be trimmed down a bit, and just did a very minor bit of that — but certainly feel much more can be added — and that no examples of The Absurd should be categorically excluded by those more inclined to be enslaved to rather narrow categorical imperatives, and less open to expansive perspectives such as absurdism PERMITS — but does not demand. So it goes… ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 22:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC) + tweak

If Kalki or anyone wants to start a page called "Absurd remarks", he is free to do so. Such a page might be quite interesting. However, "Absurdism" has a well-defined meaning and I support BD2412's comment.--Collingwood 22:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe I have come up with a solution that will be acceptable to most people, and have posted it at Talk:Absurdism. BLESSING TO ALL. So it goes… ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 00:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree with UDScott, the page as currently left in its present state by Kalki (talk · contributions) is so bloated as to become virtually useless due to tl;dr phenomena. -- Cirt (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

As I acknowledged from the start, I did expand the page far too much, and far faster than I had initially intended to. In order to accommodate those with slower internet connections, and gradually attend to matters in coming weeks, I massively reduced much of the material I had added on the page, and will gradually restore only some of it in coming weeks. Removing much of it slowly did not seem a viable option, and adding back only some of it after more thorough considerations in coming weeks does seem the better procedure. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 18:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• The page is still way, way to long. With twenty-nine (29) images used on the page. -- Cirt (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikiquote in the news (4)

Wikiquote has its uses

Dave Coffey of The Massachusetts Daily Collegian ("Wasting time on the Web", 31 October 2011) recommends Wikiquote as an entertaining option for students who are facing a deadline and need a "weapon of mass procrastination."

— I'm too busy to comment on this just now.

...And its misuses

Jenn Morrill of the Salt Lake City Independent Examiner ("Ron Paul's real fight begins", 15 December 2011) cites Wikiquote to debunk a misattribution to Mahatma Ghandi that is reportedly popular among Ron Paul supporters. She reports that according to Wikiquote he said something close, but not the exact words attributed to him. However, the Wikiquote article does not attribute the "something close" to Gandhi either: it cites a speech by trade unionist Nicholas Klein.

— If one is not inclined to check the cited source, why bother reading what the citation itself says?

~ Reported by Ningauble 18:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Outdated sitenotice

See talk please. Nemo 15:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

with translation softs

how can i use wikiquote with lingoes or goldendict softwares?

Bot Policy Update

Hi, all I have started a discussion here on what to do with the bots. I suggest to take the version with local admins. There is very local little interest in interwiki bots, so please or support the Global Bot Policy or be active when a new bot request comes in. Carsrac 23:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Cirt's authoritarian misbehavior

Cirt (talk · contributions) is once again exhibiting strongly authoritarian behavior in regard to content others can add and indulging in summary censorship — just deleting an article on Josette Sheeran created by a new user Redcup50 (talk · contributions) and declaring it "spam", and replacing its entry on the main page, which I had just added to the "New pages" section with a recently recreated one for Klaus Kinski, which involved going back beyond the most recent entries. I consider such behavior, along with much else this person has done to be extremely irresponsible and detrimental by any fully respectable notions of Wikimedia policies or human decency, and declared on the new user's talk page:

I do not know who you are, but I am familiar with Cirt as someone who often seems little more than a rogue authoritarian who treats his or her own asinine interpretations of rules as something to obeyed without question or dissent. I believe that he or she has once more greatly exceeded any proper authority he or she has been granted and is simply indulging in censorship, and I encourage you to NOT be too intimidated by his or her belligerent and aggressive hostility to anything that smacks of genuine grace in humanity.

I am requesting that a responsible person with admin tools restore the Josette Sheeran page, which did have formatting flaws to its previous state, to be commented upon by the community, and this overly aggressive action by Cirt be condemned soundly. I do NOT ask that his or her admin tools be stripped, because I am more inclined to encourage people to proper use of their abilities rather than being so asinine as to remove them from people who might yet have ability to learn to use them well, and cannot do too much harm, so long as rational and compassionate human beings remain to counter their often irrational and anti-humanitarian impulses. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 17:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

I would tend to agree that this is not a clear speedy deletion case, and am restoring it for a proper deletion discussion. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the restoration — I can agree the article has flaws, in formatting, primarily, but cannot agree that it is one that should have even been considered for immediate removal by any truly rational or fair person. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 18:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Having restored the article, I have nominated it for deletion at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Josette Sheeran. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with the actions take above by BD2412 (talk · contributions), thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I would also like to add, regarding the section title above, that jumping the gun on the deletion of an article that is at best questionable in terms of the motivations of its author is hardly an example of "authoritarian misbehavior". We should strive to avoid needlessly inflammatory rhetoric. BD2412 T 18:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Unfortunately you and I both know all too well that this is a common tactic of the editor who created this subsection. Perhaps you could leave a similar comment at the user's talk page? -- Cirt (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

How exactly is "jumping the gun on the deletion of an article" that might at WORST, be questionable in terms of the motivations of its author, be regarded as anything other than ANOTHER example of authoritarian misbehavior? There was zero discussion, zero warning, and instant ABSOLUTIST judgment about an article on a NOTABLE person and quotes of that person as something to be labelled, to the satisfaction of DUPES of authoritarian behavior and LABELS, as "spam." Similar tactics have regularly been used by this person against me and to some extent against others, and I am not going to pretentiously play footsie with words about someone I HONESTLY tend to regard as behaving like a conniving sycophantic fascist. I of course COULD be wrong, and the person might be honorably motivated to ACT so apparently dishonorably for genuinely honorable reasons, BUT unlike conniving sycophantic fascists, I do not seek to silence or censor honest opinions about behavior, which MIGHT be wrong. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 18:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)+ tweaks

I agree with deprecating the rhetoric here. It would be better to simply list this sort of case under the article title at Wikiquote:Deletion review. Requesting review of an administrator's general conduct is an entirely different matter. I also endorse the undeletion to allow deliberation about the article because it was a bit of a stretch to classify it as spam or "unambiguous advertising". ~ Ningauble 19:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing that the rhetoric used by the individual that created this subsection was inappropriate. -- Cirt (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Liberal use of images

Where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? // You know the score, pal! If you're not a cop, you're "little people." // The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary.

Who knows what EVIL lurks in the hearts of men? THE SHADOW KNOWS.

First, "liberal" in this sense means "abundant" / "unrestricted". I was viewing the Nineteen Eighty-Four page, and I've noticed images that don't belong there. These images are File:AthensRiot5.jpg, File:Fotocollage.jpg, File:Castagno_dei_Cento_Cavalli_Jean_Houel.jpg, File:Andersonvillesurvivor.jpg, and File:Barnhill_(Cnoc_an_t-Sabhail)_-_geograph.org.uk_-_451643.jpg. They don't have anything to do with 1984. File:AthensRiot5.jpg is also used in on the Blade Runner and V for Vendetta (film) pages, which isn't an entirely accurate, fair, or neutral portrayal of the Athenian law enforcement. These images were added by User:Kalki, who appears to be banned from Wikipedia due to sockpuppetry. --Michaeldsuarez 21:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Why doesn't the Jura farmhouse have anything to do with 1984? what about [4]. Sayerslle 20:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. I've crossed it out. Sorry. --Michaeldsuarez 20:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Image_use_policy doesn't contain any information on how images should be used, so perhaps this is the opportunity to work on that. --Michaeldsuarez 21:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with these above comments by Michaeldsuarez (talk · contributions). Thanks for raising this issue here. -- Cirt (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The current BLOCK on me at WP was INITIATED by accusations by Cirt, which I considered quite ludicrous and slanderous, and plainly provably so to anyone who thoroughly examines matters, but which I chose NOT to contest, because I was extremely inconvenienced by his or her blocks upon me at the time, and which I have not since chosen to contest, because I have had far more important matters to attend to, and when I strike at EVIL or STUPIDITY of any kind, I aim to so thoroughly shine the light of TRUTH on matters so as to NOT allow it to be mistaken as anything OTHER than that, by any genuinely fair and reasonable persons. I have currently delayed my exit from my current location for several reasons, and might stick around a little longer, but have a few things I must attend to beyond making observations and comments here. I will probably comment on the matter of the images soon, but not till I get back, or change my access location, and might not do so for a few hours yet. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 21:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

Note: @Michaeldsuarez — I've gone ahead and removed the inappropriate image use from pages Nineteen Eighty-Four, Blade Runner and V for Vendetta (film). -- Cirt (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but the problem seems to be everywhere. Take File:Darwinek-bnw.jpg for example. It's an image of a Wikipedia user's shadow, yet it is on Alan Moore, God, Leo Tolstoy, and others. --Michaeldsuarez 14:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

I had to attend to a few things of far greater urgency and simplicity than responding to this rather ridiculous and perhaps somewhat suspicious set of circumstances of assertions and responses to them. Before I go into addressing in detail some of the legitimate expressions of concerns raised by others, I will elaborate a bit on a few of my own. I am a person well aware that authoritarians and their collaborators, cronies, and even some of their more innocent dupes, will quite often seize upon any excuses or the very slightest of any apparent advantages over others to suppress any possibility of ideas other than those they most wish to promote or impose from being considered or even thought about — and treat as a sufficiently "clear consensus" (or at least a chance for further show of arrogant and brutal conceits which others should automatically defer to or be punished), that which provides any apparent justification to their will to condemn, punish and constrain the expression and efforts of others to communicate and indicate truths they do not want indicated at all, in significant ways they wish to establish or maintain ABSOLUTE control over. It is ONE of the most reliably evident of the major characteristics of authoritarians that they seek to do all they can to suppress or totally eliminate any signs of views or opinions which might rival or contradict those they wish to promote, and actively punish or belittle the attempts of others to express these.

One person who for some ODD reasons or other and rather obtuse levels of discernment, with a username which has done NO editing here in YEARS, quite SUDDENLY, in the midst of my once again OPEN and PUBLIC disputes with Cirt, happens to object to images as have existed on HEAVILY watched and used pages for MONTHS or YEARS, and Cirt immediately seizes upon such an opportunity as a chance to IMMEDIATELY and radically LIMIT, constrain and ERADICATE another irritating sign that other people MIGHT possibly be able to UNDERSTAND actual circumstances and symbolic and metaphoric relationships more than he or she and other like minded people might, or might wish others to be able to — and ANY such truths or opinions as he or she or they do not find flattering or appealing to have revealed or indicated.

This person now objects that "the problem seems to be everywhere" — indeed, I believe it IS — THOUGHT, IMAGINATION, and PASSIONS and INTELLIGENCE outside the control of authoritarians and UNAUTHORIZED by their mania for claiming ownership and control of things which NEVER truly have been or ever will be entirely within their possession or control.

It is of nearly utter indifference to me whether the antagonists who are my adversaries at ANY point in time, and who I actually and honestly tend to consider to usually be ignorant, confused and very often quite pernicious adversaries of the ideals of liberty, truth and justice as well, be any member of any social or anti-social groupings, or whether they be male, female, old, young, rich, poor, deliberately malicious and vicious or merely pathetically misguided and mistaken in many more understandable or pardonable ways — I do actually tend to pity ALL of them, even when the times come when I believe that I must strike vigorously at many forms of their false conceits or foul presumptions.

I know many people used to rather casual and careless discourse about many things do not like my attempts to be meticulously precise and elaborative upon many peculiar points of truth and Reality which they would prefer remain obscure to themselves and others, but it is a lifelong habit of mine to be as precisely honest as I can be, when I believe I morally can be. I actually considered saying MUCH more than this which would have clarified much more than I chose to do so now — because it would have left some people who read it in far worse states of distress and confusion about many things than this relatively simple declaration does. I know MANY people can be quite EASILY confused and distressed by MANY of the more unusual or unpopular aspects of truth, and though this does NOT motivate me to DENY them, or IGNORE them, it does often motivate me to be silent about MANY of them, when I believe I morally can be. Thus, I save many of those revelations which I conceivably could have made for a later time, when I believe more people will be more ready to recognize and accept the truth and importance of them, and not be too distressed at some of the more troubling implications of some of them.

NOW, to get to some of the specifics of some of the issues which were raised by others, as IS CERTAINLY a manifestation of their valid and proper rights: I don't think any person of any genuine intellectual and moral integrity who has actually read the book would have much trouble in recognizing the appropriateness of having booted militarily ranked police in relation to the concept of the "Thought Police" and "the two minutes Hate" designed to be simultaneously cathartic and corruptive to the common consciences of most people. But I will concede that the self-appointed thought police that OFTEN arise in various social endeavors would of course find ANY such capacities or intellectual associations in others rather objectionable.

The complaint was lodged that these images "don't have anything to do with 1984." I am sure MANY things can be said to not have anything at all to do with 1984, and actually and sincerely believed to have NOTHING at all to do with 1984, yet have MUCH to do with the THEME of that work. I certainly prefer to have "liberal use of images" than the liberal use of force and suppression of any use of images that rather shallow and dull minded people might find irrelevant or even confusing and objectionable because they have so little capacity of imagination or association of anything not literally and legalistically having to do with some specific persons or works of literature — and who might not wish to allow others to have the liberty of adding images that might actually have MUCH to do with the subject or theme of the QUOTE itself.

The image used in the first example cited is that of booted riot police. I wish to emphasize that I certainly do NOT have any innate hatred of people who happen to be either police or protestors — but I certainly can and do have reservations about WHAT some self-appointed police choose to police — and some presumptuous protesters choose to protest — like actual THOUGHTS or EXPRESSIONS which do not conform to such shallow lame-brained passionless forms of cowardice and timidity which those endowed with the most shallow and narrow forms of minds and mindlessness like to promote and imply are the desirable norms, among people so habitually repressed or suppressed in many ways that they remain too cowardly or dull to actively and effectively respond to such bullying and indulgence of others greater capacities to do harm often permit them.

Through my assertions and actions in life, I wish to provide examples to people that there are legitimate and fair ways to police and protest about things which do NOT involve the more brutal and relentlessly cruel and merciless forms bullying and resorting to authoritarian pretensions as MANY do. That is about all I will say now. So it goes… ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 14:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

@Michaeldsuarez, yes, I agree with you that the problem is everywhere, perpetuated by the same user in question. I've removed the inappropriate image use from pages you cited above, Alan Moore, God, and Leo Tolstoy. -- Cirt (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That such image use is considered inappropriate by any one is once again something I find not only ludicrous but contemptible. There is obviously an attempt to censor and suppress and eradicate many forms of ideas and indications of thoughts opinions and assertions here, and I invite any person who is not a coward or a dupe of authoritarian pretensions to weigh in and make their comments here. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 18:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: @Michaeldsuarez, this just in: Kalki (talk · contributions) has refused to wait for discussion here, instead choosing to disruptively violate consensus and revert the inappropriate images back to the pages. Here are the six diffs: diff diff diff diff diff diff. Note: I've removed them a 2nd time, but I won't be reverting Kalki again. Thoughts on this behavior by Kalki? Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a TYPICAL DISTORTION of Cirt once again — YOU IMMEDIATELY JUMP ON A CHANCE TO REMOVE INFORMATION objected to by ONE other person — and label that "CONSENSUS" — I label it BULLSHIT. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 18:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

After attempting to have another admin BLOCK me, now Cirt is once again trying to suppress IDEAS , remove quotes and SLANDER information links to quotes provided at a UN agency as SPAM. As an endorser of the sentiments and principles expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights I acknowledge it is his or her right to do so — and my right and MORAL DUTY to call such highly distortional CRAP what I believe it IS: SLANDER and signs of sheer malice and MALEVOLENCE. For some time now I have thought of Cirt as little more than a pathetically DEVIOIUS empowered TROLL-VANDAL and someone who DELIGHTS in the harm they can do to MANY far NOBLER than they, rather than anything remotely resembling a genuinely responsible and fair admin. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

I am about to leave, perhaps for several hours but wish to note that I have NOT, as yet reverted what I SINCERELY regard to be VANDALISM to the Josette Sheeran page at this point because the hostility between me and Cirt is something well known to most and I do NOT wish such action to be ascribed by anyone devious or deluded as merely motivated by personal hostilities rather than principles. I will concede MUCH of Cirt's recent actions might not be PERSONAL hostility to ME or to Sheeran, nor a pathological desire to defame others — but from what I have observed of it I do consider it a loathsome form of such bigotry and foully cynical presumption as I have had a life-long hostility to. I welcome other editors to make commentary on the relative worth of the page PRIOR to the massive deletions of NOTABLE material, added by various people and their impoverished state at this point, after Cirts MASSIVE deletions. I am refraining from engaging in an edit war — but truly desire consensus to be developed which I hope will acknowledge the WORTH of the NORMALLY formatted rather than the quite aggressively stripped down page. So it goes… ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 21:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

TL;DR. I have long felt that both Kalki's use of unrelated images on WQ pages, and his or her tendency to launch into histrionics whenever anyone so much as questions his/her practices, are inappropriate -- the former because it's not what WQ is about, and the latter because it is highly destructive to the communal editing process of any wiki. 121a0012 05:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I have long felt that people should always have a right to express their honest opinions, and thank you for expressing yours clearly and honestly, though I must confess I of course very strongly disagree with your assessments about several significant things, and believe that any attempts by anyone to lay down too tight a set of strictures of what other people can do or attempt to do in presenting quotes and ideas is highly destructive to the communal editing process of any wiki. Blessings to all. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 05:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note: Now with the comment by 121a0012 above diff, we're 3:1 in agreement that Kalki's image usage (and responses) are inappropriate. Hopefully we can proceed from here with removal of the inappropriate images. -- Cirt (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • OMFG! : Outstanding Magnificent Fair Graciousness! Where does all the time go? What extraordinary levels of will against patience are being exhibited here. I must assert that having a sudden shift of 3 to 1 imbalance when this issue has been presented less than a single day, to suddenly decide an issue to remove images that have been on the pages for MONTHS or years with tacit approval is once again jumping the gun on the urge to diminish destroy and eradicate the information available to people's minds. I must insist that I believe that a fair and proper exhibition of patience and magnanimity would permit a response period of at least a week on the matter. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 05:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm just going to weigh in here. We don't have, so far as I know, a set policy on the use of images in articles. Common sense suggests (to me at least) that having a few images on a lengthy page is generally a good thing, as it breaks up what might otherwise appear to be a wall of text, but that images should be used sparingly enough that they don't detract from the quotes themselves. I always try to add an image of the subject to a biographical article, or to a theme article on a specific thing link Pigs or Roses. As it happens, I've added a lot of images to the page on Flowers, because it has subsections covering a lot of different kinds of flowers. I also don't think that an image needs to come from media relating to the subject of the page, if the image is appropriately evocative of the subject matter of a given quote. The sort of abstract things that Kalki tends to use seem to me to be fine for that purpose, although I would certainly agree that Kalki overdoes it at times. That's a matter of personal taste, not policy. Disputes over whether a particular image is appropriate to a particular page should be taken to the talk page. I would be interested in seeing a list, if someone can generate it, of the Wikiquote pages having the largest number of images, or better yet the largest number of images in proportion to the text on the page. I think such a survey would be useful in delineating a more practical editorial policy on the use of images. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

THANK YOU —VERY MUCH — for a very lucid and composed critique of the situation. I obviously felt that the accusations of the use of these particular images as "inappropriate" because some particular people seemed to have some difficulty realizing how they related to the subjects of the quotes or the pages on which they have been used was a rather extreme one. I have on a very few occasions entered into disputes with others on particular talk pages of particular subjects regarding the best use of images or best images to use in the past, and sometimes the disputes have gone as I would wish, and sometimes they haven't, and sometimes there are mutually acceptable compromises which are reached. I continue to abhor any mandates about nearly anything, and whatever policies eventually develop, I hope they can retain the form of loose guidelines open to compromise and responses to particular situations. Thanks MUCH again. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 17:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks : PS: I still encourage ALL others who might be concerned about matters to weigh in with their own particular opinions, whatever they might be, and bid everyone to speak with as much frankness as they are inclined to. I don't wish the discussion to be considered ended AS IF there were a definite consensus of most concerned in the matter, when there is not.

• Re. DB2412's idea for a quantitative survey: I am not aware of any way to do this that would not be very labor intensive; but I believe I do know which page has the highest ratio of images to quotes: it is the Main Page. ~ Ningauble 18:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Michaeldsuarez is correct in observing, as has been raised many times in discussion, that Wikiquote lacks a policy on how images should be used. I also agree with 121a0012's feeling that the resulting liberality encompasses much that is extraneous to Wikiquote's purpose. I have mixed feelings about the issue:

1. Objectively, many pages include such large quantities of image data that, for users with modest dial-up connections such as mine, they take quite a long time to load. However, I am aware that my situation places me in a minority because I observe that many popular websites have chosen to write off potential customers who lack access to high-speed bandwidth.
2. Subjectively, many pages appear to me to be cluttered with imagery that is, at best, only tangentially related to the subject and text of the page. However, I am aware that, according to the principle of six degrees of separation, everything is related to everything.

The foregoing remarks only amount to "I don't like it" with respect to convenience and aesthetics. For purposes of policy formation we might consider, as 121a0012 says, "what WQ is about."

3. Wikiquote's purpose is to compile a comprehensive collection of notable quotations. It is fitting and proper to include quotes expressing a wide variety of "thoughts, opinions, and assertions". It is highly desirable to collect quotes exhibiting a "capacity of imagination or association" through "symbolic and metaphoric relationships".
4. Kalki has stated and demonstrated an interest in expressing "thoughts, opinions, and assertions" through "symbolic and metaphoric relationships" using images in association with quotations when they "have MUCH to do with the subject or theme of the QUOTE itself".
5. In contrast, Wikiquote has a longstanding practice of firmly deprecating original commentary and interpretation within articles, however much it may have to do with the subjects or quotes, when it is expressed using text rather than images. Insertion of such text is usually reverted quite promptly.

Good sense is of all things in the world the most equally distributed, for everybody thinks he is so well supplied with it that even those most difficult to please in all other matters never desire more of it than they already possess.   — René Descartes

I have a vague impression that we are dealing with something that might be accepted in moderation but could be intolerable in excess. I like to see pages enlivened with a little illustration, I do not like to see pages cluttered with superfluous distractions, and I believe it is highly inappropriate to use Wikiquote's pages for personal commentary and interpretation. I have the very distinct impression that drawing distinctions between acceptable illustration, superfluous clutter, and unacceptable editorializing is too subjective to be formulated in an explicit policy. I dread the prospect of case by case discussion in the absence of any policy (even without detailed analysis of the philosophical outlook, intellectual capacity, and moral fiber of the discussants) because it has come up very many times and almost always results in a single regular contributor shouting down a newcomer rather than any actual community deliberation. I lament that there is no such thing as common sense that might govern the issue. I apologize for going on at such great length without actually offering a policy suggestion. I am still thinking about it. ~ Ningauble 17:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Ningauble is correct, this type of image usage really is intolerable in excess.
2. Ninguable is also right, that the length to which Kalki extends pages through image additions and the like, makes pages so large as to be quite difficult to load for those with slower internet connections — and we should try to accommodate all readers and editors.
3. And Ningauble is also correct, that we should not allow image usage in this fashion by Kalki to use Wikiquote's pages for personal commentary and interpretation. -- Cirt (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• And Ningauable is ALSO clearly even MORE correct in asserting that "drawing distinctions between acceptable illustration, superfluous clutter, and unacceptable editorializing is too subjective to be formulated in an explicit policy" and that there is MUCH reason to "lament that there is no such thing as common sense that might govern the issue". This rather nullifies what I consider the rather foul-spirited spin Cirt seems to be placing on things, which implies dictatorial judgments and active coercion, which he or she seems to be very comfortable with and eager to promote should be the primary and preferred procedures in dealing with the issue. Blessings to ALL. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

  Regarding Cirt's comment #1: That is not what I said. "... vague impression ... could be ..." does not equate to "really is."
  Not. Even. Close.

  Regarding Cirt's comment #3: That is not what I said. Parts of my remarks could be used in support of that position, and other parts could be used in opposition to it. It is not a position I stated, and the exploration of conflicting ideas was my unambiguously expressed intent.

  Regarding attribution of opinions to me in general: Please bear in mind that quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold can be regarded as a personal affront. It took me the better part of a day to compose my thoughts, and I do not appreciate having them misrepresented. ~ Ningauble 21:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Ningauble: My apologies if I misconstrued your remarks. That was obviously not my intent. No hard feelings. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• I believe that BD2412 has it about right. When I have time, I shall try to add photos to all the articles I have created. On canvassing, it is true that Kalki has mentioned this discussion on my talk page. I had assumed that this was what talk pages were for. Emphatically, that is not why I made this comment. The Village Pump is on my watchlist and I would certainly have made the same comment regardless.--Collingwood 19:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you Michaeldsuarez for pointing out Wikiquote:Image_use_policy and its possible room of expansion to include "information on how images should be used". I agree we need such a revision. Occasional discussions on here Village Pump as well particular article talks seem to me to suggest such necessities: for years those discussions have gotten no practical results and in my observation there has been no clear consensus about this issue. Such an addition of Wikiquote:Image_use_policy will be expected to accord with our major policies, like Neutral Point of View, since we show our readers those images as a part of our project, a part of the sum of human knowledge reconstructed in respect to NPOV: not a collection of quotations with images which certain individuals make deliberately on their preferences.

  Not from intimidating name calling, but from productive discussion between fellow volunteering contributors, I expect to see a new revision of Wikiquote:Image_use_policy. --Aphaia 15:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  I have agreed that Michaeldsuarez has made useful observations which merit further discussion, and on his talk page I had already apologized with sorrow for the fact that what I believe to be his honest and sincere criticism was seized upon as an excuse to precipitate SUDDEN and UNDISCUSSED removal of significant forms of INFORMATIVE imagery from many pages. I HOPE that many people will have far MORE patience than has yet been exhibited by many, and will at least BEGIN to take into account SOME of the considerations of Semiotics, "STRONG" Agnosticism, Absurdism, Humanism, Universalism, and genuine regard for MANY diverse Points of View which have LONG guided me. I hope that some people will begin to consider far more clearly and extensively what I have long perceived to extremely ignorant, confused, and nearly always significantly deficient arguments and perceptions which I have usually attempted to be gentle with — and only occasionally become extremely HARSH with — but of course one's forms of harshness usually receive the most attention and notice from many who are prone to be harsh in rivalry or in opposing ways, and are sometimes quite astounded that there are people who could oppose them on any significant issues and survive and prosper or be right or valuable in ANY way. BLESSINGS to ALL. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 15:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

It's important to abolish the unconscious dogmatism that makes people think their way of looking at reality is the only sane way of viewing the world. My goal is to try to get people into a state of generalized agnosticism, not agnosticism about God alone, but agnosticism about everything. ~ Robert Anton Wilson

• Agnosticism presents a good microcosm of this issue. I don't see what the image to the right has to do with agnosticism; I suspect that most readers will not either, and that the presence of the image will therefore serve as a distraction to the contents of the page. The first image on the page, showing an observatory, is at least somewhat connected to the quote about the cosmos. The second image is of an historically significant agnostic, captioned by a quote by that person. The third image is a Taijitu, a variation of the Yin-Yang symbol, which has nothing to do with agnosticism. The fourth image is the one to the right which I mentioned above, a hospital ship with a rainbow in the background. BD2412 T 21:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The Rainbow is something that is treated as a symbol of MANY things — Diversity, Divine presences, divine covenants and such — and thus works well with the quote it was used for concerning agnostic ambiguities. The Taijitu symbol is one that is ambiguous enough to use in many diverse ways, and was used here with the statement of Thomas Henry Huxley: "Agnosticism simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that for which he has no grounds for professing to believe." I thought the quotes significant enough to be of use with images in making the page more visually interesting, and for reasons that I wouldn't expect to be obvious to all or even to most I did select a couple images with but tangential relation to some of the ideas of the quotes. If you can come up with better images for either of these quotes you are quite welcome to change them. Blessings. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 13:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

Our goal is not "making the page more visually interesting", it is conveying quotes. Making the pages look nice may be a good thing to do, but I think the connection between the images used and the subject matter of the page as a whole, and individual quotes on it, should indeed be "obvious to all or even to most". We should not use images in the first place merely because they are ambiguous or abstract and could refer to anything, and not at all if they embody a specific cultural meaning that is distinct from the meaning of either the page or the quote. BD2412 T 17:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Kalki has canvassed for this discussion after consensus went against him

• Note: Please see Wikiquote:Administrators'_noticeboard#Canvassing_violations_by_Kalki. After 3:1 consensus against Kalki, above, developed in this discussion, Kalki chose to violate canvassing in an attempt to influence the outcome of this page. Further discussion and responses from individuals he posted to will be questionable, after this point in time where there was a 3:1 consensus against Kalki's use of inappropriate images on quote pages. -- Cirt (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I made what I consider to have been a properly gracious and fair response to this complaint and accusation on the Admin noticeboard, and invite all who are concerned with the matter to read it to the extent it is to their convenience. BLESSINGS TO ALL. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 17:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I need to contact Mr. Assange

[original post redacted]

I'm afraid you have made a mistake. This project is not in any way affiliated with Mr. Assange. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice: Straw poll on Image use policy talkpage

Please see Wikiquote_talk:Image_use_policy#Proposed:_BD2412_suggested_criteria. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Claiming Contributions

I made several suggestions to Wikiquote:Quote of the day before I created an account. Is there any way I can claim those contributions? (See: contributions)

Bystander 17:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I notice that you did not assign numerical rankings for your suggestions. If you go back to do so, you can sign with something like this:

*X Suggested by ~~~~

where "X" is rank from 1 to 4. ~ Ningauble 20:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

* Thanks! Done! bystander 18:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki 1.19 rollout

MediaWiki 1.19 is scheduled to be rolled out at en.Wikiquote on Wednesday, February 15 (–16), 23:00–01:00 UTC. (MediaWiki_1.19/Roadmap) As usual, no disruption or breakage is expected. As usual, the unexpected may happen. If you encounter any difficulties, please report them so the bugmeisters can get to work before larger (i.e. "important") wikis are rolled out beginning the following week. More information about this upgrade can be found in the MediaWiki 1.19 deployment announcement on the Wikimedia blog. ~ Ningauble 21:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Exciting stuff, thanks for the notification ! -- Cirt (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

More eyes helpful at deletion discussion

There's some offsite inflow going on here, would appreciate more comments from additional Wikiquote users, at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Donkey punch. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Created new category, Freedom of speech

• Category:Freedom of speech

Created new category, for Freedom of speech. This is in conjunction with crosswiki sister project coordination at Commons:Category:Freedom of speech. Please feel free to help populate it, that'd be most appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It is a very good category to have. However, I do not support listing Category:People articles in Category:Themes categories because I strongly prefer to keep the "Fundamental" categories separated. I also have reservations about listing Category:Organizations articles in this type of theme category. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely. Listing a person in thematic category is problematic in part because there is no solid footing upon which to decide which persons should be included or excluded. Who belongs in a freedom of speech category? Anyone who has commented on the issue? Only those who have favored it? Every Supreme Court Justice and U.S. President of the past century has had some opportunity to address the issue. BD2412 T 18:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Compare with a category on Wikipedia, Category:Free speech activists. We should create that one here, in order to keep People separate from Themes. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Y Done, relevant People moved to Category:Free speech activists. -- Cirt (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and populated the new local category Category:Free speech activists, with people already in the exact same Wikipedia category, Category:Free speech activists. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Good. That makes more sense. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Now also at wikisource:Category:Free speech activists. -- Cirt (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"About" articles?

If there is someone who has lots of quotes both by them and about them, would it be sensible to create an "About XY" article to avoid unmanageable length?--Collingwood (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it is problematic because such pages are prone to NPOV issues and because narrow theme pages tend to accumulate less quoteworthy material. There may be some appropriate exceptions, but when "About" sections grow too unwieldy for the person article it is usually, as in this example full of remarks that are not particularly insightful or eloquent, due to a mistaken impression that notability of the speaker and/or the subject make any sort of comment quoteworthy. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Yes, I think this is a great idea by Collingwood (talk · contributions), it'd allow for much more flexibility, and will serve as a great resource to our readers and others doing research on the topics involved. Further, the page Madonna (entertainer)#Quotations about Madonna has lots of interesting and meaningful quotes about Madonna. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• FAR More emphatically than Ningauble, I must state that I believe this is a very HORRIBLE idea, and oppose it vigorously. There is NO NEED for creating such articles for MOST people, and on the VERY FEW where it might have some utility I perceive very little usefulness to it, and generally poor precedent, which would encourage people to divide out such articles in abundance, for EXTREMELY trivial reasons with the justification it has been done with others. I also do not approve of section headings labeled "About Whoever" which became inadvertently the suggested norm on some advisory page without much attention from most of us here without any extensive debate, and prefer to retain the much more clear and more widely used "Quotes about Whoever" as titles for such sections, making it clear to new people that it is NOT merely a place to create essays about people. I see NO clear reason for the "About Lewis Carroll‎‎" page just created, and truly loathe the casual naming convention being promoted by such a title. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 21:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC) + tweak
• Comment: I completely agree with Kalki on this matter (and with Ningauble's earlier objection). I see no need for this separation and agree with the others that is is problematic at best and liable to lead to many more unneeded pages. ~ UDScott (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: I accept the general thrust. However, what should be done with About Lewis Carroll‎‎? If it is merged into the Lewis Carroll page, the latter will soon become very unwieldy.--Collingwood (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

While I do believe (as I stated above) that separating out 'About' quotes is not the way to go, we have long split out pages for individual works by an author if there are enough quotes to do so. I would expect this is a better route to pursue for keeping pages down in size. ~ UDScott (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Collingwood (talk · contributions), it's useful to have separate About pages, when main quote pages get too big. :) -- Cirt (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Despite Cirt's apparent notion that a profusion of such pages is something to be welcomed, I believe most disagree, and believe it should be merged back into the general Lewis Carroll page as soon as possible— with a redirect made of the recent creation to preserve links of archived discussions with minimal fuss. I welcome any additions you can make, as you have added many significant statements in your work here, and I see no reason to consider the volume of quotes will become unwieldly, as for many years there have been FAR more quotes "About" many other people on various other pages, and prior to this there has been little or no call for any of them to be seperated out. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 17:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

The most significant prior example of an article devoted to quotes about a person, where there was reason to expect it to become a very large page, may have been Non-Islamic views of Muhammad. It did not turn out well. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I see no reason not to have a separate "about" page if there are a very large number of quotes about a subject, and at the same time a very large number of quotes by the subject, so that the page would be very long. I have been poking about for examples, and have not found one here that I think would require such treatment. BD2412 T 20:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I will import a reason to object to such practices as I specified originally at the Talk:About Lewis Carroll page, before there had been a great deal of discussion here:

I believe that setting up such articles sets a very bad precedent which would permit such pages to proliferate for extremely trivial reasons by people seeking to divide out much controversy from articles on people, and letting ONLY the person's OWN views of themselves and the world be presented on their own pages. Adolf Hitler comes to mind, where his page would become little more than a Nazi propaganda peice if one were to divide out all the quotes about him from his page. Similar effects would abound with OTHER dictators of all sorts. And this is but ONE of the reasons I believe such articles are a VERY BAD idea.

Setting up the precedent for such pages would clearly be an invitation for the most biased and bigoted editors to set apart pages of such views as they wish to either promote or obscure in various ways, and to provide an imbalance of links to those pages indicating such views as they favor, and a total bypassing of many pages with declarations in opposition to such views. I am personally well acquainted with such practices already, on the parts of some, in various situations. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 20:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

• Comment I have no wish to go against community sentiment. With Lewis Carroll, it would be easy to shorten the article by moving many of the quotes by him to separate articles, e.g. "The Hunting of the Snark" or "Letters of Lewis Carroll". The only downside is that most of the article would then be quotes about him rather than by him. If people are happy with this, I shall implement it.--Collingwood (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• I really believe that considering that the Lewis Carroll‎‎ page to in any way "require" further break down at this point illustrates the type of overly zealous rule by innately inadequate definitions and presumptions that things can be directed in entirely formulated ways, based on either common or peculiar assumptions as can arise, to be just the sort of thing Carroll was to some extent satirizing at times. One could arguably divide out the Snark at this point — letting it "softly and suddenly vanish away", and perhaps eventually the Sylvie and Bruno titles — but I perceive no NEED to do either thing at this point — and in any event the letters at this point are not even close to being such a size as would make this appropriate — let alone the small number of quotes "about" Carroll which I continue to insist would set a DEPLORABLY BAD precedent that would permit and even promote all manner of MISUSE for various biased and bigoted purposes. I really believe these should be rapidly restored to the STANDARD arrangement on the page, and this odd experimentally separated page turned into a redirect ASAP, and if there are no further objections, might do this within the next day, if no one else does so before me. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 14:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

• I again agree completely with Kalki on this issue - I see no need to either have a separate About page or to further separate out any of Carroll's works at this point. The page is not nearly so big as to be a problem. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• I do not see a need to divide out more of his works at this time. A combined page with "about" quotes would not be unduly large unless, and until, a great amount of new material is added. Our really long pages are a different order of magnitude. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, you're on!--Collingwood (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson quotes

In the section for Jefferson quotes, I find that there are at least two entries that are not in proper order. The words at the bottom of the Declaration of Independence about "divine providence" were finally added by the committee of the whole, the only writing that Jefferson did to the DOI was the rough draft and the line is not in it. It was added by someone else. Next, the line about "our lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" were copied from the Meckenburgh resolutions that were printed about a year earlier in their Declaration of Independence. The county of Meckenburgh actually composed their own Declaration of Independence in 1775 and no doubt Jefferson saw this in order to repeat the quote the same way. In my ignorance I have to admit that the line about "our lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" could have actually come from the reading of classical history, I just don't know, but I do know that Jefferson did not coin these words, they alread existed. These two citations that I am pointing out can be found in the Jefferson quotes section placed under a picture of the "Signing of the Declaration of Independence" and frankly speaking, only a true scholar could notice this error. It would be very easy to research my claims, but if there is a problem, please let me know. If there are any comments or discussion regarding these points of interest, please let me know.