Wikiquote:Village pump archive 40


Several years ago, I imported the contents of the 1919 Bartlett's Quotations (the last public domain version of this work) into Wikiquote project space. Since then, Bartlett's selections from over 600 authors have been incorporated into our pages. However, this work remains to be done for the last 39 authors on the Wikiquote:Bartlett's 1919 Index page. The quotes from these authors are contained in ten pages in project space linked at the top of the index page. Please help work through these quotes, deleting those that we already have and fully sourcing and adding those that are still missing from our collection. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The number of quotes remaining in most sections is relatively small, so I am going to go ahead and copy these into the existing pages under a "Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, 10th ed. (1919)" header. Cheers! BD2412 T 13:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just go ahead, it seems you are in the best position to finish this job as you planned. -- Mdd (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you want help, BD? Your 7-years project is almost completed now! (And Hercules must perform his labors alone.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It only appears to be almost completed. I have moved many of the remaining quotes by section the pages of the individual authors. See, e.g., Henry Wadsworth Longfellow#Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, 10th ed. (1919). Although citation to Bartlett's is sufficient to include these quotes on the pages of the authors, it would be preferable for the quotes to be fully cited to the original work, leaving no need to cite Bartlett's at all. BD2412 T 15:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are Plutarch and Terence the only two missing? Where are the other quotes? ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are still several articles that have a Bartlett's section needing original source citations, or more complete ones. Note that in some cases Mr. Bartlett was wrong, so they need to be verified. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to make a template to call the Bartlett's 1919 section header, which will also provide a category containing all pages with such sections. BD2412 T 19:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Categorization is a good use of templatizing, but remember that section headings within templates cause the "[edit]" link to go the template rather than the page in which it appears. (People have been asking the developers to provide an option to control this for years...) ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what I have in mind is a template that calls the small-text indented line below the section heading. BD2412 T 20:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Language Selector will be enabled on 2013-07-09 edit

Two Quote limit per episode? edit

I was going through some old edits on the M*A*S*H page after noticing the number of quotes from the pilot episode, because I remembered someone saying there was a two quote limit "per WQ rules". I just took a quick look through the guidelines and found nothing so I thought I'd better throw this to the Village Pump for a check. TLPG (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline in question is Wikiquote:Limits on quotations. EVula // talk // // 06:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, that is merely a proposed policy. Since it has gone for years without garnering the support of the community, we might need to archive it and start again from scratch. BD2412 T 14:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks edit

Thanks to all who supported my RfA and to Evula for promoting me. i hope to prove worthy of your faith in me.--Abramsky (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Wikiquote! edit

I know Wikiquote is not a community social networking service, but someone must note that Eng Wikiquote is now ten years old! Thousands of Wiki sites has been created since Eng Wikiquote's inception, still Wikiquote stands out as the most successful yet ambititious Wiki ever seen. This we have to thank for a united community and ambitious contributors. I take this opportunity to especially praise Ningauble and BD2412 on their work on tracing quote origins respective adding quotations for the Theme pages. Let us hope and strive for that in ten years Wikiquote will not be a quotation page but the quotation page, having tentacles spreading everywhere like the barracuda conglomerations Google and Facebook. --Spannerjam (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot all about the anniversary of "" created 10 July 2003. Time flies when you are having fun. I have only been here for the last five years, but will likely be around for the next ten. We owe a debt of gratitude to many people who did a lot of heavy lifting in the early days but may have moved on to other things since.

I would like to especially thank the "Defenders of the Wiki" who resisted efforts to shut the project down when it was only five years old, and all those who worked on reforming Wikiquote's practices to address problems raised there. Wikiquote has become the quotation site that cites its sources as a result! The work goes on, and some of the policy initiatives begun in response to that incident have yet to be finalized.... ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pywikipedia is migrating to git edit

Hello, Sorry for English but It's very important for bot operators so I hope someone translates this. Pywikipedia is migrating to Git so after July 26, SVN checkouts won't be updated If you're using Pywikipedia you have to switch to git, otherwise you will use out-dated framework and your bot might not work properly. There is a manual for doing that and a blog post explaining about this change in non-technical language. If you have question feel free to ask in mw:Manual talk:Pywikipediabot/Gerrit, mailing list, or in the IRC channel. Best Amir (via Global message delivery). 13:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HTTPS for users with an account edit

Greetings. Starting on August 21 (tomorrow), all users with an account will be using HTTPS to access Wikimedia sites. HTTPS brings better security and improves your privacy. More information is available at m:HTTPS.

If HTTPS causes problems for you, tell us on bugzilla, on IRC (in the #wikimedia-operations channel) or on meta. If you can't use the other methods, you can also send an e-mail to

Greg Grossmeier (via the Global message delivery system). 18:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC) (wrong page? You can fix it.)[reply]

As I just updated on the meta page, we've delayed this rollout by one week. The change will now take place on August 28 at 1pm Pacific Time. Please take a look at gadgets or bots you maintain to make sure they'll continue to work; more information at meta. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguating biographical pages to match Wikipedia edit

I was editing John Green (author), when I noticed that there were no other pages named John Green, yet the page was disambiguated. I brought it up on the talk page (You can see the discussion at Talk:John Green (author)#Article name). User:BD2412 defended the naming of the article, but encouraged me to raise the issue here.

The main reason that it is my opinion that the article should be located at John Green is that it makes the URL smaller. The URL also doesn't have any weird parenthesis in it. This makes it easier for a reader to directly type in the URL to get to the page, and for an external website (or, in fact, other Wikiquote articles) to link to the article. In addition, keeping the name non-disambiguated keeps it from having to be piped when linking from another article, and it doesn't imply that we have other articles for people named John Green.

The other argument states that it is Wikiquote practice to correspond biographical articles to what they are on Wikipedia. This kept linking cross-wiki (most notably using {{Wikipedia}}) simple. However, this provlem is usually fixed by piping {{Wikipedia}}.

What are everyone else's opinions on this? Nick1372 (talk) 04:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Directly typing in the url will take a user to this page, by redirect. I concede that there is some oddness to a title redirecting to a disambiguated title when it is our only entry, but I continue to prefer that we match Wikipedia titles. BD2412 T 11:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I favor moving John Green (author) to John Green. The links should match Wikipedia (e.g., [[w:John Green (author)|John Green]]), but the titles should match Wikiquote contents. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per the m:Global bans global policy, you are informed of the discussion above. Please comment there and feel free to appropriately distribute more widely in prominent community venues in order to «Inform the community on all wikis where the user has edited». Nemo 10:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please do this request. PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are tweets of notable person Quotes? edit

Politicians, Sports person and Celebrities express their views more via Twitter and Facebook nowadays. With the recent speeches or views given as tweets, are tweets eligible to have their place in the Wikiquote page of the concerned person? Do Tweets about particular incident stand as quotes? Many newspapers resort to quote the tweets of politicians and celebrities related to event that they are covering. So, Shall we consider important tweets to be quote of such person and enter it here in Wikiquote? - Vatsan34 (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A quote is a quote, regardless of the medium. As long as the tweet is actually something quote-worthy (a Kardashian posting what they had for breakfast wouldn't be, for example), I'd say it would be fine. EVula // talk // // 19:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It should be fine, as long as it's certain that the actual person tweeted it. Does Twitter verify accounts of famous people like Facebook does? Nick1372 (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Twitter does, but it has also been noted that many famous people have others write and send tweets for them. This has cropped up on a number of occasions when a famous politician or public figure has tweeted something untoward, and then disavowed the tweet with the claim that it was a low-level underling who wrote and sent it under the famous person's name. BD2412 T 15:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the measure of whether it is an "important tweet" lies in whether and how widely it is quoted by noteworthy sources, and that it is those sources which should be cited to show it is quoteworthy. I commented about this at some length elsewhere. Twitter has its own "re-tweet" function, with which we do not need to compete. (As for people who employ ghostwriters, or claim they did, the problem is not unique to Twitter. There are a number of dead-tree books quoted on Wikiquote that were ghostwrittten.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

who does the music for the last season? edit

we love the back ground music and can't find out who it is can you help?

—This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) .

Hello. You are on the wrong site for that information. Please try Wikipedia's Entertainment Reference Desk. Thank you. Nick1372 (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

maybe another person for the frontpage? edit

Hi! Firstly: Thank you all. On my screen's rendering, there's space for another person to be linked from the mainpage. I haven't found any policy on that (and who needs red-tape!), so if others also find there's space, perhaps we could have another woman in the list. Just off the top of my head, Eleanor Roosevelt would be one worthy nomination, though I don't claim much of a perspective and am not from the female user audience. I don't mean to re/open any un-fun contention, so feel free to ignore this suggestion. The first issue is simply whether there's enough space generally for another. Cheers anyway, best wishes and thank you again :) —This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) .

 Y Done - a fine suggestion that I've now implemented. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Fools Create. Wise Men Imitate." by Dennis Fitzgerald edit

The quotation, "Fools Create. Wise Men Imitate" was first said by Dennis Fitzgerald about 1968 and succinctly describes the single most successful method of marketing, sales, writing, screen play, gamble, etc., etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 03:40, 21 September 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]


Hello community,
this is to inform you about the (re)start of a discussion in which you might be interested. In short, myself and a few other Wikimedia editors decided to oppose the registration of the community logo as a trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation.

The history of the logo, the intents behind our action and our hopes for the future are described in detail on this page; to keep the discussion in one place, please leave your comments the talk page. (And if you speak a language other than English, perhaps you can translate the page and bring it to the attention of your local Wikimedia community?) I’m looking forward to hearing from you! odder (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC) P.s.: You can check whether the WMF protects the logo of your project by seeing if it's listed as "registered trademark" on wmf:Wikimedia trademarks.[reply]

Notwithstanding the inclusion of a different signature, the preceding comments were added by Nemo bis (talkcontribs), 10:20, 21 September 2013‎

Talk:Alan Rusbridger edit

Additional opinions are invited on a question of quotability at Talk:Alan Rusbridger, where two contributors have reached an impasse. Thank you. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've entered my opinion on that page. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure anyone here is qualified to translate from English to Quotish, but if somebody wants to give it a try... ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misattributed? edit

Misattribution of quotes seems to me to be a major activity on the web.

If I find on the web a dubious sounding quote attributed to (famous person A), I may look it up in Wikiquote and find it listed as "misattributed to (famous person A), actually from (lesser known author B)". Since it was suspicion that led me to look it up in Wikiquote, I am inclined to believe that it really was misattributed.

But how does one know this for sure? Perhaps author B actually extracted the quote from the writings of famous person A.

In Wikiquote, what degree of certainty is supposed to be behind the labelling of a quote as either attributed or misattributed?

Thanks, WhenceThis Quote? (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the entry is well cited then it should be quite evident which author has priority. If it is not well cited, with publication dates or with reference to reliable independent analysis, then it needs to be fixed. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. For example, "There is only one way to avoid criticism: do nothing, say nothing and be nothing." is listed in the Aristotle article as misattributed to Aristotle but actually from Elbert Hubbard, early 20th century. Is the possibility that the thought was translated from something Aristotle wrote discounted because there is a (relatively) recent source? WhenceThis Quote? (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not because there is a recent source, but because there are only recent sources:  I find no print attributions of anything like this to Aristotle prior to the 21st century. For someone who has been studied so widely and so long, un-cited modern attributions have no credibility. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Very clear. WhenceThis Quote? (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notifications inform you of new activity that affects you -- and let you take quick action.

(This message is in English, please translate as needed)


Notifications will inform users about new activity that affects them on this wiki in a unified way: for example, this new tool will let you know when you have new talk page messages, edit reverts, mentions or links -- and is designed to augment (rather than replace) the watchlist. The Wikimedia Foundation's editor engagement team developed this tool (code-named 'Echo') earlier this year, to help users contribute more productively to MediaWiki projects.

We're now getting ready to bring Notifications to almost all other Wikimedia sites, and are aiming for a 22 October deployment, as outlined in this release plan. It is important that notifications is translated for all of the languages we serve.

There are three major points of translation needed to be either done or checked:

Please let us know if you have any questions, suggestions or comments about this new tool. For more information, visit this project hub and this help page. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(via the Global message delivery system) (wrong page? You can fix it.)
I am not sure anyone here is qualified to translate from English to Quotish, but if somebody wants to give it a try.... Regarding "localize it to this Wikipedia", it may be noted that this is not a Wikipedia, this is a Wikiquote. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good thing to have, though. I have found it very useful on Wikipedia. BD2412 T 17:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a good thing, especially for the newcomers it is primarily intended to target.

My only quibbles with the implementation, and they are minor ones, are (1) If you don't want duplicate echoes via email, the option to turn them off is not on the main User Preferences tab under "Email options", the logical place to indicate you don't want auto-generated emails, but is on a less obvious subsidiary tab; and (2) It adds still more client-side scripting straws to the camel's back for users with older browsers or limited bandwidth. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speak up about the trademark registration of the Community logo. edit

Add All Quotes from Episode edit

Hello, the name is Blurred Lines, and I would like to ask if there's any chance that I could put in all of the quotes from an episode instead of few ones? --Blurred Lines (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Blurred Lines, and welcome to Wikiquote! Unfortunately, you can not add all of the quotes from an episode. That would be a copyright violation. Please read Wikiquote:Limits on quotations for more information on the subject. Nick1372 (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Further reading" sections edit

A question has arisen about including "Further reading" sections in Wikiquote articles.

Recent developments

User Mdd recently identified 33 articles containing "Further reading" sections, and removed those sections with the edit summary

"Removed further reading section - this is not Wikipedia".[1]

The majority of the 33 articles were created or principally authored by only two contributors: Cirt (20 articles) and Inesculent (5 articles). In discussion at Mdd's talk page, the removal was questioned by Cirt and endorsed by myself, Ningauble. Subsequently, Cirt has partially reverted about half of these removals and created an additional article with a "Further reading" section.

At present there are a total of 17 articles (to the best of my knowledge) with "Further reading" sections, all of which were added by a single contributor. These articles are:


In addition to discussion on Mdd's talk page, Cirt has noted re-additions on the talk pages of affected articles, soliciting compromise. There have been replies to four of these posts (that I am aware of) at Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism, Talk:Donkey Punch (novel), Talk:Ma Anand Sheela, and Talk:OT VIII.

I think it would be better to consider the question, whether this type of content is appropriate for Wikiquote, in a centralized discussion here, rather than multiple, scattered venues and duplicative discussions.

Does the community support or oppose including these "Further reading" sections, in particular (subject to quantitative or qualitative compromise) or in general (as a difference in kind)? ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise between being a jackrabbit and being an antelope?
  • I agree with the observation by Robin Lionheart that this is a question of the type of content, not the quantity thereof.[2][3] I am not quite sure what it means to compromise between being an encyclopedia and being a compendium of quotations, rather than being one thing or the other. Like the Jackalope, this seems like a mythical chimera, not a plausible reality.

    Several of these sections, and the articles in which they appear, give the appearance, intentionally or inadvertently, of using Wikiquote as a coatrack to hang content that one user is banned from posting at Wikipedia. Regardless of the propriety or impropriety of this appearance, it illustrates a broader problem:

    I have remarked many times about articles that seem to be essays about a topic, or collections of bibliographic and research factoids, or even exposition of a point of view, that are constructed from quotations with little or no regard for quotability. This misconstrues the object of a compendium of quotations; but subjective considerations can make the phenomenon difficult to manage. The problem of using Wikiquote for purposes other than the art of quotation is greatly exacerbated by the addition of further information that is not even ostensibly related to quotation, which, whatever the topic of an article may be, is the true subject of Wikiquote.

    I oppose including these "Further reading" sections, in particular and in general, because, as Mdd wrote, "this is not Wikipedia"; but further, though the fictive trophy pictured above might be a fine place to hang one's coat, this is not a jackalope. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I oppose including such sections (as I noted on a few of the Talk pages cited above). I agree with the arguments set forth here by Ningauble - I do not find that such links have a place here at WQ. I feel that adding such links is designed more to push a particular POV than to provide opportunity for additional quotes. If there are truly additional quoteworthy quotes available at the linked sites, they may certainly be quoted - but such links are much better served at an encyclopedic site than at ours. However, the feeling I get is that this is just a backdoor way of presenting additional essays or articles that on their own do not contain anything worth quoting. In fact, I feel that the addition of such sections continues a growing problem at this site in general - the inclusion of "quotes" on a topic regardless of their memorableness, instead existing as a dry recitation of facts on a given topic. To me, this is not what WQ is about - it should instead be a collection of memorable quotes from noteworthy people or works. I believe that having such additional links further waters down the product. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose inclusion of "Further reading" sections. These are appropriate for Wikipedia, a general purpose encyclopedia, not for Wikiquote, a tightly focused compendium of quotes. I also completely endorse UDScott's concerns about straying too far afield from the purpose of Wikiquote, which is to provide memorable quotes from noteworthy sources. BD2412 T 19:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose these sections as they are used here. We're a quote compendium. No one should be coming to us looking for information about topics, let alone pointers to other sites with information about those topics. Our links to sister sites are enough for a reader interested in a topic. Keep all other external links to quotes only. Nick1372 (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I clearly see the will of the community as expressed above is against the Further reading section on pages on Wikiquote. I will go about removing them voluntarily from the above pages, myself. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update on "Further reading" sects edit

  1. I did a search of "Further reading" on any remaining pages on Wikiquote.
  2. I removed those sects, with a note to the community consensus at Wikiquote:Village Pump.
  3. I then made a note of this on the talk pages of those respective entries.
  4. Hopefully this is satisfactory.

Have a great day, -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Cirt. :) Nick1372 (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To all: Should we add the result of this discussion to WQ:NOT to prevent this from happening again? Or is there another relevant policy? Nick1372 (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! That sounds like a fine idea to me, no objections, -- Cirt (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then I'd like to propose that the following text be added to Wikiquote:What Wikiquote is not#Wikiquote is not an encyclopedia:

Do not add "Further reading" sections to Wikiquote articles. Literature and articles about a subject do not need to be listed in Wikiquote, as it does not have encyclopedic content.

What does everyone think? Nick1372 (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that such sections may instead be added to the Wikipedia article for the topic. BD2412 T 03:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with both Nick1372 (talk · contributions) and BD2412 (talk · contributions), above. The proposed wording sounds appropriate. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Y Done, I've added the above wording by User:Nick1372, with the modifications from User:BD2412, to Wikiquote:What Wikiquote is not, please see DIFF. Feel free to tweak the wording further. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Revising policy at WQ:NOT#Wikiquote is not an encyclopedia in light of this discussion is a good idea. I was going to suggest some different wording for this, and for the existing sentence about introductions.
I.e., I was going to solicit feedback about rewriting the paragraph along these lines:
"Wikiquote is not the same as its sister project, Wikipedia. A short introduction is used to identify an article's subject and, if needed, indicate why it is notable. Longer expositions and suggestions for further reading about the subject may be added to a corresponding Wikipedia article, but do not belong in Wikiquote."
However, since the wording has already been finalized, it appears that I am just too slow (or too easily distracted by things like sleeping and eating) to participate in the fast pace at which changes to major policy pages are deliberated and executed, in less than a day. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read my last sentence in my above post. I wrote: "Feel free to tweak the wording further." I would be most happy if anyone wished to modify my changes. :) Have a great day, -- Cirt (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and added the helpful suggestions above by User:Ningauble to the page WQ:NOT#Wikiquote is not an encyclopedia, please see DIFF. Please anyone feel free to change or modify that page as you like. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think that's the way to deliberate substantive changes to a core policy page, and the {{policy}} banner at the top of the page says "Please do not make significant changes to this page without prior discussion." Also, this is not a page that anyone can change as they like, because someone has semi-protected it.[4]

The wording above was expressly offered to solicit feedback and, though it is gratifying that you seem to approve of my offering, there has not been much comment yet. Also, though I may not have entirely clear, I had intended that the community consider something like my proposal for use instead of, rather than in addition to (as already implemented[5]) language suggested by Nick1372. A little deliberation might have remedied my lack of clarity.

I really do not think that a core policy page should be treated like a sandbox for trying out ideas, and I really do not understand this rush to implement whatever has been recently suggested for discussion. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no harm done. :) Please feel free to modify the page as you see fit, per the emerging community consensus from this above discussion. Have a great day, -- Cirt (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the page, including both Ninguable's suggestion and my suggestion have cluttered it up a bit. I say we should remove my own suggestion, as Ninguable's is satisfactory. Is everyone good with that? Nick1372 (talk) 23:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea.  Y Done. Looks a better now. Good wording by Ningauble, above. Please anyone do feel free to modify any of the changes I've made there. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The revision seems sensible to me. While I doubt anyone will object, do slow down and give people a chance to weigh in, Cirt. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, will do. :) Thank you for your input, -- Cirt (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images make mobile site UNREADABLE edit

I was surprised to see that there is no guideline in the FAQ about image placement, but reviewing the previous pages here makes it clear that there is an obvious heated debate with regards to the subject of images.

Well, here is some food for thought - unlike on the main site, where the images are merely annoying, on the mobile version of wikiquote the image spam makes the pages completely unreadable. This is a serious problem, and can be addressed in only two ways:

1) remove the vast majority of the (mostly irrelevant) images from wikiquote

2) provide some mechanism for the mobile page whereby it defaults to an image-free format.

Quite apart from the issue of readability, there is the discourtesy of hogging the limited mobile phone bandwidth of someone who unsuspectingly things they are heading to a primarily textually based website.

Jmackaerospace (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry, I had not been able to find the WQ:Image use policy due to the afformentioned mobile device... it really should be part of the FAQs however. Jmackaerospace (talk) 04:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would have to strongly agree with all of the comments by Jmackaerospace (talk · contributions), above, regarding over-usage of images on this site. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, I kind of agree; I just looked at the mobile version of Friedrich Nietzsche on my iPhone, and those images are definitely just in the way. Could we perhaps create a decorative image template that would allow for their use on the regular site, but prevents them from being displayed on the mobile site? I don't want to get rid of every image ever, but having a bunch of decorative images getting in the way of the actual content of the site isn't particularly helpful. EVula // talk // // 19:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with EVula (talk · contributions) however I think it's best to just have one policy and apply it uniformly, and get rid of over-usage of images on pages to the detriment of our readers. -- Cirt (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Especially annoying in the mobile version is, that there are first five images you have to pass before the quotes starts. It seems a simple solution (to begin with) can be to abandon that praxis to put more than one picture on top of an article. -- Mdd (talk) 20:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree with this comment by Mdd (talk · contributions). I imagine most readers would simply close the window and be discouraged by Wikiquote if they keep scrolling only to find images, and no quotes, on and on and on and on. -- Cirt (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record: In the mobile version of George Orwell you have first get 27 image. And in mobile version of Love you need to pass 21 image before you can read the B section. -- Mdd (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although a large amount of images in the lead is certainly annoying, I do want to point out that it's definitely not a problem for readers who just want images turned off (including those with limited bandwidth). It's incredibly easy to just stop showing images altogether on these readers' devices. The reader just needs to go to Special:MobileOptions (shown as "Settings" in the collapsible menu on the left) and switch the bright blue button to "Off". It is still an issue, though, for people who can/want to see images, but are spammed by 62 of them before the actual article starts. Mdd's proposition to space the images out through the article is great, and as someone who uses the mobile site every day, I support it 100%. Nick1372 (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mdd (talk · contributions), as well. Certainly one image in the lede is plenty, and then maybe no more than five (5) per article. -- Cirt (talk) 05:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we could do with cutting the number of images in Wikiquote articles, but surely EVula's suggestion's the best short term one ? It would be pretty quick to write the correct template and insert it everywhere using AWB or a bot. Aphorist (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Aphorist, can you write such a template? Or do you known anybody who can? -- Mdd (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I could, but I'm extremely busy with real life work at the moment. If it's going to have multiple transclusions on virtually every page of the wiki we're going to have to think about the lightest way to implement it. It would probably be easier to change our local media wiki mobile extension to have noimages as the default setting. Aphorist (talk) 07:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Does size matter? For example, would a page with a dozen small images (in terms of kb, not px) load faster than a page with three enormous images? BD2412 T 22:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

#Image policy again, (not) again edit

Wikiquote's images are a deep embarrassment to the project, and I know (from private conversations) that they drive away some editors who don't want to waste their time on a project that (on many pages) looks like a kindergarten art project. This is just one more reason to enforce a sensible policy on images. - Macspaunday (talk) 12:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This subject has been discussed at length at #Image policy again. Let us please stick to the problem at hand that presumably "Images make mobile site UNREADABLE". -- Mdd (talk) 12:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once again I strongly agree with Macspaunday (talk · contributions) that pages shouldn't have numerous images on them, and could be limited to five (5) images maximum. -- Cirt (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree that this sub-thread is off topic at all. The opening post of the main thread posited "remove the vast majority of the (mostly irrelevant) images" as one of two possible alternatives for solving the problem. Calling for enforcement of the existing WQ:IMAGE policy is perfectly germane to this discussion because doing so would make most of the problem disappear.

That previous discussion opened with the question "Is there any hope that the excellent image use policy might be followed...?" That discussion showed a clear consensus (by user count, not word count) in support of the policy. Our chief imagist explicitly acknowledged the consensus, but has continued to revert image removal anyway. Therefore, the answer to the question appears to be that no, there is no chance the policy will be followed unless it is enforced. ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above comment by Ningauble (talk · contributions), that if the community consensus is strong about less images on pages, then enforcement is needed for those that willfully go against this! -- Cirt (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is this response in the wrong place? It seems to address the conversation above, rather than addressing my question. BD2412 T 16:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this was a bit scrambled, so I am moving Cirt's reply under my post, to which it refers. Your question (now below) might fit better in the main thread above, about the impact of images on mobile devices in general, rather than this sub-thread about enforcing the image policy in particular to mitigate the impact. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I agree with a limitation on the raw number of images per page. In fact, I would propose that we have overall page size limitations, and try to split overly long theme pages into appropriate subtopics, although that is a separate matter. Five images per page seems like a good and reasonable limitation, absent some extraordinary circumstance. BD2412 T 17:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I do support the removal of extraneous images, I am not so sure that I support a hard limit on the number of images. It seems to me to be a bit harsh to establish a rule based on one method of consuming the site. I would rather focus on enforcing the existing policy (WQ:IMAGE). If it is better enforced, and images that do not meet the criteria established in the policy are removed, I doubt we will have so many overly crowded pages. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of a hard limit on the number of images. However, if all we do is limit the number of images on the entire page, we might still have a problem with people dumping all five pictures into the lead. Then it still makes the mobile site unreadable, as the reader will have to scroll through multiple images. Perhaps we can add an extension to that saying that there can only be one image in the lead? Nick1372 (talk) 18:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mediawiki Extension:NotForMobile / The solution... edit

Can we install this extension to WQ ? Then we can just put <nfm></nfm> tags around all images and problem's solved. Presumably sysops can edit LocalSettings.php ?Aphorist (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a very interesting option:
  • This test-edit confirms, that these <nfm></nfm> tags don't function yet, here on Wikiquote.
  • Now where should this be installed? The download instructions states:
Please download copy of the extension from our site and and place it in $IP/extensions/ExtensionName/ExtensionName.php. Note: $IP stands for the root directory of your MediaWiki installation, the same directory that holds LocalSettings.php.
However doesn't seem to exist....!? -- Mdd (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(It is in the root directory on the server, not the public domain. Local sysops cannot install extensions, only WMF System administrators.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Has this extension been installed on any other Wikimedia sites? Is it compatible with the Foundation's mw:Extension:MobileFrontend currently installed here? ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This extension has not been installed on ; ; , or at least that is what similar test-edits showed. As to the compatibility, can we ask any System administrators for advice? -- Mdd (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A little investigation reveals that Extension:MobileFrontend already provides a way to do this using CSS class="nomobile", so there is no need for the tortuous process of getting approval to install a new or (in this case) third-party extension on Wikimedia servers.

However, I don't want to endorse using this approach because forking our pages to display different content on different platforms could lead to a lot of problems. I think it would be far better to make all of Wikiquote's content suitable for everyone by, e.g., judicious use of an image policy as described in the"#Image policy again, (not) again" sub-thread above. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; an improved image policy would be better than just getting rid of the pictures altogether. I use the mobile site all the time, and the images can make the experience of using Wikiquote better, when they're used right. Please don't remove them. Nick1372 (talk) 18:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not too keen on the general "new age" style illustration of articles here, I'd rather fork our pages; if a different number of images is ideal on desktop rather than mobile browsing, we should seek to give both sets of users the best possible experience rather than a compromise. This wouldn't preclude seriously cutting back on the number of images in our articles, of course, and I think judicious use of an image policy would be an excellent idea. --Aphorist (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Auto spambot detection with User:Abuse filter edit

Please see Wikiquote:Administrators'_noticeboard#Auto_spambot_detection_with_User:Abuse_filter. -- Cirt (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question about sort order in "Attributed" sects edit

Okay, so I know that for people pages, we have:

  1. Quotes by the person = ordered chronologically.
  2. Quotes about the person = ordered alphabetically by author.

But what about quotes in an Attributed section?

  1. Should these be ordered by author of the secondary source to which they are cited?
  2. Or ordered chronologically by date of publication in those secondary sources, or what?

For now I think I'll order them by author of the secondary source to which they are cited.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that we should treat them the same as the other types of quotes on a people page - sort them chronologically. I doubt whether most users would know the author of a secondary source such that that would be the way they would look for a quote. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, I've been told that quotes on pages should be sorted by author alphabetically, and not chronologically. Also, not sure what the point is of sorting quotes in an Attributed sect chronologically? -- Cirt (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the confusion. People pages always have quotes by the person (whether sourced or merely attributed) sorted chronologically. The rationale for this sorting in the Attributed section is the same as for sourced quotes. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chronology of what? Publication of the secondary source with no known date of when the person said it? That doesn't seem as helpful to the reader as alphabetical by secondary source, does it? -- Cirt (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Granted it is not as clean as when you have a direct source, but I fail to see how sorting them by the second source provides any value at all. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, chronological order by date of publication of the secondary source then? -- Cirt (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think, as a general practice, we should always try to find the earliest attribution for such quotes, and then order them accordingly. In some cases, that is helpful for determining possible authenticity. For example, a purported Thomas Jefferson quote first attributed to Jefferson in the 1970s is somewhat less likely to actually be his than a quote first attributed to Jefferson in the 1790s. BD2412 T 21:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, will do, thanks! -- Cirt (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed nine (9) images, and bolding, from page - Comedy edit

I've gone ahead and removed nine (9) images, and bolding, from page, Comedy.

From prior discussions here at WQ:VP it's been established that community consensus does not support image usage in this manner and does not support this type of bolding.

Hopefully these changes will stay in the page as stable.


-- Cirt (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which prior discussions? Wikiquote needs more flavour in my opinion, and not less. --Spannerjam (talk) 09:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See above, not very far up actually, on this very page. It makes the pages cumbersome and difficult to load. It turns readers OFF from Wikiquote. -- Cirt (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or, actually such is the apparent OPINION of a very few editors who have persistently sought to characterize things thus, whenever, at most a few times a year, of the thousands of visitors a day to this site, someone makes a new comment of disapproval of some of the many images for various reasons, or the use of images at all. There are many issues which probably do need to be clarified here in coming weeks and months — but I find some of the recurring impulses to suppress the options of all on the part of a few a far more disturbing and detrimental habit. I myself must be attending to many other matters once again, and do no have time to make all the points which I would like to, but thought I would make at least a very brief comment on these matters before doing leaving. I hope to address the issues more extensively within the coming week. ~ Kalki·· 20:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC) + tweak[reply]
I have never been annoyed by the images on Wikiquote. On the whole I agree with the WQ:IMAGE policy. But that does not mean I don't think we should be careful with deletions. In this case, and other cases. At worst poorly formatted articles can serve as vivid examples for how Wikiquote not should be. Someone mentioned earlier that a bunch of pages are hard to read when using a mobile phone, because of images being in the way. But isn't it better to change the individual articles, and, if necessary, the Wikiquote website so that a person can read it from a cell phone as well instead of just removing a lot of images? --Spannerjam (talk) 06:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William James = removed eighteen (18) out of twenty-three (23) images, leaving five (5) total images on page edit

  • William James = removed eighteen (18) out of twenty-three (23) images, leaving five (5) total image on page

I think we can all agree that this page was overloaded with way waaaaaaaaaaaay too many images.

Let's try to avoid this sort of pattern in the future on Wikiquote pages.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reduced total to five (5) images at John Adams edit

Reduced total to five (5) images at John Adams diff, this has since been reverted.

See revert at diff.


Do we really need those extra twenty (20) images on the page John Adams??????

-- Cirt (talk) 01:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that it is necessary to make an individual report of each of these edits here. There's really no need to report anything unless someone objects. Cheers! BD2412 T 01:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, be that as it may, it appears someone has indeed objected, by reverting, you see? -- Cirt (talk) 01:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't necessarily disagree that many pages have too many images, I also believe that the user who reverted in this case has a point: yes there have been plenty of discussions, but there are no rules that set any limits on the number of images that may be used on a page. A wholesale campaign to begin stripping what you feel are an excessive amount of images seems a bit premature to me. As I stated in some of the mentioned discussions, I am all for enforcing our existing policy (WQ:IMAGE), where the use of images is governed by their relevance (and not merely based on a hard and fast acceptable number of images). If the ones you are stripping out do not fit with the policy, then great, I am all for their removal - but I do not get the sense that you are using the policy to guide your selection of images to delete. ~ UDScott (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. But does this particular page really need those extra twenty (20) images, balanced against the need for our readers to be able to load these pages without difficulty? -- Cirt (talk) 03:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't believe it does - but I also believe that if the policy were enforced, most of those quotes could be removed anyway. I'm not against removing images (if they violate the established policy). I am just against removing them for an arbitrary reason or to instill an artificial (and not official) hard limit. So I do not support automatically trimming images down to 5, unless such cuts were supported by the policy. ~ UDScott (talk) 04:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. But we are in agreement that overall there are too many images on that page. -- Cirt (talk) 17:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing Beta Features edit

(Apologies for writing in English. Please translate if necessary)

We would like to let you know about Beta Features, a new program from the Wikimedia Foundation that lets you try out new features before they are released for everyone.

Think of it as a digital laboratory where community members can preview upcoming software and give feedback to help improve them. This special preference page lets designers and engineers experiment with new features on a broad scale, but in a way that's not disruptive.

Beta Features is now ready for testing on It will also be released on Wikimedia Commons and MetaWiki this Thursday, 7 November. Based on test results, the plan is to release it on all wikis worldwide on 21 November, 2013.

Here are the first features you can test this week:

Would you like to try out Beta Features now? After you log in on, a small 'Beta' link will appear next to your 'Preferences'. Click on it to see features you can test, check the ones you want, then click 'Save'. Learn more on the Beta Features page.

After you've tested Beta Features, please let the developers know what you think on this discussion page -- or report any bugs here on Bugzilla. You're also welcome to join this IRC office hours chat on Friday, 8 November at 18:30 UTC.

Beta Features was developed by the Wikimedia Foundation's Design, Multimedia and VisualEditor teams. Along with other developers, they will be adding new features to this experimental program every few weeks. They are very grateful to all the community members who helped create this project — and look forward to many more productive collaborations in the future.

Enjoy, and don't forget to let developers know what you think! Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Distributed via Global message delivery (wrong page? Correct it here), 19:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The same lame joke I always make... edit

I will be taking a trip tomorrow, and will be unable to edit for a week. Please try to finish this project by the time I get back. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Call for comments on draft trademark policy edit

Wikipedia support for Kindle edit

Does Wikipedia provide e-books for Kindle type devices. Than you —This unsigned comment is by Otsu88 (talkcontribs) . 21:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to quotes from Wikipedia edit

I have a few questions I can't find answers to about linking from Wikipedia to Wikiquotes.

  1. A WQ article like w:Georgia O'Keeffe, for example, has a large section called "quotes," (which seems redundant, BTW,) which is about 3,500 words long. There are no keywords or topics to help a reader find anything specific. Is it assumed that when a reader comes to that page they will simply want to read the entire thing? Isn't there a way to make it more user friendly, like some of the quotations books out there that have keywords, or at least topics, included in the index?
  2. But w:Charles Darwin, on the other hand, has almost 14,000 words and does have a few subsections focused on some of his books. However, the WP article for him, Charles Darwin, only has a single Wikiquote link box at the very end. Wouldn't it be better to have a number of links within that article going directly to relevant WQ sections, thereby acting as a kind of citation or Notes section? For example, his main WP article has a section called "Voyage of the Beagle." Couldn't it include a direct link to his quotes page section, w:Charles_Darwin#The_Voyage_of_the_Beagle, almost like a hatnote?

Can anyone explain if that kind of linking is allowed and maybe point to some examples? Thanks. --Light show (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Light Show: It's Wikiquote custom not to organize quotes by topic. We organize quotes in chronological order. Authors, such as Charles Darwin, are the exception to this rule. Quotes from their books are given subsections, nothing else. That's the way we do it here.
Your idea about linking to Wikiquote sections from Wikipedia sections is not going to happen. Wikipedia just doesn't have external links (including to sister projects) in anywhere but the External links section. That's Wikipedia's rules, not ours. Nick1372 (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining. That brings up another question, about whether WQ can be used as a supporting second citation. For instance, if there was a 500-word sourced quote by Darwin in his WQ, can his WP article that quotes 10 of those words, have a linkable citation to the WQ section, along with the source book citation? A reader, instead of seeing a citation with just a page number, could also read the full quote and more in context in WQ. --Light show (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For a work in the public domain (as all of Darwin's are) it would actually probably be better to link to a Wikisource page of the book itself. BD2412 T 22:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Darwin was only mentioned as an example. It's a general question. --Light show (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. I don't think we're a reliable source. Nick1372 (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is another place you can have external links in an English Wikipedia article, and that's by using ref tags under certain circumstances. I'm not sure whether this would presuppose that Wikiquote was itself a reliable source. Provided the quote is properly sourced here, that might itself be enough to meet the English Wikipedia verifiability guidelines (but other language Wikipedias have their own policies and guidelines which don't necessarily match). I think it should, but I suspect we won't really know until the consensus or otherwise is somehow tested. Andrewa (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring style dispute edit

I have noticed that BD2412 (talk · contributions) once again is going on another massive rampage of stylistic impositions which I believe had last occurred to such a degree during one of the lulls in my own activity here, (back in May 2012). He had then declared these massive changes were to "enforce consistency in punctuation and spacing" which to my knowledge have NEVER been agreed to here. I was VERY busy with other matters in that period, and had not much time to do much here, but I had noticed it had occurred and objected to the "Sudden changing of Punctuation standards" on his talk page, as did Ninguable, who asserted "we have bigger problems than inconsistency in whether non-sentential bullet items use a full stop. (Personally, I don't use them. I was schooled not to, but I know there are other schools of thought.)" Our objections were then dismissed with a simple assertion that it bothered him to have them in such a style as we preferred, and that he could "shoot through a few hundred pages in a matter of hours and fix them all." And massive alterations continued so as to "fix" them in the style he prefers.

I do NOT believe that this is "fixing" them well so much as fixing them ill and AGAINST what for MANY years had been the preferred style evident here. As I believe I have probably asserted somewhere in the past, I believe that his notion of "consistent punctuation at the end of citation lines to clearly indicate to the reader that the line has ended" are no more necessary or appropriate to the interlinear info lines here than are periods at the end of title lines. Both habits of punctuation have been used, I believe primarily in the 19th century and earlier, in some publications, but I believe them archaic, needless, and personally find them aesthetically ugly, in most cases. I believe an attempt at developing a more extensive consensus should probably occur here over the next month or so, so that guidelines might perhaps be established by the end of this year, and invite others to comment on the matter and make any suggestions. ~ Kalki·· 00:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]

For the record, my remark quoted by Kalki above was not intended as an objection to the practice. I merely observed that it is no big deal and, parenthetically, that my own habits in this regard do not reflect any sort of universal standard. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AGAINST imposed periods at the end of interlinear citation lines edit

  1. Kalki·· 00:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC) I am adamantly AGAINST this, for reasons indicated in the above statements.[reply]
    • Here's the thing - if there is no rule, then there's no rule against my adding periods at the ends of citation lines. Show me the rule prohibiting this (or establish consensus for such a rule), and I'll abide by the rule. BD2412 T 01:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree there is no rule against your adding periods at the ends of citation lines, and would not seek to impose any drastic penalties on people doing this, especially in ignorance of the existing styles, but I continue to assert that the general preferences evident HAVE BEEN against these, and am now attempting to let a consensus develop and emerge on the matter, and would politely request that you cease to make such massive alterations on pages at this point, at least until one has had a chance to develop. ~ Kalki·· 01:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Before I started on my current "rampage" you removed all the end-of-citation punctuation that was already there at Circle (with an edit summary that did not even acknowledge this change). The only difference between your imposition and mine is that mine is easier to effect and maintain through a mass-editing tool. BD2412 T 01:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I believe I was the creator (as Accountability) and a primary contributor to that page and MANY OTHERS you have gone about altering to your particular preferences, and it HAD been in the style I prefer until it fell victim to your massive revisions of hundreds of pages back in May of last year, whille I was adding a new quote, I simply reverted it to the style it had prior to that imposition, which you are OBVIOUSLY AWARE is MUCH harder for others to reverse than it is for you to seek to IMPOSE. I certainly would not be proud to make such an admission, as you go about continuing with massive alterations, against the clearly stated preferences of the creators or primary contributors to many pages. ~ Kalki·· 02:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • To be clear, it is not a matter of pride. We have many pages that are internally inconsistent, with some citations on the page ending in punctuation and some not ending in punctuation. If we are going to make those pages internally consistent, it is simply much easier from a technical standpoint to add a period to the ends of lines that don't have them than it is to remove punctuation from the ends of lines that have them. In part, this is because the tools we use to add (or subtract) punctuation can't necessarily tell the difference between a lede, a quote, a citation, or some other piece of explanatory text. BD2412 T 16:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm against this. The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations doesn't use periods at the end of citations. I'm for consistency within each article, though. DanielTom (talk) 09:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FOR imposed periods at the end of interlinear citation lines edit

  1. To the extent that there is no rule, there should be one, and it should be for punctuation of citations. Here's why. Sometimes our citations are merely the identification of the source; sometimes they contain additional lines of information (particularly where we are describing dubiously attributed or misattributed quotes). Consider this:
    • Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
      • Barry Goldwater, speech accepting nomination for president, Republican national convention, San Francisco, California (July 16, 1964). Congressional Record, July 21, 1964, vol. 110, p. 16388. Senator Goldwater comments that the remark was not original with him: "In fact, I believe Cicero used it in some form at one time, and I have been able to trace it rather faintly back to some of the early Greeks so, while I was very proud of the fact that I made the speech, it's certainly not original".
    Now, obviously we need to have a period at the end of the second sentence in that citation because it is a complete sentence; and obviously we need a period at the end of the first sentence because it separates the two sentences. However, if this particular citation should end in a period, then for consistency's sake, every citation sentence in Extremism should end in a period. This also happens to be the style used in Respectfully Quoted, the public domain compilation from which this quote was imported, as seen on the Bartleby page for the same quote. BD2412 T 01:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it is obvious that punctuation IS needed in THIS instance, but disagree with the statement that "if this particular citation should end in a period, then for consistency's sake, every citation sentence in Extremism should end in a period." Emerson stated that "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" and MOST interlinear citations do NOT require such punctuation and thus to insist that ALL should have such, because a few can or must is something I consider a foolish imposition of unnecessary consistency. ~ Kalki·· 02:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that we should be putting periods at the end of citations. While it may look ugly in some cases, it looks more professional. I think looking more professional is more important than the aesthetics. Nick1372 (talk) 04:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe ugliness in presentation and unnecessary imposition of punctuation should be regarded in any way as a standard of "professionalism" and must pity those who would. As you yourself currently list your favorite quotes on your user page without such aberrations, I believe that you have been, up to this point, inclined to what I regard to be a generally more accepted aesthetic, and I strongly believe that imposition of one you concede to be an ugly one should NOT become the mandated norm here. ~ Kalki·· 04:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC) + tweak[reply]
    For the record, I don't think periods at the end of citations are "ugly" at all. They are merely punctuation, not more aesthetically significant than the commas in between author names and work titles. Everyone in this discussion has managed to use a lot of periods without any apparent revulsion. More to the point (pardon the pun) is that Wikiquote is a functional project. We collect and catalog sourced, quotable quotes for the benefit of those who need to find such quotes. Any aesthetic considerations that go beyond making it easy to find and read these materials is tertiary at best. BD2412 T 04:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no revulsion to proper punctuation, any more than I have a desire for mandating needless punctuation. I assert that putting a period at the end of the interlinear citations is PRIMARILY a stylistic concern, and doing so certainly does NOT make it any more "easy to find and read these materials", and I do consider such unnecessary punctuation marks generally ugly. ~ Kalki·· 05:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Kalki, you're right. In the past, I have been not including periods at the end of citations, because I didn't think it mattered. I was under the impression that I had to choose a side here, and if I had to, I would choose putting periods at the end of citations. However, as Ninguable has proven below, I don't have to pick a side, and I won't. It just doesn't matter that much to me. Nick1372 (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral about periods at the end of interlinear citation lines edit

  1. It is a small point. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, and welcome the humor with which you make yours, but the massive conversion of numerous pages to a style I generally find ugly is something which prompted me to open this discussion here. We shall see how things proceed… So it goes… ~ Kalki·· 14:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It doesn't matter that much. If we had to have a policy about it, can we do something similar to w:WP:ENGVAR, where we don't change it in articles that already have a style, but we make sure all the citations in each article match? Nick1372 (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Starting a new page edit

I tried the links at Help:Starting a new page (section Using input box), they seemed perfect for a newcomer from English Wikipedia, but the ones on persons and literary works both opened an edit box attempting to edit the main page (which I can't do, which is probably a good thing).

I note Wikiquote:Guide to layout is clearly labelled THIS IS A DRAFT WHICH IS NOT FINISHED YET, but Help:Starting a new page isn't so labelled, in fact it's quite prominently linked to from Wikiquote:Welcome, newcomers (section Writing).

What have I done wrong? Andrewa (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You got the Main page because the input box for the title of your new article, immediately above the button, was blank. I am sorry that was confusing: you need to enter a title first.

The best guide to layout is by example: check out a few of the "selected articles" listed on the Main page to see how things are generally laid out. Wikiquote:Templates has some outlines exemplifying the wiki-markup that the input boxes generate if a new page name is entered.

(This is obviously not the best default for missing input, but I have no idea how to fix the tool. Our general help pages are really not very good, and nobody has worked on improving them for years. I am afriad this sort of writing is just not something that our unpaid volunteers feel motivated to work on.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC) expanded 19:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least you're pretty good at answering questions by bumbling newbies, thank you! And that's probably more important. I'll have another go. Andrewa (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]