Wikiquote:Village pump archive 44


Lack of information for newer editors edit

Hello. This might not be the best place to put this, but I couldn't find anywhere better. (in the most neutral way possible) This wiki is a bit of a mess. The first result from Special:Random brought me to an apparent copyvio and a violation of the 250-word-per-quote policy. More than half of the see also section in Wikiquote:Welcome, newcomers was redlinked, and that page itself wasn't particularly helpful; not showing what work could be done nor a quick guide to Wikiquote's policies. There isn't even a policy/guideline/essay on being bold; making me slightly nervous to create those pages based on my (extremely narrow) understanding of Wikiquote policy, etc. So here are my questions:

  • Is there a "be bold" standard? Specifically, for good faith edits, can someone be blocked without warning?
  • What is there for a new editor to do? Is there lots of vandalism? Where do most of you get the content for Wikiquote articles? What's the best way to contribute content? To contribute in general?
  • In general, how are policies formed? How is consensus generally measured or found? I saw a Wikiquote:Requests for comments but I see it's not officially policy.
  • Anything else for a newbie to do?

Cheers, --L235 (talk) enwiki 02:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lixxx235: I don't want to discourage someone else from chiming in and I don't have a complete answer to all of your (excellent) questions but do you want to collaborate on drafting up pages to help newcomers? —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: Sure, I'd be glad to, once I start to understand Wikiquote's policies more myself. Cheers, --L235 (talk) enwiki 02:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: Hmm, looks like Template:Re didn't exist (until now). Cheers, --L235 (talk) enwiki 02:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your interest in becoming involved in our project here.
In somewhat of a coincidence, in the last day or so prior to your raising of the issue, I myself had been thinking that the time had definitely come when their was a significant need to do some work on such pages, and a few others within the next few months, and perhaps to make a start on methodically addressing such tasks within the next few weeks. Though I have many other things I must attend to, this request prompts me towards a greater urgency in attending to this matter, and I might try to have some ideas developed on how the pages and the accessibility to them might be significantly improved by the middle of next month, or if very lucky, even the early part of it, for the considerations of others. I have several other priorities to attend to for at least a few days, but might get started on it after this weekend. ~ Kalki·· 10:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]
@Kalki: Thanks for the note. If there's anything I can do to help, please let me know. I have a (if I may say so) a pretty deep understanding of en wikipedia's policies and guidelines as well as the majority of policy-like essays, so if you'd like that point of view, I could help with that. Also, what would you recommend. O help with on this wiki? Thanks, cheers, --L235 (talk) enwiki 17:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kalki: Would you mind terribly if someone (you) started a discussion here about whether to make (most of) the pages in Category:Policy drafts policy? So newbies like me can get an idea on what actually has consensus and what doesn't? Also, would you consider something similar to w:simple:Wikipedia:Follow English Wikipedia? (some guideline such as "if there is no policy or guideline for any given circumstance, then use English Wikipedia policies/guidelines along with common sense to determine how to proceed", for example.) Looking forward to hearing from you and anyone else who has suggestions. Cheers, --L235 (talk) enwiki 03:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I believe some people are well aware, I tend to prefer things to be as loose and free as possible, until there are clear abuses by those disrespectful of fundamental ethical principles which warrant more drastic measures of action or constraints.
I do believe there has to be far more succinct summaries of what general Wikimedia Foundation policies and principles are, as well as the options available here and on all the wikis it was created to support, as well as those NOT appropriate to Wikimedia or Wikiquote activities, and a few pages which provide more complete access to presentations on the introductory pages, as well as a general overhaul of MOST of them, and perhaps access to overviews of how things have developed or decayed here, in various ways, and could yet develop. This is certainly not going to be a very simple task.
I probably will attempt to provide some suggestions in the coming days and weeks, but I also expect I might eventually remain far more active elsewhere on the internet than I am likely to remain here, most of the time, until perhaps the early summer or later. Once again, I am just checking in briefly, and preparing to leave again, and have an abundance of other things to attend to in coming days. I am already beginning to chart out some ideas for myself, and the activities to focus upon, but might not make some decisions about a few major things of relevance here for at least a few days yet. ~ Kalki·· 16:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have had even less time to attend to this matter than I anticipated I would have, but it remains on my agenda, and I hope to have more time to deal with these issues VERY soon, though I continue to believe that generally satisfactory resolutions will probably take at least a couple of months to clearly attain, and I expect that there will be many forms of disagreements to sort through for some time, before that, and afterwards as well, as more voices on various matters become heard. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 14:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Images To Articles edit

I've recently started adding images to articles and I want to make sure I am doing everything correctly here. Please see here and my contributions to assure I haven't caused any harm to the wiki. Thanks. Eurodyne (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work. BD2412 T 16:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Eurodyne: Agreed: you're doing great work and sprucing up the site. Thanks a lot. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I welcome your interest in adding images, and believe you are doing fine. Thank you for the additions. ~ Kalki·· 20:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate the feedback. I'll continue the good work. Eurodyne (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will be completely unavailable for the next week. edit

Please have this project finished by the time I get back, and don't skimp on the quotes! Cheers! BD2412 T 05:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it is ALWAYS being finished in MANY ways. Being completed is quite another thing altogether. I do not think that is likely to happen in our lifetimes. Have a good vacation. ~ Kalki·· 10:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No "Template:Copied" or "Template:Split from" for Splitting? edit

Did some reading at Wikipedia Splitting where they recommend using the Copied Template in the Talk pages and adding "split content to [[article name]]" to the edit summary for documentation. I tried using the Copied Template at Ethics (book) Talk and a Split from Template at Baruch Spinoza Talk for a split similar to Pensées, but the templates aren't being recognized. They also do not show up in the wikiquote List of all templates.ELApro (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote doesn't have those templates (Template:Copied, Template:Split from, red links), that's why they aren't being recognized. We could copy them from Wikipedia, but it's a bit complicated because they depend on other templates that also don't work here. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another article that was split without a historical trail... God Is Not Great. The article's history might give the impression that it was created ex nihilo. There should be a formal procedure for splitting articles, such that the article's creation and history is clear and open. I added an "Article History" under its Discussion Page to indicate the page split history, along with a procedural request. ELApro (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've implemented some of the dependants. Now all I need is the ability to edit MediaWiki:Common.css (or someone to edit it on my behalf) to implement the rest of the coding needed. Mdann52 (talk) 09:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Copied is now functioning within a limited capacity (with respect to Wikipedia). See "Category:Pages using copied template" for a few example pages utilizing the template to date. I don't know about the rest of the community, but I am very happy with the way it is functioning as-is. Thanks Mdann52 ! ELApro (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Supernatural Page edit

Hi folks,

I've been editing the Supernatural page for a few months now, updating it when new episodes air and such. Anyway I was thinking about streamlining it so it falls in line with wikiquote's copyright guidelines, just wanted to check that no-one has any objections to this before I start.

I'll leave it till the 01/28/2015, if there's no objections by that time I'll start ripping it apart!
Putowtin (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to people doing what they believe is best for the article, whether trimming it down or adding to it, and I welcome your participation in working on a page you are interested in. I would like to point out I have always had objections to anyone implying or accepting the implication that there is an absolute need to conform to what a few people have thought would be proper "standard limits" on what can or should be added to ANY articles without some kind of "committee permission", which I believe often highly impedes the interest and involvement of people not very interested in forming committees to rule or regulate others, or in being on them, needlessly. There are general guidelines that have been proposed which I believe could serve as good guidelines, but not ever as "good mandates" in any absolutist ways, no matter how many people are inclined to like indulging in various forms of absolutist, authoritarian, monarchial, oligarchical, collectivist or fascist mandates of various sorts, when there are not clearly any vital needs to do so. I know the stances I believe are ethically proper and necessary can puzzle others, who very often have NOT given such matters much thought, and sometimes object to my giving overt signs of having given them any. You don’t need to wait for approval for doing what you sincerely believe to be of good benefit to the overall worth of the page, but I would caution anyone about merely trimming down things to conform with supposed "norms" not all are inclined to accept or approve, just as much as I would caution them against adding so much of relatively trivial worth that it actually does become cumbersome, or even approaches genuine "copyright violation" concerns. ~ Kalki·· 15:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC) tweaks[reply]
Absolutely no objections - please feel free. I spent some time a while back to trim Season 1's quotes, but never got back to do more. Thanks! ~ UDScott (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Admin nominations for January 2014 edit

There are now two active admin nominations which have been presented at the Wikiquote:Requests for adminship page, those of Illegitimate Barrister (talk · contributions) at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Illegitimate Barrister and of myself, at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Kalki (4th request). Comments and support for the currently clear NEED for more admin activity and presence here is requested. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 14:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inactivity discussion for InvisibleSun edit

Bureaucrat and Admin InvisibleSun (talk · contributions) has been inactive both here and at en.wikipedia for over four (4) years.

I've started a discussion to remove both the Bureaucrat and Admin flags, at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/InvisibleSun (inactivity discussion).

-- Cirt (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other inactivity discussions edit

Might also be a good idea to have other inactivity discussions for other inactive sysops, perhaps say those with zero edits for over two (2) years. -- Cirt (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use on Wikiquote edit

I've searched for this topic here and found nothing. We have a situation where a page here, Ian Fleming was illustrated with a painting of Fleming.

File:For Your Eyes Only.jpg

That painting is a derivative work of a photo of Fleming that is not copy-right free; the photo illustrates the Wikipedia article under Wikipedia's Fair Use policy, see [1]. As a derivative work, the painting is probably going to be deleted on Commons.[2].

Per WMF resolution, WMF wikis cannot host non-free content unless there is a local policy allowing it. So the present situation is that Wikiquote cannot host use any image of Fleming, apparently, whereas Wikipedia can. In order to allow fair use images here, Wikiquote would need to have an exemption doctrine policy, and would need to allow local uploads. Wikiversity does have this, but many WMF wikis do not want the hassle.

Has this issue been discussed? Where? Otherwise, what does the Wikiquote community think about this?

This basic point should be understood: Files hosted under an EDP must be machine-readably tagged, so that anyone re-using content can readily find such content and remove it if their application does not allow fair use (such as some commercial re-uses). Appropriate categories are machine-readable. --Abd (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should stick to the current standard of only using images from Wikimedia Commons, and avoid fair-use on this site. -- Cirt (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To promote the WMF mission, we should use only images that are hosted on Commons and meet the criteria to be freely reusable. The limited exceptions that Wikipedia English uses are not applicable for this WMF project that is a collections of notable quotes. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥ 20:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a judgment call. How important is the quality of Wikiquote pages? What is the function of images on those pages? Some wikiquote sites, globally, do allow fair use. We can allow it, so I'm really asking for the basis for "should not". Has this ever been discussed in depth?
The WMF mission is actually more than one mission, for there are two major meanings for "free content." The difference becomes important when there is a conflict between "educational purpose," and "freely-reusable content," where the latter includes commercial re-use where a fair use rationale might not protect the re-user. Or might. What the policy does is to force users to find completely free images, thus doing the work of a commercial re-user for them.
Sometimes the quality of content is damaged. Does that matter? --Abd (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, [3]. 12 language-wikiquotes allow non-free content. 12 do not allow it. The rest are unclear. One that does not allow it directly, does allow sysops to use non-free content. --Abd (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just for a little perspective, Commons now has twenty-four million files available. It is possible that it may be difficult to find a copyright-free image of a particular modern celebrity or from a particular modern film or TV show, but it is almost always possible to find a free image that captures the spirit of the page. BD2412 T 22:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree with comments by BD2412 and by FloNight, above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict with above.) Great. I don't have a lot of Wikiquote experience, for sure. There appears to be no free photo of Fleming, at least Kalki claimed that. Fleming isn't terribly modern. So what about those rare cases when a free image isn't available? Like, say, this one. The photo would be direct infringement. The painting is indirect, as a derivative work, and the artist has released it. There would be no issue about resolution, etc. This might be a poster child for allowing fair use. If not, I don't know what would be. Some Wikiquotes only allow administrators to upload files. Everything else, Commons. --Abd (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Our policy is to use only images at Commons. We rely on the Commons community to decide whether an image is in the public domain or suitably licensed. This was decided many years ago, and uploading images locally was disabled in 2005. The decision was reaffirmed when the Image use policy was expanded in 2012. ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Ningauble. The more complex the image policy is on Wikiquote, the more of people's time will need to be spent on having copyright violation discussions about images. I personally don't think that these types of chores are the best use of this people in this communities' time. Also, a big part of the wikimedia movement's mission is promote open access by working with outside organizations or people to convince them to re-license at least some of the content they control with a Creative Commons or similar license. An argument can be made that making exceptions by hosting non-free images weakens the incentive to work on getting content re-license. And lastly, I'm concerned that by hosting imagines on Wikiquote that aren't free, we will be encouraging misuse of copyrighted images to be copied improperly all over the place. This goes against wikimedia movement's goal of having a good working relationship with GLAMs (Galleries, libraries, archives, and museums). My 2 cents, Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥ 19:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no question but that it is simpler to not allow uploads. The middle ground would be to allow sysop uploads, as some do. However, the argument about "encouraging misuse" would surely apply to Wikipedia in spades, Wikiquote is minor. As to "incentive to work on getting content re-license, that is the direct opposite of the first argument, i.e, making it simpler. The real difference is with commercial re-use, because any nonprofit use will have no difficulty with fair use, any more than Wikipedia does. So, instead of improving content, users are working to get re-licensing, to benefit commercial re-users. --Abd (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody even look at Wikiquote:Requested entries? edit

Cause I asked a question there more than six months ago and I see there's never been any reply to it.... DeistCosmos (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Admin rights removal for Miszatomic edit

Please see Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Miszatomic (removal).

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 01:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request withdrawn by nominator - no community support for removal at this time. -- Cirt (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drama edit


There has been some drama here lately. I believe that this arises because several editors on this project have strong personalities and tend to react to issues with furious walls of text, passionate denunciations, pointing fingers, accusations, and/or passive aggressive sarcasm. This is cream and sugar for trolls and vandals. They are not trolling because they have something against quotes, you know. They are here to indulge their ability to instigate dramatic reactions. The more drama, the more they will come. If we merely go about the frankly rather sedate business of building a collection of quotes without responding explosively to every provocation, there will be nothing here for them, and they will move on to more fertile ground. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+1. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There is a middle ground. Collectively, the community needs to respond to issues, but key is "explosively" and "furious." Not explosively, not furious. Calmly, reflectively, becoming informed fully before acting, absent emergency. It's a wiki, so errors can be fixed. And the reward of patience is patience. --Abd (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VisualEditor News #1—2015 edit

18:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikilinking within a quote edit

Moving a discussion begun on User talk:Cirt:
I know on Wikipedia one does not ordinarily Wikilink words within any quote - is that true here or not? Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can say that I have found such quite disconcerting at times. The original author did not intend those links. They may create impressions different from the original intent. I can imagine better implementation that would default to a display of no links, and, then, a "link explorer" that would show not only explicit links declared but also every word could be a search. But that is not the MediaWiki we have. And I think some users here liberally add such. Is there a policy? --Abd (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's done on many pages and quotes, and there is no clear-cut rule in the Manual of Style or layout guide explicitly forbidding them. As long as it's not blatantly vandalistic in nature, I don't see any problem with it. As there is no rule forbidding it, I take that as meaning it is allowed. Illegitimate Barrister 08:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Collect:Yes, again, just like with the bolding, wikilinking within a quote is a violation of NPOV. Unless the word itself was linked within the secondary source for that quote, itself, then that becomes the user's own decision to draw attention to a particular word, which is a violation of NPOV by emphasizing that user's POV. Both bolding and wikilinking within a quote should be avoided. -- Cirt (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if I may: I disagree that the practice of wikilinking is inherently a violation of NPOV. The practice is one that has always been quite common on WQ and I believe its practice is different here than it is on Wikipedia. Yes, I would agree that there are times when it can become excessive, but in general, I believe it is actually good practice that has been used as a means to expose readers to other pages in the project. In Wikipedia, its purpose is more to help readers with difficult terms or concepts. It can be used for that purpose here as well, but has the additional use of directing readers to other pages. I don't know that there is, nor ever should be, a hard and fast rule on the use of the links or even how much of the links are OK - it has always been a judgment call and we have not had very many issues regarding it. In the end, I believe they are a valuable tool that helps our project grow and I fail to see how it adds any POV to the quotes. NOTE: I suggest, should this conversation continue, that it be moved to the Village Pump for a wider audience. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's inherently a violation of NPOV. It solely reflects the POV of the user that chooses where or when to add bolding or wikilinks. -- Cirt (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Items within quotations should not generally be linked; instead, consider placing the relevant links in the surrounding text or in the "See also" section of the article." There. -- Cirt (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments for wikilinking here would apply to wikilinking there. Wikilinking is justified in ordinary non-quoted text there, as part of the function of an encyclopedia, facilitating exploration. So why isn't it generally disallowed there? The reason is as Cirt has argued. It can introduce POV, by guiding the reader to particular pages -- and not others, and by creating emphasis. I will also say that it is disconcerting. Yes, Cirt complicated the issue by including bolding. I think we agree that new bolding or italics causing some words to stand out is inappropriate. However, linking has a very similar effect for me as a reader.
I don't think that the reasons for it have been well-explored and considered in relation to the mission of Wikiquote. Wikiquote has taken on a mission that is unstated. Here it is from the home page:
Wikiquote is a free online compendium of sourced quotations from notable people and creative works in every language, translations of non-English quotes, and links to Wikipedia for further information.
The unstated mission or use some are following is to explore the ideas involved in the quotations. It becomes a study, not just a "compendium of sourced quotations." Pages are created here on topics, which starts to push into this territory. This is the kind of work (study) which is done on Wikiversity. Wikiversity has developed ways of handling neutrality by inclusion. You can make POV statements on Wikiversity, if they are presented as attributed opinion or original research. If anything is controversial, we shove it down to subpages as attributed essays or managed seminars. This leads me to invite sister wiki links to Wikiversity on any article here, where the article can be studied, developed, or even debated.
Using links in quotes may be relatively harmless in most places. But it then creates something possibly controversial, so pages churn. It is obvious that there are differences of opinion here. I suggest seeking real consensus, instead of continuing to punt. --Abd (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How does it reflect a POV? Adding a wikilink merely lets the reader travel to another page - it does not provide any emphasis that would lead to a POV. And the link you provided is a Wikipedia link - as I pointed out, we are a different, although related, project. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How does it not add POV? How does a user decide which words to wikilink, within a quote? What about bolding? Both are tools for users to emphasize certain segments and thus violate NPOV. There's simply no reason not to have such wikilinks as a footnote, below the quotes. -- Cirt (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree with your premise, but rather than continue this as a on-on-one, I am moving the topic to the VP. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I note you haven't my questions about how and why a user chooses to add bolding or wikilinking within a quote that did not originally have bolding or wikilinking in that quote. -- Cirt (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with User:UDScott that adding links within quotes does not subvert the POV of the quote, as long as the link actually directs to the appropriate page.  Common sense can usually dictate if or when this is being abused.

For example, let's say Nietzsche were an editor here.  Let's say he found a page where someone had been quoted as saying, "Because I'm a Christian."  If Nietzsche edits the quote so that it appears as, "Because I'm a Christian," we'd say that Nietzsche has edited the page in good faith, and that his edit in no way influenced the POV of the quote.  It would only be a problem if Nietzsche had edited the page to appear as, "Because I'm a Christian."  Nietzsche would clearly be inserting his own POV in that edit by doing this, as even those who agree with Nietzsche's POV (including Nietzsche himself) would clearly recognise.

To say that this latter hypothetical edit violates NPOV is correct, but to extrapolate from this that the former hypothetical edit also violates NPOV, that it someone "inherently" violates NPOV, doesn't make any sense to me.

Let's say someone is quoted as saying, "Theists and atheists disagree as to whether or not God exists," and I edit this line to read, "Theists and atheists disagree as to whether or not God exists," would anyone say that I've in any way subverted the POV intended by the original author?  No, since including these links in no way serves to promote theism, or atheism, or God; rather, including these links merely serve to direct the reader to more quotes they may be interested in.  As long as the links are added in good faith, there is no POV issue.

Emboldening text, I will admit, can more easily be abused.  When I embolden text, I try to make sure that I only do it to focus a reader's attention in a way that I believe does not subvert the POV intended by the original author, but I admit that this can be a harder objective to accomplish, and there can be honest disagreement as to whether or not NPOV is being violated by the emboldener.  Cases are much more clear-cut with the linking, and thus we definitely do not need any hard-and-fast rules prohibiting linking within quotes.

allixpeeke (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. There is no bolding or wikilinking within the original source of the quote.
  2. There is no bolding or wikilinking within the secondary source re-quoting a quote.
  3. Even when news sources re-quote someone's quote, and add their own bolding, they make an editorial note: "Bolding added by us, for emphasis."
  4. We don't do that here.
  5. We mislead our readers by neglecting to add an editorial note, and instead manipulate our readers into thinking the original quote had such bolded or linked emphasis.
  6. This is inappropriate and wrong.
  7. It violates NPOV.
  8. It places our users in the position of deciding when and what and how to wikilink or bold, within quotes, and therefore violate the sanctity of how those quotes originally appeared.
  9. Therefore this becomes a compendium of bolded emphasized things by our users, instead of simply a collection of quotes that reflect the quotes themselves. It becomes some new art form reflecting the POV of users.
  10. Wikipedia is correct when it says: "Items within quotations should not generally be linked; instead, consider placing the relevant links in the surrounding text or in the "See also" section of the article."

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will be happy to answer your questions - just give me a moment to move the discussion as I earlier suggested so that a larger audince may participate. First, I have only been discussing the use of wikilinks - which is the title of this thread, by the way (and your continued insistence on cramming bolding into the discussion is not helpful). I believe that the use of wikilinks is merely a device to direct readers to pages about a particular subject and do not represent any attempt to emphasize a specific word. I can only speak for myself, but when I choose to add a wikilink, my choice is based solely on the fact that there exists a page for that given topic - and not because I wish to emphasize the word itself within a quote. It is long-standing practice here to do so in an attempt to expand the viewing of our pages. This is very different from Wikipedia, where they are less in need of exposure and such links are more often used to educate readers on a given subject. That is why WP has guidelines to restrict their use. We do not have such rules here. You may prefer that we do and you may have a preference that such links not be used. But that does not mean that standing practice should be altered based on your preferences. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some past discussions that might help this one can be found: here, or here and or even here ~ UDScott (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps w:Template:Navbox style footer navigation templates would be a good way to interlink pages, if that's what you're concerned about, rather than altering someone else's writing from the way they originally intended their words to appear. -- Cirt (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a line out of a speech or a novel and putting it on a page of other quotes from the same author or on the same topic is already altering someone else's writing from the way they originally intended their words to appear. BD2412 T 15:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not if we find that quote re-quoted in a secondary source. -- Cirt (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very few secondary sources will use our exact style and presentation of quotes. A book or newspaper article is likely to have shorter quotes in quotation marks, and longer quotes set out as block quotes. Even a book of quotations will have a very different appearance, with columns or a different arrangement of information. BD2412 T 16:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but likely not with bolding or blue highlighting and underlining. -- Cirt (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of how bolding or wikilinking can violate NPOV edit

  1. And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.
  2. And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.

Sounds a lot different, right? -- Cirt (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me toss my hat in the ring here. Or toss my hat in the ring.
  • And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.
  • And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for youask what you can do for your country.
It may not be obvious, but there can be POV embedded in the target of the links. So it is not enough just to verify that a quotation is accurate, any wikilinks must be inspected as well. --Abd (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But again, you are confusing the issues - I am not talking about bolding - that is another topic, for another discussion. Your continued use of this as a way to argue your point is not helpful. Please stick to the topic at hand. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both bolding and wikilinking within quotes that did not have them to begin with by the original writers, both add emphasis and both violate NPOV. -- Cirt (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And your continued use of the red herring of bolding is just confusing the issue. If you wish to start a separate discussion on the use of bolding, feel free, but please limit this discussion to the subject at hand, which is the use of wikilinks. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, stating that since a quote does not have links in its original source is a bit much too. Of course most of the original sources do not contain links, as the mere concept of links may not have even been in existence at the time they were first written or spoken. I fail to see how this means their use should be excluded. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not a "red herring". At issue is whether or not to allow alteration of original quotes to some new format which was not the way the quotes were intended by the original speaker. -- Cirt (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt, UDScott is right. Bolding confuses the issue. There are deeper issues which have been little mentioned, so far. Is what is in the target of a link what the speaker or original writer intended? If they were speaking, they did not want the listeners to pull out their iPhones and ask Siri to look up the words they used. This kind of linking is great in educational materials, like Wikipedia, but Wikipedia, as you know, discourages linking within quoted material. There can be rare exceptions. -They would normally be handled with footnotes or the like. (Such annotations are frequently added in academic editions of what someone wrote, or Shakespeare, to give another example. I have the annotated works of Lewis Carroll, massive commentary by Martin Gardner. Clearly set apart from the text.) -Abd (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those things are all easily addressed by my next subsection of suggestions, below. -- Cirt (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In 1845, Salmon P. Chase gave a speech which was published.  One great line in that published speech appeared as follows:  "THE GOVERNMENT, therefore, in the case of every individual slave, is THE REAL ENSLAVER, depriving each person enslaved of all liberty and all property, and all that makes life dear, without imputation of crime or any legal process whatsoever."  If you wish to argue that the line should not appear here as "THE GOVERNMENT, therefore, in the case of every individual slave, is THE REAL ENSLAVER, depriving each person enslaved of all liberty and all property, and all that makes life dear, without imputation of crime or any legal process whatsoever" on the grounds that these links were "[not] intended by the original speaker," I would counter by asking, do you think inclusion of these links is in any way deceptive to readers, that readers will see these links and believe that they were in the original 1845 speech?  Certainly not.  Readers understand that these links were not included in the original speech.  Thus, they are not being deceived into thinking that the inclusion of these links reflects anything more than was intended by Chase.  When a reader reads "THE GOVERNMENT, therefore, in the case of every individual slave, is THE REAL ENSLAVER, depriving each person enslaved of all liberty and all property, and all that makes life dear, without imputation of crime or any legal process whatsoever," the reader already knows that what Chase said was "THE GOVERNMENT, therefore, in the case of every individual slave, is THE REAL ENSLAVER, depriving each person enslaved of all liberty and all property, and all that makes life dear, without imputation of crime or any legal process whatsoever" and that the links to government, slave, liberty, property, life, and crime are original to Wikiquote, and are provided solely to help direct the reader to other quotes in which they might be interested.  ONLY if we actually believe that inclusion of those links will deceive readers into thinking that those links were in the original would we have any reason to complain about these links not being "intended by the original speaker."  Sincerely, allixpeeke (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both emboldening and adding links "add emphasis"?  That's where you lose me.  Emboldening text does add emphasis, but adding links doesn't change the emphasis.  Let's say someone is quoted as saying, "Theists and atheists disagree as to whether or not God exists," and let's say I edit this line to read, "Theists and atheists disagree as to whether or not God exists."  Where exactly is the emphasis being added?  I don't see any emphasis, I just see links to topics that a reader may wish to click on in order to read more quotes about said topics.  Yours, allixpeeke (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with UDScott, bolding and wikilinking are two separate issues, and conflating them makes the discussion useless. Of course original quotes don't contain wikilinking, because unlike bolding, wikilinking didn't exist until this century, and does not exist at all in books in print. Bolding indicates that a particular word is particularly important; wikilinking merely indicates that another Wikiquote page exists on the topic. I strongly support continued wikilinking within quotes for relevant terms appearing within those quotes. BD2412 T 15:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bolding certainly did exist at the time the words were written, but the writer chose not to use it. Wikilinking makes the word look a different color and adds underline as well. I strongly Oppose using both. -- Cirt (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no underlining caused by adding links; one must hover the mouse over a given link in order to see an underline.  Admittedly, the colour does change, but not in a manner that emphasises the content of a sentence; rather, it merely denotes the fact that a link exists, which the reader may or may not be interested in checking out.  A reader isn't going to read the sentence "I am a farmer" and get deceived into thinking the original author had any intention to emphasise the word farmer; rather, the reader will generally be smart enough to understand that the author wrote "I am a farmer" and that the only reason the word "farmer" is blue is because it has a link to a topic she or he may or may not be interested in checking out.  Best, allixpeeke (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some general observations about this "Examples of ..." thread: (1) The "example" given appears to be a hypothetical absurdity rather than an actual example that ever appeared in a Wikiquote article. (2) An argument or demonstration that something can be misused is not in itself a sound argument that it should be categorically prohibited. (3) I am not sure why this rhetorical point about examples has its own section heading in the first place.

    This does not seem to be a productive line of inquiry. Can we get on with the discussion of "Wikilinking within a quote" in the main thread? ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is clear -- the person uttering the words may not mean them at all in the sense in which the link is made, and absolutely may not have given the stress inherent in a bolded word. Therefore it is intrinsically important that no editor on any project ever inject his own meanings and stress into the words of others. Collect (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree with this comment by Collect (talk · contributions), above. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Cirt. I didn't use bolding. I don't think there is any disagreement about bolding. But linking creates a weak bolding, plus one should consider, as well, what is linked to. I made some points there that may not be obvious, just reading the text. --Abd (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, Abd, to the reader linking creates another form of stylistic differentiation between parts of text, that looks quite similar to bolding. -- Cirt (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Counterexample: At the risk of appearing to digress off-topic, because the heading of this subsection would appear to frame the discussion from a non-neutral point of view, here is an example of wikilinking that does not violate NOPV:
I submit that the appearance of blue links (or whatever one's browser uses to indicate links) in this quote does not create an undue emphasis expressing a non-neutral point of view. The linked names already have the typographic emphasis of capitalization, and the links do not express any point other that one may view articles about the persons expressly named in the quote. I further submit that the links are a service to our readers, many of whom are not aware of who Giordano Bruno was and might as a consequence find the quote incomprehensible.

This counterexample is not entirely off-topic because it amplifies point (2) in my post of 16:19, 9 February 2015 in this subsection above, that just because something can be misused is not sufficient reason for a blanket prohibition against ever using it. A reductio ad absurdum may help to clarify: quotation itself can be misused, e.g. by taking things out of context, to express a view that is not only non-neutral but patently dishonest, and it is demonstrably the case that this has happened many times in our pages (one example). Should we therefore prohibit all quotations in this wiki?

Let us take it as given that wikilinking can be used to violate NPOV, and move on to address the NPOV problem without trying to stipulate that wikilinking itself is the problem. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you could not easily have placed such links in a note after the quotation? I fail to see that such a rule would make life that much more difficult for those adding material, to be sure. Collect (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just trying to understand: are you advocating having a list of links (that show pages that exist for words in the quote) placed below a quote? Just trying to envision your suggestion. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For obscure persons etc. - why not. Copernicus is, however, not a name one would expect to be a mystery to readers here. Link to that which is not "obvious" in a short note after a quote -- if a quote refers to (example) "Mrs. Robertson" it might make sense to link to her article, or simply say "a neighbour of the author" or the like. Linking to God verges on the silly in a quote, yet such over linking does exist now and should be deprecated. Collect (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the only criticism of my counterexample is that I linked both persons named in the quote rather than only one of them, I do not see it as an NPOV problem. On the contrary, chosing one over the other would look a bit odd, and I can well imagine someone objecting that it promotes a point of view.

Adding a "short note after a quote" might be discussed in the following section about "Other ways to add wikilinks to quote pages"; but if there is POV pushing going on with some wikilinking then I don't think doing it in a separate paragraph solves the problem. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why should a note be placed after the quotation when a note wouldn't add anything that is not already made clear in the example Ningauble provided, especially considering that Ningauble's edit is simpler for readers?  Yours, allixpeeke (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with Ningauble that "the links do not express any point other that one may view articles about the persons expressly named in the quote", that "the links are a service to our readers, many of whom are not aware of who Giordano Bruno was and might as a consequence find the quote incomprehensible", and that "just because something can be misused is not sufficient reason for a blanket prohibition against ever using it."  Cheers, allixpeeke (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that both bolding and wikilinking have their place on Wikiquote. Bolding the most famous quotes—especially in long pages like Virgil—can be of service to readers. And wikilinking key words within quotes, allowing further exploration, I believe does not violate NPOV, any more than dictionaries of quotations by themes do. Take, for example, the following quote by Smollett under the section "Courage" in this dictionary of quotations:

True courage scorns
To vent her prowess in a storm of words;
And, to the valiant, actions speak alone.

Being able to wikilink "courage" in this case is simply an advantage that Wikiquote has over traditional (paper-based) dictionaries of quotations. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although I would still prefer to avoid conflating bolding and linking, I would add this as an example of legitimate bolding, from The Pride of the Yankees:
The bolded portion is both the most famous and most significant portion of the quote, and a portion that has been highlighted as historically important. I can see no better way to illustrate this than by bolding that portion. BD2412 T 16:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably with italics. But that raises the question: In light of these objections, how are we to deal with spoken quotations which contain clear emphasis? Is my presumption correct, or is italicizing also a contentious issue? --DigitalBluster (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent point, DanielTom.  Cheers, allixpeeke (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, this is my rule of thumb for how I use bolding -- though, being imperfect, I'm sure I've failed to adhere to it always (now that I'm aware it's a contentious issue, however, it will be at the front of my thoughts in future editing). In any event, authors usually didn't intend for the excerpted quotations we add to Wikiquote to be emphasized, either. We're all bolding in that sense. So I find the whole anti-bolding discussion mildly hypocritical. --DigitalBluster (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other ways to add wikilinks to quote pages edit

  1. Intro sections
  2. Footnotes below the quotes, explaining difficult concepts or words
  3. See also sections
  4. Navigation templates as footer like w:Template:Navbox
  5. Within a caption in an image.
  6. On quote theme index pages.
  7. On category pages.

All of these places are better places for wikilinking, and all are ways to wikilink without perverting the original format of the quote itself.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take some examples. From George Washington:
From Martin Luther King, Jr.:
These seem like usefully linked concepts in each case. How else would we achieve this effect? BD2412 T 16:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And you choose to like Human and Nature separately in that first example - instead of "Human Nature" as a single item -- note the difference where two different choices are clearly available. And the bifurcated choice appears, on its face, to have been the wrong one. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC) .[reply]
Actually, I didn't add these links (someone else did), I just brought them to the discussion. I have fixed the link to human nature. BD2412 T 19:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Effect? Effect? We should not be thinking about creating any other "effect" other than the "effect" the original writer wished to convey! Oh my goodness! This is getting ridonkulous. -- Cirt (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if that is all we were after, we would be Wikisource, since we would only present quotes in the context of their original publication. In fact, we wouldn't have any quotes from Shakespeare's plays or any public address, since these were meant by their authors to be heard and not read. BD2412 T 16:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The bolding and wikilinking in your examples, above, is SO distracting, it's hard to even get through reading the entire quote without focusing on the bolded or linked portion and stopping, and thus, ruining the reading experience for our readers. -- Cirt (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a viewer preference can be implemented, like a skin, where readers could choose not to see links. BD2412 T 17:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, our default should be the least distracting option for readers. Perhaps a viewer preference can be implemented, where those that wish to see distracting bolding and fancy blue coloring and underlining can see that interspersed all throughout quote passages. -- Cirt (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - that is again based on the premise that the consensus of our community is that these links are somehow bad and therefore should not be shown unless someone opts in. I believe it should be the other way around, because I believe these links add value to the project. They are a useful way to expose readers to other pages. If they are hidden, this goes out the window. I would rather let those few who seem to object or who deem them to be distracting to be able to hide them if they so choose. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And there's no reason not to include such links -- just not inside quotations. But instead, there's so many other ways to add them on a page without violating the original speaker's text. -- Cirt (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find those links distracting.  In any event, are you suggesting that we take this:
…and change it to this:
…?  Because (1) if we were to do that for each quote, it would make pages more cumbersome, and (2) it would make it more difficult for readers to find the links they want to follow, defeating the whole point of including links.  Let's say a person is reading the quote with the links imbedded in the quote, and the reader gets to the word "utopian" and sees that we have a page for that topic, and immediately thinks, "Hmm, that's a page I'm going to want to read."  That person can either click that link immediately, or open the link in new tab to read next, or whatever else floats her or his boat.  But, if the reader is reading the quote with the links added as an addendum to the quote, it might not dawn on the reader that she or he would be interested in checking to see if there is a page on the topic until the reader finally gets to the addendum—assuming the reader even bothers to read the addendum (which she or he might not wish to bother to do, since she or he would, at that point, just be rereading words she or he has already read) and assuming that the reader's eyes do not glaze over and thus miss the word "utopian" when looking at the addendum.

Not only would adding-addendums-to-each-MLK-quote make the MLK page needlessly more cumbersome, but it would force readers to have to choose either to constantly reread words or to skip the addendums altogether.  It's far more practical to simply imbed the links in the quotes themselves.

allixpeeke (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, a well-developed guideline will suggest ways that editors can accomplish what they want, rather than merely prohibiting or discouraging one way of doing it, unless what they want is intrinsically contrary to policy. There is an example given in old revisions of the Wikipedia MOS: [5]. How else could this be handled? Because in-quote linking is so easy, it could be a waste of time to discuss alternatives if in-quote linking is "no problem." Rather, this should be discussed in detail on the guideline talk only if and after the basic problem is recognized. There is no emergency here, no need to find a solution today, given that this has been explicitly undeveloped since 2003!
Yet, long term, this is a basic issue, touching the very purposes of Wikiquote, and raising neutrality issues, which are better addressed sooner than later (or better late than never). I've proposed a path to solutions below, and it is being supported, so far, so I am hopeful of resolution. These things can seem difficult if people expect consensus to arise like magic, as if it already existed. It does not already exist here, even though Wikipedia came to consensus, apparently, over 8 years ago. That's obvious. --Abd (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Survey edit

Proposed: that a guideline or policy be developed covering wikilinking in articles, within quotes.

Supporting this proposal does not take a position. It recognizes that there has long been controversy over this. I do not expect this discussion, here, to resolve the issue, because there are a number of subquestions to be resolved. Most notably, there is disagreement over whether or not wikilinking is a violation of NPOV (an extreme statement) or can lead to NPOV issues (much more likely) or has no impact on NPOV at all (which has been said or implied). So a policy/guideline page should be started on the topic, that reflects consensus or the state of no-consensus. --Abd (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I have not suggested a vote, except on the issue of encouraging the development of a guideline with consensus. Thanks for pointing to the existing MOS. It encourages free linking, but is not clear about linking within quotations: This guideline has yet to be discussed for Wikiquote — some feel that it may not be appropriate in the middle of quotations. That was in the original draft, taken from Wikipedia: 15:38, 23 August 2003‎‎. This is the source.. It does not mention linking within quotations. Current policy on Wikipedia: w:Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Linking. The language was introduced shortly before this edit from October 2006, which I cite because it shows an exception that is no longer shown, but that might still apply. Or not. --Abd (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support discussion that might eventually lead to a policy - but I agree with Ningauble that an up or down vote at this point is premature. And as an aside, I am still not convinced we will be able to arrive at a consensus on this - there are strong feelings on each side. But we will see. I believe such an endeavor would benefit from being led by someone not intimately involved with the arguments set forth above. As such, I will gladly participate, but I would abstain from leading such a project so that objectivity is maintained (I hope that others will do likewise). ~ UDScott (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm all for having guidelines. Whether there will be consensus for any specific elements thereof is another question. BD2412 T 21:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support guideline in congruence with existing policies and guidelines as noted by Cirt above. Collect (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Ningauble, BD2412, and UDScott. It is woefully premature at this point in juncture to be holding any sorts of votes. I will opine, however, that I agree with it in theory and in principle, though. Illegitimate Barrister 04:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Asking people to vote on a complex conclusion before there is some evident consensus from discussion is asking for trouble, from a high error rate due to participation bias and incomplete consideration. The only voting suggested here is on setting up process to develope a guideline or policy, which could happen anyway, but, speaking personally, before I proceed with what I know how to do here, I wanted to see community support for the process. I do see support, already, but will wait a little while to see if any actual opposition appears. The only opposition I have seen is to premature voting, and I completely agree with that and will be extremely careful about it. Please be aware, it is possible that a full consensus process will take months. Or not. Depends on what we find when we open the can of worms that nobody wanted to open since 2003. --Abd (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with UDScott's comments, farther up the page, that wikilinking can be helpful to the reader here just as on Wikipedia. Still, I wouldn't oppose the development of some sort of guideline, as long as it isn't too hamfisted. --DigitalBluster (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose—We don't need to develop a policy, we just have to use common sense.  If someone changes "Atheists don't believe in a god" to "Atheists don't believe in a god," that would be a NPOV violation; but if someone changes it to "Atheists don't believe in a god," there is no POV violation.  There's no ambiguity there, and thus no need to develop a new policy.  The debate ultimately just comes down to whether or not we will allow links in quotes at all, and most of us seem to agree that we should.  (To quote User:Ningauble, "An argument or demonstration that something can be misused is not in itself a sound argument that it should be categorically prohibited.")  Since most of us agree on that matter, and since we would all agree that "Atheists" would be a link imbedded in bad-faith, there seems to be nothing else really to discuss.  Sincerely, allixpeeke (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing edit

Use of BC and AD edit

BC and AD, rether than BCE a d CE noting years before and after year 1? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2015‎

On one hand, “B.C.” and “A.D.” are unambiguously Christian in nature. On the other, they’re more familiar even to many non-Christians than “B.C.E.” and “C.E.” — 09:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

25,000 articles milestone edit


Hello, I prepared new logos to celebrate important Wikiquote milestones: File:Wikiquote-logo-25000-articles.png. We use 20k version on Italian Wikiquote, now [9]. Bye --FRacco (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how others feel about it, but I personally think it would be really nice to adopt this logo, at least for a few days. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inactivity discussions notification edit

There are a few inactivity discussions regarding admins that have been inactive for a few years, ongoing ones currently are:

  1. Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Iddo999 (inactivity discussion)
  2. Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/MosheZadka (inactivity discussion)
  3. Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Jaxl (inactivity discussion)

Comments at those would be appreciated.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/LrdChaos (inactivity discussion). -- Cirt (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Link to specific content in article (with highlighting) edit

There is currently a proposal on Phabricator to add a new feature to MediaWiki where one could link to a specific part of an article's content. When someone visits this special link, they would be scrolled down to the relevant part of the content and possibly, the specific portion would be highlighted.

Before we get started with work on this, we wanted to know if this would be useful at all or whether it would help in any way. Comments? --Vghaisas (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any comments? -- Vghaisas (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted pages - interesting ideas on pages to create edit

Folks may want to have a look at Special:WantedPages - interesting ideas on pages to create.


-- Cirt (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


At the moment the Wikiquote logo (in the top left corner) seem to be missing from Wikiquote editor...!? -- Mdd (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not missing for me. 17:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Well that is reassuring, yet here in Holland the logo is still missing here. This is not in Wikiquote sister projects, and not in other sister projects. But I tried the (other) tablet computer, and there I witnessed the same. Very strange. -- Mdd (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am definitely seeing the same problem, and have identified the cause: File:Wiki.png was deleted (again, cf. Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/020#Logo). Someone who is actively involved in project administration should revert it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS – I am not going to be drawn into wheel warring with the administrator who twice deleted this system file, but I will remark that given the history, and given the large, bold, highlighted warning not to delete it that was on the file descriptor page, I think the deletion was wildly irresponsible. Alas, it is the sort of thing I have come to expect. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(@BD2412: it's not missing for me either... probably a cache thing.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a cache thing. To be expected. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Special:WhatLinksHere/File:Wiki.png shows it as unused file. For now I've redirected the page, but perhaps we can alter the code to point the code to File:Wikiquote-logo-en.png. -- Cirt (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done, fixed it, file restored. Hopefully we can get the code to point to File:Wikiquote-logo-en.png, so we don't need the local version file copy. -- Cirt (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I'll do some further research on the code to find out some more info. -- Cirt (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it just easier to keep it where it was? It is possible to change the location, but looks like it would need a system admin to do it... tbh, it's probably easier to get the file delete, protected, like the main page, then to get this changed. Mdann52 (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Global proposal] (all) Edit pages edit

MediaWiki mobile

Hi, this message is to let you know that, on domains like, unregistered users cannot edit. At the Wikimedia Forum, where global configuration changes are normally discussed, a few dozens users propose to restore normal editing permissions on all mobile sites. Please read and comment!

Thanks and sorry for writing in English, Nemo 22:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inspire Campaign: Improving diversity, improving content edit

This March, we’re organizing an Inspire Campaign to encourage and support new ideas for improving gender diversity on Wikimedia projects. Less than 20% of Wikimedia contributors are women, and many important topics are still missing in our content. We invite all Wikimedians to participate. If you have an idea that could help address this problem, please get involved today! The campaign runs until March 31.

All proposals are welcome - research projects, technical solutions, community organizing and outreach initiatives, or something completely new! Funding is available from the Wikimedia Foundation for projects that need financial support. Constructive, positive feedback on ideas is appreciated, and collaboration is encouraged - your skills and experience may help bring someone else’s project to life. Join us at the Inspire Campaign and help this project better represent the world’s knowledge! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Inactivity process edit

Started a page on Admin Inactivity process.

Modeled after existing process at Wikimedia Commons, Commons:Administrators/De-adminship, and existing Policy for administrator access on Meta.

Page is at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Inactivity.

Please don't discuss here, but instead at Wikiquote talk:Requests for adminship/Inactivity.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Chemistry Quote Competition edit

Hi folks,

I am Wikimedian in Residence at the Royal Society of Chemistry (see WP:GLAM/RSC). I have in mind to run a competition, this Summer, using RSC publications and social media, to find the "best" chemistry related quotes. We might offer a prize for the wittiest, and another for the quote which best summarises the importance of chemistry. I would then arrange to have a selection of the entries added to WikiQuote. How does that sound? Would someone from the WQ community like to be involved?—This unsigned comment is by Pigsonthewing (talkcontribs) .

It sounds like a good idea. I can think of at least a couple of editors here who occasionally add quotes about Chemistry to Wikiquote, and who might be interested in this competition. I've just now added a nice one by John Webster (couldn't resist, didn't feel like waiting till Summer), but as finding good Chemistry quotes is actually quite difficult, I am curious to see what others will come up with... After the competition, once the quotes are selected, it will be easy to add them to Wikiquote, provided they are adequately sourced. Regards ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking about only those chemistry quotes not already in Wikiquote? BD2412 T 03:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; the purpose would be to source additional content for WQ. Pigsonthewing (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that just wasn't clear to me from your initial statement. Of course, Wikiquote is an open project, and outside entities are free to promote neutral topic-area expansion as they see fit. Incidentally, I have on my to-do list contacting Carl C. Gaither of Killeen, Texas (author of Gaither's Dictionary of Scientific Quotations and others) to seek PD release of his older compilations. Among these is Chemically Speaking: A Dictionary of Quotations, focused entirely on quotes about chemicals. BD2412 T 20:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cool book. At least in my region of the world, Google Books allows me to read pretty much their whole chapter on Chemistry (starting with the quote "Chemistry is the science of molecules, and it is a messy science." by Hugh Aldersey-Williams, on page 98), and from the Index you can tell it has some 20 pages of quotations on that topic alone. All the quotes appear to be well-sourced, and some of them seem quite good. Another dictionary of quotations that might be worth consulting is Gaither's Dictionary of Scientific Quotations, which I'm more familiar with, and that has 20+ pages dedicated to the subject of Chemistry as well (starting here). ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SUL finalization update edit

Hi all, please read this page for important information and an update involving SUL finalization, scheduled to take place in one month. Thanks. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]