Wikiquote:Village pump archive 50


...for evil to trimuph over good edit

All that is necessary for evil to trimuph over good is for good men to do nothing Is this the quote or does it read something else? Whop said it? —This unsigned comment is by Timberline3 (talkcontribs) 14:31, 13 January 2017.

See Edmund Burke#Disputed. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

where can i post my own quotes edit

I would like to know if I can post my own quotes

Thanks —This unsigned comment is by Mcahuenas (talkcontribs) .

@Mcahuenas: No, please see Wikiquote:Notability. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you can post your own quotations on your user page. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote:Quote of the day/January 20, 2017 – yet another disgraceful abuse of admin privileges by Kalki edit

Sadly, the American dream is dead. But if I get elected president, I will bring it back bigger and better and stronger than ever before, and we will make America great again.
~ Donald Trump ~

I just noticed that we had the POV-pushing wikilink "I will bring it back bigger and better and stronger than ever before" displayed on Wikiquote's Main Page for 24h in yesterday's QOTD, brought to you by (I was going to say butthurt) Clinton-supporter Kalki. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kalki: What were you thinking? —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kalki skipped the ad hominem here, so he knew he was crossing the line. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, clearly inappropriate. Being the primary or sole editor to maintain QOTD is not a license to inject personal opinion into Wikiquote. However, this is an abuse of editorial privileges, not admin privileges, since no administrative tools were required to make the improper link. BD2412 T 22:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Effectively sole editor, since virtually all edits by others are reverted or removed. (Recent examples [1][2]) ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to remove the wikilink when I noticed it, but couldn't because QOTD pages are fully protected once they go live for 24h – and after that it's already too late. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Admin review I posted to his talk. He hasn't edited here since but honestly, between this and the problem with images above, I think there needs to be some admin review of some kind. Wikiquote:Administrators doesn't list any criteria for this but I think that the community has problems with some of his edits and particularly to how they relate to his advanced user rights. I respect that he's done a lot of work here and honestly, I probably personally agree with him on a lot of things so it bothers me to suggest this but I think we should review if the community has faith in him as an admin here. I would recommend a kind of recall election and then after six months, he can reapply to adminship. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed:  Kalki's prank on the Main Page QOTD was completely inappropriate. I would go so far as to call it intentional and blatant vandalism. Though I agree with many of Kalki's opinions, this is unacceptable editorial conduct. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This reminds me of Uncyclopedia's use of funny links to the page for lies. If Kalki wants to be a comedian, Uncyclopedia would gladly welcome them and be a more appropriate place to do it. But since when was Wikiquote another comedy wiki? I agree that this being on the main page just invites further vandalism. If Mdd is right and that simply emboldening text that wasn't originally is "illegal" (it isn't by the way as noted by Ninguable and others in village pump archive 37's discussion), than this goes far beyond just highlighting text and identifying the themes addressed. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding false attribution? edit

I see that on occasion we include include false attributions (cf. Samuel_Goldwyn) But I am not a significant enough contributor to to know the right protocol. (I am in OTRS agent trying to field some of the issues sent in to Wikimedia.)

One such person noted that there is an inspirational poem making the Internet rounds and attributed to Pablo Neruda. That person found a debunking and suggested it should be mentioned in our page on Neruda.

The false claim can be found here.

The debunking can be found here --Sphilbrick (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now added here. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I see you prefer inline rather than formal ref section.--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a project thing. (Hence this userbox.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright edit

As mentioned in the post above, I'm not a regular contributor to this project so feel uncomfortable answering some questions definitively. (As an aside we could use more OTRS agents, especially ones with knowledge of this project, let me know if you are interested).

A reader asked generally about copyright issues regarding entries in this project.

My presumption is that most entries are short enough that they can be used under fair use provisions, while many longer ones are often in the public domain due to age. There may also be longish quotes that have been properly licensed.

Is this presumption correct? Please modify it so I can respond to the person requesting information if I have missed important details.--Sphilbrick (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(for my use ticket:2016082710005829)--Sphilbrick (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert, but yes, your presumption is correct. If the person who wrote to OTRS is concerned about a specific page, let us know. You can direct them to Wikiquote:Copyrights and Wikiquote:Limits on quotations for more info. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think it was generic, rather than specific. I pointed them to this discussion, so they can clarify to me or here if I'm wrong.--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sphilbrick: Although your assumption is correct in the main there are actually two (frankly shocking) caveats to this. The first is that the arrangement of quotations can be copyrighted. So that if I take an edition of Bartlett's and copy-and-paste it all here, then that would run afoul of copyright--it happened to q:fr: several years ago and the entire project was closed for months. Secondly--and this is even more confounding--in American law, some quotations have been ruled to not be fair use, even if they are fairly brief and in the public interest. See w:en:Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises. I don't think either of these issues impacts this community on a practical level but in a theoretical sense, we could have some problems even with relatively brief and fair use-seeming quotations. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a further caveat, one should bear in mind that being legally permissible is not the only limiting factor. Large excerpts may fail to exhibit the sort of Quotability expected in a compendium of quotations. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you for the detailed responses.--2601:701:C001:641A:5AF:1513:7F61:99CE 17:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source? edit

Wikimedia received an email suggesting two sources to back up a misattribution in Louis_Pasteur.

I added this one, Although not entirely sure it qualifies as a reliable source I hope someone will check.

They also suggested this site, which I do not think qualifies.--Sphilbrick (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the Wikiquote:Limits on quotations more limited than the quotation policy for wikipedia? edit

Mdd recently reverted my additions to Black people citing Wikiquote:Limits on quotations. All the quotes I added (with the exception of one from a documentary on Muhammad Ali which is below the limit), came from the Wikipedia page Black people in Mormon doctrine and comply with Wikipedia's guidelines on quote limits, which I'm starting to notice are apparently lower than wikiquotes. Wikipedia also included quotes from Warren Jeffs which I was told were not notable for wikiquote but are notable for wikipedia. Warren Jeffs does have a wikipedia page and being the head of a large religious sect suggests notability.

I'm wondering if perhaps wikiepdia has the right idea, and whether wikiquotes limit on quotations is needlessly stringent given there's clearly no legal basis in this particular instance which demonstrates the difference. I understand wikisource is for including public domain works in their entirety, however these are clearly excellent highlights for demonstrating the opinion held in LDS doctrine. What do y'all think? CensoredScribe (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since this user has retired from Wikiquote (again) effective 5 February 2017,[3] a reply may not be needed at this point. Nevertheless, I would like to offer the following observations for the record:
  1. Just because it's not illegal does not mean it's a good idea. Wikiquote:Limits on quotations begins with the words "To maintain the quality of our pages..." and also notes in the introduction that good quotations are "memorable, significant, well-expressed and concise".[emphasis added] The object of limiting quotations is not only to avoid copyright violation, but to produce a good compendium of quotable quotes.
  2. An encyclopedia and a compendium of quotations have distinctly different purposes. An encyclopedic article is expository, and may sometimes use lengthy prose to make a point. The point here is not to make a point or to demonstrate anybody's opinion, but to collect memorable thoughts "refined to a handful of well-chosen words."
(The Wikipedia article cited is a very poor precedent: it is flagged for multiple issues including undue reliance on primary sources, which are quoted in a manner inconsistent with Wikipedia's own Manual of Style for quotations.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Censoring of certain information regarding fossil fuels? edit

Buckminster Fuller wrote and spoke at length about the need to quickly transition off fossil fuels, and he also wrote and spoke at length, throughout his many years, about why it was not happening. Deliberate obstruction by the fossil fuel industry has hindered clean energy development for decades, and it is also apparently also hindering the content of his quotes page. There is not a single mention of fossil fuels or clean energy. How do we get this corrected?

Who edits these pages for chrissakes, the US Secretary of State? Get with it Wiki, you are being hoodwinked. I am really hoping for an explanation. From anyone! Anybody got any insight into this? Are we all expected to just go along with the fossil fools? What is happening here?

Patricia Field Ravasio

If you have such quotes that are properly sourced, feel free to add them to the page. I am not aware of any attempts to keep such quotes off the page. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone tell me more about and whether they are reliable or notable? edit

Wikipedia has nothing on them which makes me think they are less important than anyone in the American Internet celebrities category and just about as likely to get an interview with the Dalai Lama. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia cites Info-Buddhism as well on the page for the 15th Dalai Lama, and according to the telegraph the Dalai Lama did say at the start of a 10-day visit to Italy, (07 Dec 2007), "If a woman reveals herself as more useful the lama could very well be reincarnated in this form", which can be added. Someone should point this out at wikipedia, I don't want to add another sockpuppet to the complete list I've provided on my user page. My apologies. CensoredScribe (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

De-Recognition of Wikimedia Hong Kong edit

This is an update from the Wikimedia Affiliations Committee. Translations are available.

Recognition as a Wikimedia movement affiliate — a chapter, thematic organization, or user group — is a privilege that allows an independent group to officially use the Wikimedia trademarks to further the Wikimedia mission.

The principal Wikimedia movement affiliate in the Hong Kong region is Wikimedia Hong Kong, a Wikimedia chapter recognized in 2008. As a result of Wikimedia Hong Kong’s long-standing non-compliance with reporting requirements, the Wikimedia Foundation and the Affiliations Committee have determined that Wikimedia Hong Kong’s status as a Wikimedia chapter will not be renewed after February 1, 2017.

If you have questions about what this means for the community members in your region or language areas, we have put together a basic FAQ. We also invite you to visit the main Wikimedia movement affiliates page for more information on currently active movement affiliates and more information on the Wikimedia movement affiliates system.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Affiliations Committee, 16:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

Review of initial updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process edit

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. Message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

The Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. For 15 years, Wikimedians have worked together to build the largest free knowledge resource in human history. During this time, we've grown from a small group of editors to a diverse network of editors, developers, affiliates, readers, donors, and partners. Today, we are more than a group of websites. We are a movement rooted in values and a powerful vision: all knowledge for all people. As a movement, we have an opportunity to decide where we go from here.

This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve. We hope to design an inclusive process that makes space for everyone: editors, community leaders, affiliates, developers, readers, donors, technology platforms, institutional partners, and people we have yet to reach. There will be multiple ways to participate including on-wiki, in private spaces, and in-person meetings. You are warmly invited to join and make your voice heard.

The immediate goal is to have a strategic direction by Wikimania 2017 to help frame a discussion on how we work together toward that strategic direction.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Beginning with this message, monthly reviews of these updates will be sent to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a review of the updates that have been sent so far:

More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 20:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

Year edit


I just made my first edit on Wikiquote, and I was wondering if I did it right.

I added another version of the quote, but from a different year. Is that okay?


Benjaminikuta (talk) 08:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Benjaminikuta: That's a great start. We're glad you're here. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply] I just made this page. Did I do it right? Benjaminikuta (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not really Benjaminikuta. Without an introduction indicating why he is notable in the sense of the Wikipedia guideline, the article could be subject to speedy deletion criterion A4. Also, I do not see any evidence that his remark is sufficiently widely quoted for inclusion. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see. --Nemo 07:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overview #2 of updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process edit

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

As we mentioned last month, the Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Each month, we are sending overviews of these updates to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a overview of the updates that have been sent since our message last month:

More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 19:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

Upcoming changes edit

There are a lot of small changes happening in the next couple of weeks, and I wanted to give you all a quick heads-up about them. Please share this information with other people/languages/projects that will be interested:

  • There's a change to how columns in reference lists are handled, at the request of the German Wikipedia. This change will improve accessibility by automatically formatting long lists of <ref>s into columns, based on each reader's screen width.
    • What you need to do: Nothing visible is happening now. If your project uses the normal <references /> tag (or doesn't really use refs at all), then file a Phabricator task or just tell me, and I'll get your wiki on the list for the next config change. If your project uses a "reflist" template to create columns, then please consider deprecating it, or update the template to work with the new feature.
    • I suspect that this is going to have very little effect on the Wikiquotes, but please let me know if I'm wrong.
  • The label on the "Save changes" button will change on most projects tomorrow (Wednesday) to say "Publish page". This has been discussed for years, is supported by user research, and is meant to be clearer for new contributors. (Most of us who have been editing for years don't even look at the button any more, and we all already know that all of our changes can be seen by anyone on the internet, so this doesn't really affect us.)
    • If you have questions or encounter problems (e.g., a bad translation, problems fixing the documentation, etc.), then please tell me as soon as possible.
    • When we split "Save page" into "Save page" and "Save changes" last August, a couple of communities wondered whether a local label would be possible. (For example, someone at the English Wikipedia asked if different namespaces could have different labels [answer: not technically possible], and the Chinese Wikipedia has some extra language on their "Save page" button [about the importance of previewing, I think].) Whether the Legal team can agree to a proposed change may depend upon the language/country involved, so please ask me first if you have any questions.
  • As part of the ongoing, years-long user-interface standardization project, the color and shape of the "Save changes" (or now "Publish page"), "Show preview" and "Show changes" buttons on some desktop wikitext editors will change. The buttons will be bigger and easier to find, and the "Save" button will be bright blue. (phab:T111088) Unfortunately, it is not technically possible to completely override this change and restore the appearance of the old buttons for either your account or an entire site.
  • Do you remember last April, when nobody could edit for about 30 minutes twice, because of some work that Technical Ops was doing on the servers? The same kind of planned maintenance is happening again. It's currently scheduled for Wednesday, April 19th and Wednesday, May 3rd. The time of day is unknown, but it will probably afternoon in Europe and morning in North America. This will be announced repeatedly, but please mark your calendars now.

That's everything on my mind at the moment, but I may have forgotten something. If you have questions (about this or any other WMF work), then please {{ping}} me, and I'll see what I can find out for you. Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We invite you to join the movement strategy conversation (now through April 15) edit

05:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

A local page for this at wikiquote:Wikimedia Strategy 2017 has been created, if you'd prefer to participate here instead of on Metawiki. Please let your fellow editors know, in the optimum locations for you. Looking forward to your input! :) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Admin help needed edit

We haven't an Admin on the Welsh (cy) version of Wikiquote. Ip is a vandal and the edits need reverting quickly please! Many thanks! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. English Wikiquote admins don't have admin rights on Welsh Wikiquote. But you don't need admin rights to revert vandalism. If you want that IP to be blocked, you can report it on Meta. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harping on issue of image quality ... are we ready to discuss this yet? edit

I am ready to start putting in images of historical significance comparable to their captions. The visual culture of a page should match the verbal culture. I don't see the logic of having ancient texts with photographs of rainbows. I can start fixing it if I have the buy-in of editor comrades. If not, why not? ~ Peter1c (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter1c: I don't necessarily have the time but I agree in principle. For what it's worth, I'm not entirely opposed to abstract images of space or geometric shapes, especially for very abstract concepts but some balance between photos that are literal, fun depictions, maps or diagrams, and the airy rainbow stuff is probably best. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An example of a current page where a quote is cited 10 times. edit

I often add links to multiple books to show that a quote has been quoted enough times to meet notability guidelines if the author lacks a wikipedia page, however this does not appear to me to be common practice as I rarely see as quotes by followed by more than one citation. Today I was told by Mdd I need no fewer than 10 citations per thematic quote, which seems a bit odd. I'm not going to try and analyze why Mdd did this, however they seem not to count Robert Anton Wilson as notable despite having a wikiquote page and blog posts having been acceptable to add for quotes from David Brin. So in short, what's up is this a real rule or at least a proposed one, or something Mdd made up just for me after not thinking Jack Parsons is enough of an expert on lemma outside science topics? I've added quotes from Parsons before to no objection.

I don't want to be a bother for y'all as I've done enough of that by accident in the past with non notable individuals so I want to be on the right side of public opinion on this one. Now I admit maybe some of the psychiatry quotes from presidents of the APA aren't notable, but Freud on birth is so I know Mdd got at least one wrong, and proposing new rules for particular users feels like Mdd skipped the jury part and hoped acting as both judge and executioner would be enough. I know wikiquote isn't a system of law, and that these metaphors are annoying but I detest the use of flame/wheel/revert wars as it belittles actual armed conflict, yet that is commonly accepted tongue in cheek jargon here while wikilawyering is just a silly slur for complaining and or talking about what the actual rules are too much. Either get used to the stupidly contrived pataphors or get more literal. The lack of professional respect and sportsmanship here disgusts me some days, whether it's insults or rules designed and enforced by one person onto another lone individuals that they themselves don't have to comply with. Show me this quote Mdd attributed to 10 different sources that cited it. CensoredScribe (talk) 04:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide the diff where Mdd told you this? I'd like to see his exact words on the matter. BD2412 T 00:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have found the diff. Mdd isn't asking you to put ten sources on the page with the quote; he is asking you to provide ten sources on the relevant Talk page to indicate that the quote is quoteworthy - that is, that people are in fact quoting it. This is in response to your well-worn tendency to provide as quotes that other editors agree are not appropriate for the pages to which they are added. Ten sources, I will admit, is a bit much, and there are probably a good number of decent quotes that would fall short of that. I'd think seven or eight would do. I would suggest, however, that limiting yourself to really, really notable quotes in this way for a time is likely to accustom you to the distinction between what is quoteworthy and what is not. BD2412 T 00:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Math template edit

I copied the enWP lead of the new article Fermat's Last Theorem and now the article is screwed up. More eyes welcome. Solomon7968 (talk) 05:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have simplified the markup to make the text readable, without the special font treatment often employed in math texts for formulae. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Logging In edit

I have been trying to log in to my Wiki account ( but cannot remember the password.

When I try to reset the password the message is "the username Yo does not exist on this wiki, but you reset its password on the wiki that it is.

When I click on that link it shows that I am apparently attached to 5 wiki accounts. But if I try to log in to one of these attached accounts, the whole process starts all over again.

Please advise how I can log in.

When you request a password reset, the system sends you an e-mail with a new temporary password. Did you receive the e-mail? If so, you should follow the instructions in that e-mail before the temporary password expires. If you did not provide an e-mail address when you created the account (or subsequently in your account profile) or if you no longer have access to that e-mail account, then there is no way to reset the password and you will have to abandon the account. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept our apologies for cross-posting this message. This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.


On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, I am pleased to announce that self-nominations are being accepted for the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Elections.

The Board of Trustees (Board) is the decision-making body that is ultimately responsible for the long-term sustainability of the Wikimedia Foundation, so we value wide input into its selection. More information about this role can be found on Meta-Wiki. Please read the letter from the Board of Trustees calling for candidates.

The candidacy submission phase will last from April 7 (00:00 UTC) to April 20 (23:59 UTC).

We will also be accepting questions to ask the candidates from April 7 to April 20. You can submit your questions on Meta-Wiki.

Once the questions submission period has ended on April 20, the Elections Committee will then collate the questions for the candidates to respond to beginning on April 21.

The goal of this process is to fill the three community-selected seats on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. The election results will be used by the Board itself to select its new members.

The full schedule for the Board elections is as follows. All dates are inclusive, that is, from the beginning of the first day (UTC) to the end of the last.

  • April 7 (00:00 UTC) – April 20 (23:59 UTC) – Board nominations
  • April 7 – April 20 – Board candidates questions submission period
  • April 21 – April 30 – Board candidates answer questions
  • May 1 – May 14 – Board voting period
  • May 15–19 – Board vote checking
  • May 20 – Board result announcement goal

In addition to the Board elections, we will also soon be holding elections for the following roles:

  • Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)
    • There are five positions being filled. More information about this election will be available on Meta-Wiki.
  • Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson (Ombuds)
    • One position is being filled. More information about this election will be available on Meta-Wiki.

Please note that this year the Board of Trustees elections will be held before the FDC and Ombuds elections. Candidates who are not elected to the Board are explicitly permitted and encouraged to submit themselves as candidates to the FDC or Ombuds positions after the results of the Board elections are announced.

More information on this year's elections can be found on Meta-Wiki. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the election talk page on Meta-Wiki, or sent to the election committee's mailing list, board-elections

On behalf of the Election Committee,
Katie Chan, Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee
Joe Sutherland, Community Advocate, Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, 03:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

The last week of the 1st cycle of Wikimedia strategy conversation edit

Hi, I'm Szymon, a MetaWiki Strategy Coordinator. 3 weeks ago, we invited you to join a broad discussion about Wikimedia's future role in the world. The discussion is divided into 3 cycles, and the first one ends on April, 15. So far, Wikimedians have been discussing mainly about technological improvements, multilingual support, friendly environment, cooperation with other organizations and networks.

I'm pinging a few recently active admins. I hope you'll help me with passing along the news, maybe even join the discussion. @UDScott, Mdd, Kalki, Ningauble, Miszatomic:.

Looking forward to your input. Thank you in advance! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having been pinged here, I commented at that talk page after the fact, comparing this exercise to the previous one in which I did participate. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read-only mode for 20 to 30 minutes on 19 April and 3 May edit

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Search widget to find quotes that are: Featured/Popular/Historic edit

On each page there would be a drop-down menu to quickly find quotes that are:

  • Featured - this quote was featured as a 'quote of the day'.
  • Popular - this quote is popular or well-known (e.g. all quotes currently in bold.)
  • Historic - this quote is historic (e.g. Armstrong's That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind.)

These are of course suggested categories. A tool like this would be very useful on the longer pages (e.g. John F. Kennedy).

This widget would work just like the Wikicommons widget (menu in upper-right that has these options:featured pictures/quality images/valued images). Please click that link to see how it works. It is possible the same Opensource code used there could be used for Wikiquote.—This unsigned comment is by Craig 8 8 (talkcontribs) 08:06, 24 April 2017.

Great idea. Unfortunately, most quotes currently in bold are neither popular nor well-known. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. "A tool like this would be very useful on the longer pages (e.g. John F. Kennedy)" – I very much agree. But consider the page you gave as an example: pretty much all quotes on John F. Kennedy are in bold! Q.E.D. This is why I keep saying that bold text should be used sparingly (e.g. as in The Aeneid or The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell) – to highlight the most famous quotes, not for decorative purposes... ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A lovely idea in theory, but I am afraid the culture of our wiki community is not really up to the task of identifying which quotations are most noteworthy in these and similar respects. Even the featured 'quote of the day' designation is an idiosyncratic choice by mostly one person because the broader community seldom participates in the selection process. I wish we were better at featuring the best, but we are not. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The strategy discussion. The Cycle 2 will start on May 5 edit

The first cycle of the Wikimedia movement strategy process recently concluded. During that period, we were discussing the main directions for the Wikimedia movement over the next 15 years. There are more than 1500 summary statements collected from the various communities, but unfortunately, none from your local discussion (the only comment was added after the the Cycle 1, and after my deadline). The strategy facilitators and many volunteers have summarized the discussions of the previous month. A quantitative analysis of the statements will be posted on Meta for translation this week, alongside the report from the Berlin conference.

The second cycle will begin soon. It's set to begin on May 5 and run until May 31. During that period, you will be invited to dive into the main topics that emerged in the first cycle, discuss what they mean, which ones are the most important and why, and what their practical implications are. This work will be informed and complemented by research involving new voices that haven’t traditionally been included in strategy discussions, like readers, partners, and experts. Together, we will begin to make sense of all this information and organize it into a meaningful guiding document, which we will all collectively refine during the third and last cycle in June−July.

We want to help your community to be more engaged with the discussions in the next cycle. Now, we are looking for volunteers who could

  • tell us where to announce the start of the Cycle 2, and how to do that, so we could be sure the majority of your community is informed and has a chance to feel committed, and
  • facilitate the Cycle 2 discussions here, on Wikiquote.

We are looking forward to your feedback!

Base (WMF) and SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412's comment here was interesting. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412, DanielTom: See m:Semantic Wikiquote. I own the domain for a demo (which is not live). —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I approve. BD2412 T 22:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: Once I get it going, I will let you know. Unfortunately, I've had the domain a year with no results. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At some point, I think it becomes inevitable. BD2412 T 03:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: I'm glad you gave me the encouragement. Let me get started on something useful now and see what I can present to you. Ping me in a few days if you don't hear from me. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Beta Feature Two Column Edit Conflict View edit

Birgit Müller (WMDE) 14:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter account @wikiquote edit

The account is a dormant one (altho there may be some non-public activity, such as sending messages to other users). Does the community here have any interest in trying to commandeer the account via trademark and use it to promote the site? —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless this account is already registered and controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation, it should be taken down or usurped by the Foundation as a violation of its Trademark policy §3.6.2 "Personal blogs and social media". ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ningauble: Agreed. I'm just saying, if the WMF gets this, does anyone here think it would be useful to actually post with it? If so, does anyone want to be responsible for it? I'd be willing if no one else is. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. It could tweet the quotes of the day. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a sometimes-trademark attorney, I absolutely agree that Wikiquote should own the account using our name, and should tweet occasional quotes (due to Twitter's character limitation, these will be short, and the QOTD will not always fit the bill). I would be glad to help operate such an account, as I actually received training in my last job on effective use of Twitter. BD2412 T 20:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: I think I should send a formal request to legal at the WMF suggesting that you and I be given access to the account. Does that sound good to you, BD? —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds very good. BD2412 T 21:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very good, indeed. BD2412 T 22:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing News #1—2017 edit

18:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

RevisionSlider edit

Birgit Müller (WMDE) 14:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Quick Question About Quote of the Day edit

So can I take a part of a quote and put it as a suggestion? 2602:306:34AB:2830:D164:4C99:4E83:358A 21:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@2602:306:34AB:2830:D164:4C99:4E83:358A: You cannot self-publish quotes (except for maybe at a userpage) so unless you were part of a historic quotation, then no. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two pages to merge edit

There are William Edmondstoune Aytoun and W. E. Aytoun, which one is the correct? --Superchilum (talk) 07:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - I've merged the two together onto the William Edmondstoune Aytoun page, as this title matches that on Wikipedia, and made the other a redirect. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Search results from Wikiquote now part of English Wikipedia's search system edit

Just to let you know, as announced via mailing list service, English Wikipedia is now receiving search results of this project, Wikiquote, intended to direct Wikipedia users to this project. Currently, an option to suppress the search results of this project from the English Wikipedia search system is proposed at Village pump's "proposal" subpage, where I invite you to comment. --George Ho (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two pages to merge edit

Hi, there Alvin and the Chipmunks (TV Series) and Alvin and the Chipmunks (1983 TV series) which deal about the same series and I think should be merged :-) --Superchilum (talk) 10:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The same for Template:Talkheader and Template:Talk header. --Superchilum (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Superchilum: Thanks--that one was easy to do. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: thank you :) what about the other one? --Superchilum (talk) 07:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Superchilum: Your merge suggestion is correct--I just hadn't gotten to it. If you're looking for support, I 100% approve. You can easily do the merge yourself if you'd like but if you're not sure about how to handle it, then I can assist you. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting MST3K episodes on the pages for the films covered. edit

Would it be a good idea to include MST3K episode quotes in the about sections for the films they cover? I don't know how many of the films even have their own pages. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]