Wikiquote:Village pump archive 52

Memorable quotes

I don't see any of these here yet. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Quotes of the day

Why are almost all quotes political? What happened to some of the wonderful quotes you used to have from literature, history, philosophy?—This unsigned comment is by 46.1.29.127 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 17 January 2018‎.

Good question. My sense is that the person who picks the quotes is more keen on promoting his political ("feel-good", Democrat-leaning) agenda than on selecting the best, most memorable quotes "from literature, history, philosophy" (see Wikiquote's purpose). Another source of bias is his commitment to religious universalism. No one is perfect. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Despite how you might interpret the choices made, I don't think that it is fair to characterize the selection of the quotes in this way - if you do object, feel free to vote for a better quote (for example, see Wikiquote:Quote of the day/January). We all have an opportunity to help in the selection process, but most do not participate. As they say about politics, what good does it do to complain if you don't vote? ~ UDScott (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I do !vote and suggest quotes myself, sometimes. But I don't think !voting matters very much. Kalki often selects political quotes that no one (other than him) !voted for, and ignores short memorable quotes with many !votes – probably because they don't contain enough wikilinks. This is my honest assessment of the process. I'm NOT saying I could do a better job. And I don't doubt Kalki's intentions are good. To be fair, early on the selected quotes seemed to be much more memorable. Naturally, as the years go by finding adequate quotes (i.e., notable quotes related to any specific day) will prove more challenging. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Pages to be deleted

Hi, look at Special:Contributions/194.17.34.42: a lot of pages with no quotes and the same tagline for every film. --Superchilum (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Y Deleted. See the WQ:CRYSTAL policy. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Boldface in all "last words"

In Last words and Fictional last words (and subpages like Fictional last words in animated films), is there any reason all or most quotes are in bold? In other pages like Love and Time, bold seems reserved for the "best" quotes. Or does it mean that all last words are notable, in a way? Maybe it would be a good idea to remove boldface from a lot of the "last words" quotes and leaving just some bold like in other pages. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I quite agree. Be bold and fix it (sorry about the pun).--Abramsky (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Fine by me. I started with Last words in DC Comics. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll be bold, unlike most quotes in these pages after I edit them. ;) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Those quotes are completely bold because they are quoted from characters. To only bold what is "important" (who even makes that decision anyway) would bring only confusion, and take attention away from the whole sentence, which is important in of itself for being their final words.Finister2 (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Finister2: Then why in most pages only a handful of pages have bold quotes? You restored the boldface I had removed from Last words in Batman media, yet for instance Batman: The Animated Series only has a handful of bold quotes. Most quotes in that page are quoted from characters.

Please don't put words in my mouth. You gave this edit summary at [1], but I never said I thought it would be okay with everyone. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree that the whole sentences are important in and of itself as their final words, though I did ask at the first message here if that would be the case. Did you just dismiss the idea of using boldface for just the important quotes and then tried to decide what is important for yourself? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that removing the bolding is probably the way to go. Having all of the quotes on these pages bolded doesn't really make a lot of sense. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

There mostly there in place of quotation marks, and to give more focus to them over the description.Finister2 (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not generally how we do things here. We do not use quote marks and we do not bold all quotes on a page. Descriptions are instead bulleted and indented to separate them from the quotes themselves. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, UDScott.

Also, Finnister2, you know what I mean. Here are two partially bold quotes from The Sandman:

• "I am anti-life, the Beast of Judgement. I am the dark at the end of everything. The end of universes, gods, worlds … of everything. And what will you be then, Dreamlord?"
  "I am Hope."
  • Choronzon and Dream, playing "the oldest game", in Sandman #4: "A Hope in Hell"
• "The million lords of hell stand arrayed about you. Tell us, why we should let you leave? Helmet or no, you have no power here — what power have dreams in Hell?"
  "You say I have no power? Perhaps you speak truly. But — you say that dreams have no power here? Tell me, Lucifer Morningstar... Ask yourselves, all of you, what power would Hell have if those here imprisoned were not able to dream of Heaven?"
  • Lucifer and Dream, in Sandman #4: "A Hope in Hell"

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I waited a few days for a reply, then today I restored the un-boldened version of Last words in Batman media. In this discussion, three people seem to support un-bolding, counting myself, Abramsky and UDScott. As of yet, only Finister2 seems to support using bold in all last words. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

May I ask what your motivation for this kind of change is? Did you wake just wake up one morning and decide that something needed to happen about this, or is there a more complex reasoning behind it?Finister2 (talk) 11:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I and others already said the reasons above. But I see you ignored them and reverted the Batman page again. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I did not ignore. You left no note and I thought you went rogue. It wasn't until some time afterwards that I thought to manually check this discussion.Finister2 (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

You ignored the reasons given. You could have said "I disagree with the reasons.", but you are acting as though no reasons exist. When you said: "May I ask what your motivation for this kind of change is?" and when you said below "changing bold to unbold for no presented reason".

Aside from that, you didn't answer the 2nd question I asked at your talk page, which is very important: "why would the last words be different?" In other words, would you like to make all quotes at Time and Love completely bold too, or just the last words? No matter the answer, I must ask: why that answer?--Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I am opposed to using bold to highlight quotes for the same reason I am opposed to highlighting library books. The reader can decide for herself or himself which quotes are the most significant. ~ Peter1c (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

First of all I'm not sure that bolding is the correct way to highlight quotes. It is unclear and there is no explanation. Are these famous quotes? Notable for some reason? Favourite of the author/director/actor?

Secondly, anyways when all the quotes are bolded, there is no meaning to the bolding. As Syndrome says "when everyone's super, no one will be". --SuperJew (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Highlighting some quotes is really subjective, and maybe there's no perfect way to do it. But so is building Wikiquote, isn't it? If all words and utterances from books, films, etc. were equally notable, we wouldn't need Wikiquote. The fact that we choose some quotes from books and films to mention here means they have some importance in comparison with other utterances from the same sources.

Perhaps the most witty and/or memorable quotes merit bold-highlighting. This is a tentative guideline. Some Last words and Fictional last words look pretty bland.

Bold-highligthing is already an established practice, isn't it? (Though I wish we had actual numbers as to how many pages have this.) If some people don't want it, would you rather remove all the current bold-highlighting from Time and Love? It seems many other pages found through Special:Random also have bold-highligthing. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Putting all quotes in bold, like using smaller letters for the citations, is just an alternative way of drawing attention to the quotes themselves. In most articles, the quotes in bold are not, unfortunately, the most famous quotes. In this respect, bolding all quotes may be better than bolding seemingly random quotes because the former doesn't lead to NPOV issues. My preference is to bold only the most famous quotes. Bolding all quotes or no quotes at all is just a stylistic difference. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC) last edit: 19:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

When I first came to Wikiquote, I noticed some articles had practically every other quote in bold. It was confusing, and hard to follow. Nothing was added by bolding the quotes. Some articles benefit from it when used in extreme moderation to highlight major quotes, but on the whole, I think the articles look better, when the quotes are not in bold. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 19:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this: "Some articles benefit from it when used in extreme moderation to highlight major quotes". You also mentioned articles with "practically every other quote in bold", which does sound very bad in my opinion. I would rather prefer an article with no bold at all than an excess of bold everywhere. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be better to have them all in bold, than the reverse. It would be easier to draw attention to the quotes.Finister2 (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

As a regular usurer and editor of Wikiquote, I personally prefer the bolding quotes. It allows an easier way to find the actual quote amongst the sources and the description. My main problem with this is why it is being discussed now? After all these years of bolding quotes, people are saying they have a problem with all bolds? Aren't their bigger concerns in the world than changing bold to unbold for no presented reason other than change for changes sake?Finister2 (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC) Finister2 (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I and other people already said our reasons. Please either say you agree or disagree with them, but don't pretend we didn't do it.

As you know, my main problem is with inconsistency. Why Time and Last words seem to have different bolding practices? In the former, a few quotes are bold, most are not. In the latter, all are bold. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Because one is a collection of quotes about a subject, the other is a list of real and fictional words collected together, with a source and a description. The bolding is just used to draw more attention the persons' words than the description behind it.Finister2 (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Finister2: You said "a list of real and fictional words collected together", but ALL Wikiquote pages are collections of real and/or fictional quotes. Last words is about real quotes. Time may potentially be about both real and fictional quotes.

I really think you mean you would format thematic and non-thematic pages differently. But this would sem like a completely random and arbitrary distinction. Very confusing. Do you seriously expect everyone to keep using bold-highlighting in pages about a subject and then completely switch to 100%-bold in pages about works of fiction like The Matrix (film)? The Matrix page is one of many that already uses bold-highlihthing, an already established practice. It also uses bold for highlighting character names, which is a completely different thing.

Would you want to make all quotes in The Matrix (film) completely bold like you did with Last words in Batman media? If we copy some quotes from The Matrix (film) to Real (which is a theme page, while The Matrix film has more than a few quotes about the nature of reality), then would you use bold-highlithing for the same quote only in the theme page? That seems like a big deal. I suggest basically formatting the same everywhere as long as it's possible, with no active distinction based on the type of page. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Aside from that, it's not up to you to decide what others are allowed to discuss. It would be convenient for you if we were unable to discuss this issue, because then you would have your way without the need to justify it. Both you and I seem to have strong opinions about boldface. If boldface really were so unimportant to you, you could simply give up discussing and accept whatever happens with the pages. But actually, there's no need for that. Let's discuss it. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Daniel Carrero (talk) asked me to weigh in here. In this particular case, I don't see that bold is very useful. Since every quote is entirely bolded, it doesn't provide any information about the material, so is strictly a design decision, and IMO not a design decision that accomplishes very much. Personally, I'd be happy to see the bold face removed. OTOH, this is an area of inconsistency here, as has been pointed out. Is anyone volunteering to fix all the bolding throughout Wikiquotes? It seems unfair just to single out these pages. Ubiquity (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ubiquity: Thanks for coming. But is all the bolding throughout Wikiquote a problem? I chose specifically Last words, Fictional last words, and their subpages because they seem to be the odd ones out, where bold is used in all or most quotes. This seems out of norm. Are there many other pages where bold is used everywhere like this? If there are any other pages, then probably a bot can find them and automatically remove the boldface from all quotes. Obviously, as a result, they would become pages where no quotes are bold, which would sound excellent to me.

It seems the norm is using boldface to highlight quotes, or just having no bold quotes at all.

I volunteer to keep fixing the "Last words" pages if I'm allowed to, with the purpose of fitting in the perceived norm I described in the above paragraph. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Daniel Carrero asked me to comment. I take the additional time to add bold face only when it's in the presentation of the original quote, which happens frequently with comic books, where extra detail is given to lettering, like customized fonts for characters, though not so much in other mediums. I imagine the majority of these entries are inaccurate in their use of bold text in regards to the scripts for the stories they are from, and the bold was added by an editor later to add hat they thought was being emphasized; I think if we're relying on those personal opinions in regards for altering the text, than who's to say that every other line of dialogue delivered by Captain Kirk doesn't have a comma, an ellipsis or bold text for dramatic emphasis the way the Uncyclopedia page for Kirk is presented? Trying to transcribe an actor's emphasis in presenting the dialogue isn't something that's going to be in the scripts, similarly pauses in speeches aren't typically transcribed by news outlets using a legal transcription style, or else ellipses, em dashes and commas would be more frequent in the speeches of certain politicians. I think just the selection of the most notable quotes is highlighting these texts enough. This page's uniform use of bold text is distracting and makes it seem like all death scenes are loud and melodramatic, the way actors would traditionally project them selves to be better heard in the theater. Though format is a minor issue, if the text were in all caps needlessly or another color or font, there would be a major objection that it effected readability or looked unprofessional. So unless the script specifically says something is in bold text, I'd not add bold text just because the scene is physically or emotionally intensive or the people speaking are over a certain number of decibels; I don't believe that speech to text recorders in closed captioning use bold text even when the dialogue is being shouted, like in sportscasts when someone is about to make a goal. I'd say deleting the bold text and requiring a citation it's actually bold in the script, transcript or book is an improvement; good call Daniel Carrero. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

All caps and italics are used for emphasis more than bolding.Finister2 (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for coming and weighing in, @CensoRedScribe. I agree with this: "This page's uniform use of bold text is distracting and makes it seem like all death scenes are loud and melodramatic, the way actors would traditionally project them selves to be better heard in the theater."

Many of those last words seem especially bland on paper, even if in the films/comics themselves they are part of a more dramatic and meaningful context. Like this one from Last words in Batman media:

Is that a phone?

In my opinion, if everything in Last words and Fictional last words were normal (not bold), instead of completely bold, it would be a major improvement. To be clear, I'm not really sure about using bold to imitate when comics do it. Maybe we should NOT use bold even in this case. I say this because, in my experience, American comics use boldface a lot, to highlight a few arguably random words per sentence.

In Sandman #63, there's this dialogue. The boldface from the comics is unchanged.

Larissa: See this? It's a hundred dollar bill. I'm giving you half of it. If you're still here when I get back, I shall give you the other half.

Taxi driver: Okay, lady. I shall be here, unless there be guns. If there be guns, I will be gone.

This is just a normal dialogue which I probably wouldn't add in any Wikiquote page. But if we did add it, I think it would be better if completely not-bold. This way:

Larissa: See this? It's a hundred dollar bill. I'm giving you half of it. If you're still here when I get back, I shall give you the other half.

Taxi driver: Okay, lady. I shall be here, unless there be guns. If there be guns, I will be gone.

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

If we're focusing on the lists in comparison to pages about subjects and people, I think there's been some confusion; the pages on subject are quotes that focus on that subject, while the lists are a collection of words given by people and characters, with a source and description given, the bolding is just to put more emphasis on the actual quotes and less on the description.

Also look at these two;

• This is my world. (Lois: "No! No!") You are my world.
• This is my world. (Lois: "No! No!") You are my world.

Without the bolding, it can be hard to tell which words belong to the speaker, as opposed to the interrupter. Just food for though.Finister2 (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Finister2: Above, I replied to the idea of formatting separately the theme and non-theme pages.[2] This is where I called it an arbitrary distinction, to say the least. I repeat, would you use 100%-bold just in The Matrix (film) and bold-highlighting in Real for the same quote just because they are in different pages? And would you expect everyone else to do the same?

In your example, I very much prefer the non-bold version:

This is my world. (Lois: "No! No!") You are my world.

It's not hard at all to tell which words belong to the speaker, as opposed to the interrupter. The interrupter is between parenthesis and starts with "Lois:". It even has "No! No!" between quotation marks, which I find excessive. I would probably remove the quotation marks. The (Lois: "No! No!") is also completely italic. It has an excess of emphasis, not a lack of emphasis.

An alternative method might be just using multiple lines:

Clark: This is my world.

Lois: No! No!

Clark: You are my world.

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Here's an idea: At least de-bold all or most "Last words"

@Finister2, Abramsky, UDScott, Peter1c, SuperJew, DanielTom, Just A Regular New Yorker:

Correct me if I'm wrong: here in this discussion, so far, some people like me support using bold just to highlight things. Some people here would rather not use bold at all.

Some possible uses of bold that have been mentioned here:

• to imitate wherever bold is actually used in the source (which appears to be common in American comics),
• or as some sort of emphasis of sounds or screams (which seems controversial at least),
• or to highlight famous quotes or the favorite of the author (which nobody seems to support, it was just mentioned, I guess?),
• or to highlight witty or notable quotes

But it seems @Finister2 is currently the only person here who would like to have all "last words" quotes bolded. He/she also seems to support having a separate non-bold style for thematic pages like Time, based on what he/she said in this revision of the current discussion.

Finister2's opinion is currently a minority. I suggest, at the very least, removing bold from all quotes in Last words, Fictional last words and their subpages. I recently found Last Lines, created by Finister2, which also has all quotes bolded. I suggest de-bolding it too for the same reasons.

Aside from that, in my opinion, it's still a good idea to highlight some witty and notable quotes, very sparingly, like I did in this revision of a Batman page which got reverted by Finister2. But alternatively, I could live with just having all the quotes with normal formatting, i.e. NOT bold at all, not even for witty/notable quotes. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems the ping template has a limit of merely 7 people, so here's an additional ping: @Ubiquity, CensoredScribe. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Update: I renamed Last Lines to Last lines. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion to de-bold articles where all the quotes are bolded. As I said earlier, there is no meaning to it, if it's done to all of them.

And in general, I can't understand the point of the bolding (meaning that an average user would even less understand), so I'm for de-bolding in general. --SuperJew (talk) 06:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

For those who suggest retaining bold face in more-or-less arbitrary fashion, how do you propose we show text which was bold when it was initially printed? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Koavf: Thanks for coming after I asked on your talk page. I suggest removing the boldface that is found in the printed text, especially in American comics where seemingly random words are often bolded. Can someone mention any examples where it's a good idea to do the opposite, that is keeping the text bolded as in the printed source?

To repeat an example given above, here's a quote from Sandman #63:

Larissa: See this? It's a hundred dollar bill. I'm giving you half of it. If you're still here when I get back, I shall give you the other half.

Taxi driver: Okay, lady. I shall be here, unless there be guns. If there be guns, I will be gone.

If this dialogue found its way to a Wikiquote page for any reason, I would prefer de-bolding it like this:

Larissa: See this? It's a hundred dollar bill. I'm giving you half of it. If you're still here when I get back, I shall give you the other half.

Taxi driver: Okay, lady. I shall be here, unless there be guns. If there be guns, I will be gone.

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Bolding is actually rarely used for emphasis in the original publication of most works (which is one of the reasons it is useful on such collections of quotes as exist here), and the usually rather random use of bolding in comic book text need not be retained in quotes. This section began as a dispute specifically on the quotes for "Last words", and I must state that the proliferation of pages for "Last words in whatever" is not something I have closely followed, and I was not inclined to immediately weigh in on the subject. I have realized that there have been occasional disputes on the tendency of some people to bold ALL of the words on such pages in the past — and I tend to agree that such bolding ALL such quotes is not appropriate, and thus I have no objection to the removal of "blanket bold" practices which some have engaged in, but truthfully, the styling disputes of any of these pages are not something which have greatly concerned me. However, the drift of the discussion here on a few occasions to suggestions for the removal of all the bolding from all the pages is something I definitely object to. Selective bolding of quotes by editors is something which has been promoted since the first months of the project in 2003, and quoting some remarks I made in regard to the issue when it arose in 2006:

…bolding practices here have thus far only rarely been an issue of contention. The few occasions it has been an issue it has usually been raised by people who feel nothing should be bolded at all, but that so far has not been a dominant consensus here, and I have occasionally emphasized that, especially on the larger pages, I find the total lack of bolding to be very aesthetically unappealing and bland. I have never attempted to ignore, deny, or equivocate about the fact that to any human being, there are many quotations and statements that are inherently more notable than others, and that this is a place where we are gathering and sifting them in various ways, according to our various interests and inclinations, and I have always asserted that bolding is and should remain an option available for people who are interested in developing the presentations we are engaged in creating here on the various pages.

In the many years since 2006, the issue of selective bolding of prominent statements remains something which has only occasionally arisen, and though I have long acknowledged it is sometimes overused — especially in cases where ALL quotes on a page are in bold —  I continue to support the practice of intelligently selective bolding, as I have since the beginning. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 08:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kalki: Thanks for coming after I asked on your talk page.

I agree with you: "bolding is and should remain an option available for people who are interested in developing the presentations we are engaged in creating here on the various pages". I also agree with this: "it is sometimes overused — especially in cases where ALL quotes on a page are in bold". It seems we have a consensus for removing all the "blanket bold". I'll do it one of these days (no rush, I guess). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Removing blanket bolding

@Finister2, Abramsky, UDScott, Peter1c, SuperJew, DanielTom

@Just A Regular New Yorker, Ubiquity, CensoredScribe, Koavf, Kalki

Update:

As per consensus in this discussion, I started to remove blanket bolding from all last words. But the user 31.205.7.7 reverted almost all of them, thus restoring the old blanket bolding.

Edit summaries used by 31.205.7.7 include "what kind of idiot approved this", "what is this shit?", "the hell is going on here", "this is stupid", "Why the shit is one line bolded at the bottom" and "thats better". That goes against the current discussion and sounds like vandalism to me. Should that user be blocked?

Full report follows.

Important notes:

• All the diffs below are my edits.
• All pages starting with † were reverted by 31.205.7.7, except Last words in Batman media and Last words in DC Comics media which were reverted by Finister2. Therefore, all pages marked with † currently have the blanket bolding again.

Part 1: I completely removed blanket bolding from all the following pages (except most were reverted by 31.205.7.7 and got the blanket bolding restored).

[non-fiction]

• † Last words (diff)
• Last lines (diff)
• Suicide notes (diff)

[fiction]

• Fictional last words (diff)
• † Fictional last words in animated television series (diff)
• † Fictional last words in animated films (diff)
• † Fictional last words in films (diff)
• † Fictional last words in literature (diff)
• † Fictional last words in live-action television series (diff)
• † Fictional last words in video games (diff)
• † Fictional last words in internet series (diff)
• † Fictional last words in webcomics (diff)
• Last words in 24 (diff)

Part 2 -- I removed blanket bolding from these pages, except I left a few bold quotes that I found notable and/or witty. I attempted to use bold sparingly here.

• † [blanket bolding re-added by Finister2] Last words in Batman media (diff)
• Last words in Bleach (diff)
• † [blanket bolding re-added by Finister2] Last words in DC Comics media (diff and diff)
• † Last words in Family Guy (diff)
• † Last words in Rick and Morty (diff)

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Admin nomination

Please see Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Koavf. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Adding Cite tool to toolbar

Hi all

I've been editing Wikipedia, Wikidata and Commons for some years and starting to get into Wikiquote. I'm trying to add references to the pages I'm adding information to (in Visual Editor) but there is no Cite tool in the toolbar to generate a citation from a URL like the other Wikimedia sites I'm used to editing. I can add citations if I draft the article on Wikipedia and then move it over but it would be much easier to have the citation tool working on Wikiquote. Is it a conscious choice to not have it available? Looking around I can't see many pages with references.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The so-called "cite" tool would be better named a "footnote" tool. What it does is place citations in footnotes at Wikipedia and other sites. Here at Wikiquote (at least en) we put the citations in the main text of the articles (as a bullet point or a section heading), not in an appendix or footnote. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

QotD not displaying, also Wikiquote in the hospital

The QotD exists: Wikiquote:Quote of the day/February 10, 2018 but is a redlink on the Main Page. See https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikiquote:Quote_of_the_day/February_10,_2018 where it is not linked to the Main Page (as of now).

Also: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2018/02/09/community-digest-51/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

QOTD was displaying okay for me — but it often needs a main page purge to update for everyone — I have just done that, so it should be alright now. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 01:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Non-notable Quotes

Is there a page for quotes that are not from a notable person? Many times I encounter a phrase that is profound and insightful, but I can't share it on Wikiquote because it was said by a "regular" person. If such a page doesn't exist, would it be against Wikiquote's official policy to create it? Is it appropriate to place these quotes on Anonymous? Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

There are many statements which are not sufficiently notable to be included here, and many potentially notable quotes of not sufficiently notable people, but apart from clearly evident spam, such quotes as might be by people or sources of insufficient notability can be generally posted to one's user pages, but there are no provisions for putting such quotes anywhere within "article space", and if they are not significantly noted as anonymous quotes elsewhere, should not be posted to the anonymous page. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 00:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Changing Title of an Article

I have been browsing the help pages, but I am still unclear on how to change the title of an article. I believe that Category:Jews should be renamed Category:Jewish People. Feel free to change it for me if you agree. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC) I prefer a bot to change it as it has so many items.--Jusjih (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Japanese poets

Risto hot sir has requested that I ask the community about what should be done regarding the numerous articles listed under Category:Japanese poets. You will know what I mean after you read a few and start to see the trend. They are all a possible copyright violation, they are all of non-notable people who don't even have a Wikipedia article, they are all from one source and they all clog up this category. You can read more about this here, here, here, and here. - Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment I'm very eager to see what the community thinks about this.--Risto hot sir (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC) - Only Japanese people know if these poets are notable.--Risto hot sir (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment I am not referring to the notability from a literary perspective, but rather according to the guidelines established here. We have argued about this before and I don't intend to continue the argument here. The purpose of this post was to fulfill your request and to involve other editors. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment JARNY seems to have an obsession to delete these Japanese poets' sites - which hardly many people visit. Bigger problem is the longest sites, like the 3rd longest, Top Gear. Isn't that a massive copyright violation according to JARNY's principles? And all quotations are from one source.--Risto hot sir (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Help!

AstaDev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). I don't know where else to go. This user is maliciously vandalizing everything. Help! Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind. Kalki saved the day. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Hoaxes?

The Adventures of Rugrats & Rolie Polie Olie and Penn Jillette tells Angelica Pickles - A Custom Adventure with Rugrats & Rolie Polie Olie: are they real? There are no sources online. --Superchilum (talk) 08:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

These are the closest things that I found [3] - [4] Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

In this case, both articles on Wikia are on test or parody wikis. Probable hoax then. hiàn 04:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Editing News #1—2018

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Did you know?

Did you know that you can now use the visual diff tool on any page?

Sometimes, it is hard to see important changes in a wikitext diff. This screenshot of a wikitext diff (click to enlarge) shows that the paragraphs have been rearranged, but it does not highlight the removal of a word or the addition of a new sentence.

If you enable the Beta Feature for "⧼visualeditor-preference-visualdiffpage-label⧽", you will have a new option. It will give you a new box at the top of every diff page. This box will let you choose either diff system on any edit.

Click the toggle button to switch between visual and wikitext diffs.

In the visual diff, additions, removals, new links, and formatting changes will be highlighted. Other changes, such as changing the size of an image, are described in notes on the side.

This screenshot shows the same edit as the wikitext diff. The visual diff highlights the removal of one word and the addition of a new sentence.

You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has spent most of their time supporting the 2017 wikitext editor mode, which is available inside the visual editor as a Beta Feature, and improving the visual diff tool. Their work board is available in Phabricator. You can find links to the work finished each week at mw:VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings. Their current priorities are fixing bugs, supporting the 2017 wikitext editor, and improving the visual diff tool.

Recent changes

• The 2017 wikitext editor is available as a Beta Feature on desktop devices. It has the same toolbar as the visual editor and can use the citoid service and other modern tools. The team have been comparing the performance of different editing environments. They have studied how long it takes to open the page and start typing. The study uses data for more than one million edits during December and January. Some changes have been made to improve the speed of the 2017 wikitext editor and the visual editor. Recently, the 2017 wikitext editor opened fastest for most edits, and the 2010 WikiEditor was fastest for some edits. More information will be posted at mw:Contributors/Projects/Editing performance.
• The visual diff tool was developed for the visual editor. It is now available to all users of the visual editor and the 2017 wikitext editor. When you review your changes, you can toggle between wikitext and visual diffs. You can also enable the new Beta Feature for "Visual diffs". The Beta Feature lets you use the visual diff tool to view other people's edits on page histories and Special:RecentChanges. [5]
• Wikitext syntax highlighting is available as a Beta Feature for both the 2017 wikitext editor and the 2010 wikitext editor. [6]
• The citoid service automatically translates URLs, DOIs, ISBNs, and PubMed id numbers into wikitext citation templates. It is very popular and useful to editors, although it can be a bit tricky to set up. Your wiki can have this service. Please read the instructions. You can ask the team to help you enable citoid at your wiki.

Let's work together

• The team will talk about editing tools at an upcoming Wikimedia Foundation metrics and activities meeting.
• Wikibooks, Wikiversity, and other communities may have the visual editor made available by default to contributors. If your community wants this, then please contact Dan Garry.
• The <references /> block can automatically display long lists of references in columns on wide screens. This makes footnotes easier to read. You can request multi-column support for your wiki. [7]
• If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly. We will notify you when the next issue is ready for translation. Thank you!

—Elitre (WMF)

20:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Not appearing to be linked with Wikidata

Hi all. When I encountered the article Eden ahbez, I found that it appeared to not be linked with Wikidata - the "Wikidata item" tool didn't appear and it didn't appear on the Wikidata item user script I was using. I had previously purged the page several times and cleared my cache, to no avail. Any thoughts? hiàn 03:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for rapid cleanup of theme pages

Dear fellow editors, in reviewing the theme pages created by User:Nvvchar, I am finding that many of the articles contain

• Quotations only incidentally related to the article topic
• Quotations sourced from collections of quotations
• Quotations from non-notable sources
• Formatting that is not compliant with Wikiquote standards (and not consistent)
• Numerous typographical errors

I have been flagging the pages with the Theme-cleanup template. My review of these pages is very disheartening, as the cleanup operation seems like it will take several months of full time work to complete. I am concerned that leaving all these pages in the state they are in creates a negative impression about the quality of the Wikiquote site, and would like to proceed with cleanup. As a solution, I would like to propose a rapid cleanup process:

• quotations that are are clearly notable, correctly formatted and relevant are retained on the page
• all other quotations are moved to the talk page for later review and correction.

Let me know what you think.

Thanks and best regards, Peter1c (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. I wouldn't remove quotes based on formatting alone, but non-notable poorly sourced quotes can and should be moved to the talk page. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I’ve encountered many articles that are badly formatted. Many of them are made by unregistered users. The biggest problem is that the sections are poorly made. There needs to be a mass cleanup. Some articles have the cleanup tag on for months with no one addressing it. Something needs to be done. I say, go ahead with the plan. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Support IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Please test pings in edit summary

1. Read this:

"You can notify users in edit summaries. They will get a ping just as if they had been mentioned on a wiki page. phab:T32750"-- meta:Tech/News/2018/10

2. Sign up at https://en.wikiquote.beta.wmflabs.org/ using a different user name and password (not the one you use here). You may create multiple accounts if you like, just put a note on their user pages.

3. Edit a page and put a username link in edit summary. Confirm that you are receiving the notification correctly.

4. Test at different pages and in different ways.

5. Report bugs to Phabricator.

6. Share this comment with other people on other wikis, in different languages.

--Gryllida (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

People from...

At the end of articles, it is common to add categories that say "People from...". Should those categories represent where the person was born, or may they even be used to represent a place where the person spent a large portion of their life? J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 00:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion the place where the person was raised is meaningful too, and if he/she represents the state or is a governor (like Schwarzenegger).--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

It may be meaningful, but that doesn't mean that the person is from there. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 22:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Just A Regular New Yorker: How so? If I was born somewhere and then my family moved two weeks later and I lived somewhere else the rest of my life, is it not fair to say that I was from the latter place? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it is misleading. The Barack Obama page used to say that he is from Hawaii and Illinois. Once we are doing that, what's the limit? It think that to avoid all confusion, we should use the word "from" literally, which in this case, means that the person is born there. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 22:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

That's how I thought before: only the birth place, but then Ningauble reverted one person from Oklahoma 'cause he was raised elsewhere. And then I noticed that especially People from Oregon has many people not born there.--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)