Wikiquote:Village pump archive 53


Abuse filters edit

It seems that some users are creating spam articles like User:Reuben3163‎ and on Wikiquote. I suggest that you consider importing Wikibooks' edit filters into Wikiquote. For reference, the spam which I linked above will not occur on Wikibooks as the filter will catch it (and has been very successful for us) (see this). Leaderboard (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like somehow I have access to en.wb's edit filter... @Leaderboard: Is there a way to download/import--I don't see one...? —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: You mean export the filters? It's possible to do so per-filter (from my end at least). Leaderboard (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard: Yeah, that would be nice to mass export but it's not necessary. If it can't be done, then it can't be done. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: "If x, then x" I can send you the filter export by email or talk. Leaderboard (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard: Oh, no that's not necessary--I can do them as well. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requests edit

Does anyone have a particular request for a filter we should or shouldn't use? —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that can catch these spam bots is welcome to be sure. If WB has got it, then lets get it I say. GMGtalk 22:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just imported several. We'll see if this changes things. If anyone spots an uptick in these tags on Special:Recentchanges, please let me know. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be working; see Special:AbuseLog. Though it may be advisable to create a page where users can report false positives if you haven't already. And filter 21 has an undefined error message (which is necessary as it is what users will see when the filter trips), please add one (which should include a link to a place where false positives can be reported). Leaderboard (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I totally understand why this tripped the filter as link spamming. I assume because of the twitter links? If so that may not be appropriate for WQ, as I presume there are a large amount of legitimate links to twitter. I do find it interesting that we had three registered accounts and one IP triggering abuse filters on this one page in the span of about half an hour. That looks suspiciously like a UPE sock farm to me. Which...looking around...does WQ have no CUs?
Anyway, stuff like this is golden and exactly what is needed. GMGtalk 12:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenMeansGo: MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-link-spam. It's not pretty but it's something. Thanks again! —Justin (koavf)TCM 10:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to intentionally trigger this filter for testing without being overtly disruptive? GMGtalk 10:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Working in your sandbox would probably be a start. As far as checking the AbuseLog, I don't know that anyone is really spying it like a hawk at 6:15 a.m. UTC+4, so you could probably do a spate of test edits with no real harm. —Justin (koavf)TCM 10:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. So just copying and pasting the last thing to trip the filter, I get this error:
The text you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter.
This is probably caused by a link to a blacklisted external site.
The following text is what triggered our spam filter:
The following text is what triggered our spam filter:
So the summary box isn't displaying. Not sure if you were just transferring it over as a draft at this point, and intentionally hadn't enabled it. It also seems like the bit about "just hit save again" in the message isn't accurate. Doesn't matter how many times you hit save, it still prevents you from performing the edit. GMGtalk 10:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm? And it doesn't seem that my intentionally triggering the filter actually got recorded in the log? GMGtalk 10:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And (before I run out of coffee and have to wake the family up), I'm assuming since its MediaWiki: prefix that this is automatically full protected with no way to unprotect it? But it definitely still references Wikibooks twice, so we'd need to at least tweak that bit. I'm also kindof a fan of the big warning icon used on w:MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-link-spam. Even with that, last time I unintentionally tripped the filter on by trying to reference a spam black listed site, it took even me a minute to realize it wasn't a loss of session data, scroll back up to the top and notice the warning. So it might not hurt to make it pop out a bit more visually, to increase the changes of people actually noticing it.
I like that it directs users here, rather than creating a stand alone page. It may be helpful to make a very simplified version of the pre-filled form generated when someone, for example, files a new report at w:WP:ANEW, see here. Keeping in mind that this is directed at a total newbie who probably doesn't know enough yet to fill in the header box when filing a report. I can work up a draft for that later today if you know how to technically implement it (I surely don't). GMGtalk 10:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note re:Wikibooks. Fixed. Also, it pops now more but is still pretty basic and ugly. And yes, I agree that since en.wq is pretty small, there is no need for a message board just for Abuse Log errors (yet). —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is this specific filter still going to allow completion of the edit on the second save? Currently it doesn't seem to. GMGtalk 21:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just spit balling, but what about something like this? GMGtalk 22:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! As far as the saving thing goes, this is all negotiable. The blacklist on en.wp won't let you save, even if the previous revision included a blacklisted domain. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Categories, part 2 edit

Will someone kindly explain to User:Risto hot sir‎ how categories work, again. Because they don't seem to understand, and seem adamant that they're not going to listen unless it comes from a sysop. But they're apparently having a go at adding random city categories to Category:People, because...reasons... GMGtalk 18:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RedMeansStop. In sports, for example, it's important to see the statistics by one look. Now I can't find out without much trouble which one is the first, New York City or London. And there's no need to create categories like Novelists from Alaska etc.--Risto hot sir (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want the two of you to discuss this here and assume good faith. Please state your positions neutrally so the community can decide. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion we should have only the most important categories. Wikipedia is a bad example: People died of lung cancer... It took a long time before even the birth years were accepted at Wq. The most important thing is to make the readers able to find the information they need as quickly as possible.--Risto hot sir (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...The issue doesn't have anything to do with what categories are important. The issue is the way that categories work on every Wikimedia project, and you've already been been told this multiple times by multiple people, to please stop adding parent categories to pages that already obviously contain child categories. If you don't understand, see w:Wikipedia:Categorization, c:Commons:Categories, or b:Wikibooks:Categories, and any number of similar pages that explain the same concept. You don't decide because of personal preference that random city categories are somehow uniquely important among the 15,653 pages currently under Category:People, and promote them to the top level parent category, because that makes no sense. GMGtalk 20:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take Jay Nordlinger. When I want to see all American journalists, can't find him 'cause he's hiding in the category Journalists from Michigan. Do you really want to spread the American journalists to 51 categories?--Risto hot sir (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then you need to nominate that category for VfD, as you are instructed to do at Wikiquote:Deletion policy. You do not need to randomly insert parent categories, as you did here, here, and here, undoing the work of three different editors. GMGtalk 21:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an encyclopedia, everything possible can't be categorized. Only the quotations are important - and the easiness to find 'em.--Risto hot sir (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need to nominate that category for VfD, as you are instructed to do at Wikiquote:Deletion policy. GMGtalk 21:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I? If you want to make Wikiquote unreadable, just go ahead, green means go! Besides, without my work it would have been harder for you to create harmful categories.--Risto hot sir (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I? ... Because that's what the project's policy says you should do. I appreciate your work. I'm not trying to get you to stop contributing. I'm trying to get you to stop doing one very small counter productive thing, among the vast majority of productive things that you do, because that one small counter productive thing is just making more work for others to clean up. GMGtalk 21:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've written enough of this subject. Let the community decide! Have you just thought how much work you must do before all the occupations etc. in every country are categorized? Journalists from Tuscany, composers from Bavaria, astronauts from Saudi Arabia (oh, that exists already!)... And you've also done mostly excellent work! I fear that Wq is going to little pieces.--Risto hot sir (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, one can certainly nominate categories for VFD (and parent categories should not just be added), but there is another point here as well: it appears that some of the categories that have been added are way too granular for this project. As was mentioned above, we are not an encyclopedia - in general categories are only added when there is a critical mass of enough pages to justify it. We generally do not add a ton of categories, hoping that they will be needed and filled at some point. Having such specific categories is really not needed, IMHO. ~ UDScott (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is an issue of granularity to be settled. But when someone creates a category, the appropriate response is not to depopulate it, so that someone else nominates it for speedy deletion (and none of those diffs involve me personally). The appropriate response is to nominate for VfD, notify the creator, and find out where the boundary of that granularity lies. GMGtalk 22:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hundreds of categories may be coming, so I'm not gonna bring 'em to VFD. I'm just a Finnish guy in New York (according to Sting)--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine--discuss it here. That's why it exists. It's far more overhead and effort to edit war and much easier to ask the community for input. If the consensus is against this level of detail, then User:GreenMeansGo and you can both save yourself some effort. I just don't understand the continuous back and fort here. en.wq is a small enough community that it is very easy to get a consensus. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well I should say that this is right out, because obviously nominating Category:English people by location, Category:English people, Category:Britons, and Category:Europeans all for deletion is patently silly. That's kindof the point I'm trying to get at. Nominating individually overly granular categories for deletion, or even batch deletion a la Commons is perfectly fine. But we don't throw four intermediate categories to the wind because we're feeling particularly giddy about London. GMGtalk 23:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The people usually love (or hate) their own cities and want to know the notable persons from it. All memories are connected to places.--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Make List of people by city or List of people by European city if the community decides that such lists are appropriate here. I imagine that the inclusion of w:MOS:SEEALSO sections could also be helpful to readers. I'd support that and even help populate it. But category space is not the place to make pseudo-lists because it defies the purpose of categories and makes them useless, notwithstanding the fact that categories are mostly invisible to readers, and are mostly internal tracking mechanisms. GMGtalk 23:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, Category:List of people by city was not what I meant exactly. I meant List of people by city. But Category:People by city also works nicely. GMGtalk 00:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read-only mode for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October edit

13:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Link for reference edit

I added the link to the source in this addition to the page: Youngrmm H. 101 of My Funniest Jokes. New York: Henny Youngman, 1976. Brochure. Cited in: Essays of an Information Scientist, Vol:4, p.515-518, 1979-80, Current Comments #26, p. 516, June 30, 1980.

I can't put the link here because it is triggering the spammer filter. —This unsigned comment is by Canavalia (talkcontribs) 09:06, 7 September 2018.

Link to log. GMGtalk 10:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External link, Dara Ó Briain edit

Trying to edit a page regarding Dara Ó Briain

There was a "red-link" to Mock the Week, on Wikipedia. Attempted to make that link, not allowed to. Spammer filter. I feel that it is an appropriate one.

External link - Mock the Week Thanks.

Now able to save this change.Don't really know what is happening. —This unsigned comment is by Rhynchelma (talkcontribs) .

I revised the formatting of this link. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A abuse filter was recently added that essentially prohibits new users from posting any external links. There was discussion a few years ago about doing something like this, but I recall the decision was to filter more selectively than any link from a new user. Many newcomers begin their Wikiquote career by writing citations as external links.

    I think is is a mistake to implement a policy restriction by technical means without first discussing the policy. There was some discussion of abuse filters above but, in my opinion, "anything that can catch these spam bots" is not specific enough to formulate a policy against newcomers posting hyperlinks. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • To be clear, I wasn't being intentionally flippant there. I was just trusting that others involved understood the way the filters worked more than I did, and that they had already to some extent been tested and refined elsewhere before being suggested for implementation here. GMGtalk 21:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhynchelma: Thanks for writing here and adding to the quotation collection. I want to refine the filter to make it work better. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good Faith Edit With Link To CNBC Video Interview edit

This is a good-faith edit, with a link to the source of the quote, which is a CNBC video interview with the person being quoted.

My submission seems to have disappeared; here it is, in full (to the page "Vivek Wadhwa" -- I had to obfuscate the URL just to post it to this Village Pump, surprisingly enough:

  • The last big thing [Apple] did was nine years ago with the iPhone. And since then they made it bigger with the iPad; they made it smaller with the Watch. All they keep doing is playing with the size. ... [Apple] needs an Elon Musk or a Zuckerberg running it. ... [iPhone] is a ten-year-old device. They've done everything they can with it. And Samsung, and even BlackBerry, have similar or even better ratings than the iPhone does. That's the biggest slap in the face you could possibly have: BlackBerry almost ranking the same as an iPhone? Time to move on.
    • leftbracket h t t p colon slash slash slash video slash 2016 slash 04 slash 27 slash vivek-wadhwa-apple-should-buy-tesla-and-make-elon-musk-ceo.html Apple should buy Tesla and make Elon Musk CEO rightbracket on CNBC (27 April 2016)

Attempted Addition to Jane Goodall Page edit


I'm a big fan of Wikiquote and just tried to update the Jane Goodall page.

Background: I read a quote by her, tried to confirm it on Wikiquote, but couldn't. I searched elsewhere and confirmed it on what I believe is her official Facebook page.

What I tried to do: So I tried to update the Jane Goodall Wikiquote page, including a link to her Facebook page, which is the only source I've aware of and which seems reliable.

Problem: However, I received this message:

Unfortunately, your edit has triggered an automated filter designed to detect and prevent spammers. It appears you are adding external links to other websites in a way that may not be appropriate, and may not conform to the purpose of Wikiquote. If you think there has been a mistake, please let us know so that we may improve the filter and prevent it from interfering with good faith editors. You may do so by following this link and leaving a message. Please be as detailed as possible to help us better understand the problem, and include a description of the website you were attempting to link to. Thank you, and again, welcome!

This is what I'm trying to add:

"What you do makes a difference, and you have to decide what kind of difference you want to make." Post on Dr. Jane Goodall Facebook page (2017-12-12) (

I'm trying to do so here:

If there's a better way for me to do this, please let me know.

Thanks! —This unsigned comment is by Reasonable Bill (talkcontribs) .

Looks like a false positive. Leaderboard (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything I can do to avoid the false positive and publish the quote -- or must an administrator do this for me? Thanks for all you do to make this such an awesome and valuable site! —This unsigned comment is by Reasonable Bill (talkcontribs) .

An admin needs to do it for you (I'm not an admin, sorry). @Koavf:, please check? Leaderboard (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Reasonable Bill: One work-around to this is to find the original source of the quotation, which was not this Facebook post. See for instance here. Do you know the original source? —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

external link - Robert Mueller edit


I'm attempting to add the source: to the article:

It is a source for: "only two types of companies: those that have been hacked and those that will be" The quote is often repeated and possibly has more than one version/source, so it is important to attribute it

However I'm being blocked by an automated filter. Please could someone whitelist for me, or advise an alternative.

--Peterxyz (talk) 04:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done GMGtalk 12:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to add one external link to the existing page and my try has been detected as harmful edit

Greetings, I am the author of the article which I was trying to add as an external link to the existing Wikiquote page - Star Wars and unfortunately, my try has been detected as potentially harmful. In fact, I am running the whole Space Quotations blog and I have created my last series of articles on the topic of Star Wars characters quotes. Here the list:

So, to sum up, I was simply trying to add a very topical external link to the page just the first one (25 Best Star Wars Quotes)

Here's what I've tried to put:

Space Quotations - 25 Best Star Wars Quotes and more about mysteries of endless space.

I also would like to state that my intentions were simply educational to allow people to learn more about Star Wars, as well as show them my article, in which I have put much of my efforts.

Hoping for your understanding, Kind regards, Andy —This unsigned comment is by AndriiZip (talkcontribs) .

@AndriiZip: Hi Andy. Thanks for coming to participate. As you may see above, we tried to implement this filter to cut down on spam and it sometimes catches legit edits. Can you tell me how you were thinking of using these links? E.g. this blog is not the original source of any of these quotations, correct? —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, @Justin (Koavf), thanks for your reply! Well, I was hoping that my article may be of help to those looking for additional quotations from Star Wars movies, that's it. The only one link I was trying to add is the on 25 Best Star Wars Quotes because it is related. I have mentioned the other links from my blog just to show that I am currently writing on Star Wars Quotes (Emperor Palpatine Quotes article is coming up next). —This unsigned comment is by AndriiZip (talkcontribs) .
@AndriiZip: I figured that was probably where you were going but think about it from our perspective: we'd like to be the best quotation repository, so outward linking to this blog is a little... counter-productive? —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Justin (@koavf)! Yes, I see your point very clear. May I just ask for some future perspective: so, there is nothing to be done from my side to settle this matter? Cause I was truly hoping for cooperation here, not competition:) At least, possibly, you guys consider having a look at my writings and we could elaborate further on the subject. Thanks in advance. Regards, Andy. —This unsigned comment is by AndriiZip (talkcontribs) .

@AndriiZip: Nothing is set in stone! Just make your proposal for how you can make the site better! —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liberals and conservatives edit

It seems User:Rupert loup and I have a slightly different takes on what a "liberal" and "conservative" means. So...the result seems to be that both categories contains the following pages (about half of Category:Conservatives):

So...that essentially makes the categories meaningless, and it would be helpful to find some kind of solution there. GMGtalk 18:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal conservativism, conservative liberalism and classical liberalism are variants of liberalism and conservativism, and people can be socially right, center or left wing and being economically liberal. The only one that is not currently in this category (I think) is Le Pen, the others still expouse one of this variants. Subcategories to different variants, like from specific regions and timelines, can be created if necessary. Rupert loup (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then I think we need some more granular way of parsing this out with sub-categories. I personally think the easier solution is to go with the common definition, since I'm not totally sure there are enough pages to really warrant a category for something like Category:Liberal conservatism. But if we're defining a generic category so broadly that we can justify Ben Shapiro and Marine Le Pen as liberals, then we may as well just delete the categories all together, because they're broad enough to be useless. GMGtalk 19:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VFD backlog edit

A lot of the votes on VFD have been closed for several months now and there is one in particular I'd like to renominate, or is Inceldom already eligible for renomination without first being removed from the page? Would someone mind helping me out with this? Hello? CensoredScribe (talk) 03:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I closed a couple now. The one you mentioned should still have some discussion since there is no consensus. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate your assistance. CensoredScribe (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir edit

I provided some links for better understand about diwali some and quotes fot diwali

The dictatorship of the proletariat edit

To all

Marx and others with similar views did not understand the concept the dictatorships of the proletariat as the dictatorships we know from the 20th and 21th century. Marx as a left-Hegelian held that all class societies are dictated by the class in charge of the economy and the state apparatus. According to Marx are all class societies dictated with the tool of class struggle to secure the interests of the ruling class. Marx and Engels were neither any pre-Bolsheviks nor pre-Stalinists/Maoists as some may believe due to the unfit and dogmatic concept the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Even Rosa Luxemburg used the phrase the dictatorship of the proletariat while she as early as 1904 wrote the following:

"If we assume the viewpoint claimed as his own by Lenin and we fear the influence of intellectuals in the proletarian movement, we can conceive of no greater danger to the Russian party than Lenin’s plan of organization. Nothing will more surely enslave a young labor movement to an intellectual elite hungry for power than this bureaucratic straightjacket, which will immobilize the movement and turn it into an automaton manipulated by a Central Committee. On the other hand there is no more effective guarantee against opportunist intrigue and personal ambition than the independent revolutionary action of the proletariat, as a result of which the workers acquire the sense of political responsibility and self-reliance." (Source: )

Sincerely, Bjorn-Olav Kvidal, Stockholm

Odd page creation edit

So anybody have any idea what's up with Category:Pages with template loops? Is this "a thing" that is useful? I don't know why we would really need a wikidata infobox on en.quote anyway. Isn't that mainly a Commons thing? GMGtalk 18:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata Infobox is very much a Commons thing. The template loop category is standard to MediaWiki: it is a tracking category for pages where templates include themselves. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Insertion of Quotations blocked ... please do it for me then edit

About section on film pages edit

I believe we have discussed this before (but I can't seem to find the discussion). There seem to be an inordinate amount of quotes being added to the About section of pages, particularly for film pages (see [1], [2], or [3]). I don't see the value in having every mention of a film from reviews or elsewhere placed on a film's page, unless said quote is very memorable or provides some unique insight into the film. Frankly I think these additions detract from the pages (and in some cases outnumber the quotes actually from the film). Anyone disagree? ~ UDScott (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100%. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another example of what I believe is excess: [4]. I just don't see the value. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be more than happy to discuss the general value of critic reviews and interviews, some are definitely more interesting than others, many reviews were little more than amusing recaps, however many of them are quoted on the corresponding Wikipedia article as well. I was trying to keep coverage from the various major newspapers and entertainment websites consistent as to not show a preference for one over the other, that was just my interpretation of neutral point of view and perhaps that was wrong and tended to make the sections excessive. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is not about the POV, but rather that most of these quotes are not memorable in any way and provide questionable value. To me, quotes about a film only provide value if they offer a unique perspective on the film or are memorable or pithy. I do not believe these that you have added rise to that level (and I think the problem occurs again in the latest examples, found here or here). ~ UDScott (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And another example here - more less than memorable quotes about the film than quotes from the film itself. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • CensoredScribe simply copies stuff from Wikipedia (as he readily admits above) and dumps it into Wikiquote, usually with minimal (I was going to say outrageously lazy, nearly always incorrect) formatting. He turns gold into lead confidently and unthinkingly. I've suggested many times before that all additions by CensoredScribe to "About" sections (which, it turns out, are mostly excerpts from interviews, not actual quotes) should be reverted. The problem is that he has turned so many film pages into lead, it's hard to decide where to start the cleanup. (But I'll do it myself, if given permission.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • CensoredScribe does this not just to About sections, unfortunately – see this! Dry academic stuff which he lifts from Wikipedia articles and dumps on Wikiquote. Clearly, CensoredScribe needs to be blocked again and "his" additions (copied from Wikipedia) reverted. Anyway, I won't be repeating myself forever anymore. I'm optimistic that someday admins here will wake up. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I see a standard approaching objectivity other than to say that if a quote isn't quoted, then we should avoid quoting it. That is to say that a review in The Rolling Stone would be considered akin to a primary source for our purposes, and when The New York Times comes back and says "In their review, The Rolling Stone said 'this movie is fan-flippin-tastic'", then we treat the NYT as akin to a secondary source, lending credence to quotability because they felt the need to quote it.
Otherwise, we are depending more on what we choose to include as editors and not on the sources themselves, which means there's nothing to discuss other than personal preference, and disagreements over inclusion of particular quotes are intractable from the start. GMGtalk 12:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So on this subject, I agree that a secondary source can certainly lend credence for quotes from the media or recent quotes. The only issue I see (and why I would not want this to be the only criteria for inclusion) is for older quotes or quotes from a literary work for example. I doubt that many of the quotes from literature or other older works are quoted in secondary sources, but that should not disqualify them from being including, especially if they are from a notable work. It just seems in this particular case (regarding the quotes from film reviews, etc.) that we have strayed from the goal of having memorable or pithy quotes. And when such quotes outnumber quotes from the actual work, something seems out of whack to me. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But I see no argument here saying that these reviews themselves are notable works, nor that the authors of the reviews are themselves notable. So inclusion is based only on one of the four criteria suggested at WQ:NQUOTE, and the one of the four that is the most capricious and subjective. GMGtalk 14:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've begun trimming the quotes from some of the film pages (including Batman: Gotham Knight, The Dark Knight (film) and The Dark Knight Rises‎). ~ UDScott (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikiquote:Wikiquote, quotations "may inspire us to seek an understanding of their creators, to consider our own lives, to laugh, or merely to admire their mastery of language. However we use them, quotations summarize the collective insights of society, a legacy of knowledge passed onward, from one generation to the next." I would argue that about sections definitely create interest in the creators given how many reviews include criticisms of the artists in general in addition to those specific to the work, and rather than cite the more often quoted "two thumbs up!", or "if you see one film this year...", or whatever other ultra condensed positive blurb that's included in the advertisements, it would be better if we include some general analyses of the works from multiple film reviews, as I think this is the best means of summarizing the "collective insights of society", rather than the collective insights of the marketing departments of the studios.
Notability mentions, "We limit ourselves to quotations which are notable. A quotation can be notable because it has achieved fame due to its enduring relevance to many people, or because it is attributed to a notable individual, or appeared in a notable work." I would argue fan sites that collect interviews with the cast and crew effectively demonstrate relevance for the interviews they quote to that fan base, even if the fan sites themselves are not notable. Again, negative reviews are less likely to be included by fans or promoters; though as the pages for Wonder Woman and Man of Steel demonstrate, negative reviews do still get quoted in secondary sources, often with line by line refutations of the points they make, such as with the reactions to the Mr. Plinkett Star Wars reviews. CensoredScribe (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: No editing for up to an hour on 10 October edit

12:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

robot detection false positive edit

was unable to make the following edit to susan collins:

Making wikiquote match wikipedia, will add a picture from wikipedia of the letter later. Fairness demands it. edit

How is citing wikipedia on wikiquote an outside source?

Good Faith Edit - Eric Schmidt edit

This edit was rejected due to its link to the source of the quote:

Is the abuse filter working? edit

Since we have some decent false positives reported above, we need to discuss if this abuse filter is worth it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's reasonable to expect that many (most) false positives are not being reported here – how many users new to Wikiquote who are blocked from making a good-faith edit can find (or care to find) the Village pump? I don't think the filter is worth it. ~ DanielTom (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That might sadly be the case here. Maybe other filters could do the job better. You might want to temporarily set the filter to tag-only for now. Leaderboard (talk) 08:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link spamming - false positive edit

I've tried to add the original sources to two quotes to this article - both are press interviews uploaded onto YouTube however my edits were rejected as "harmful". Any idea how to fix this?

"That doesn't feel like politics to me..."

"People in general, not just girls, but people who are younger..."

ElizaOscar (talk) 05:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Clinton edit

At the page for Hillary Clinton, I removed a bunch of "quotes about" that are basically an arbitrary collection of attacks in the far-right media (e.g. Breitbart). There are plenty of robust criticisms of Hillary, but the Foundation mandates the equivalent of en:WP:BLP everywhere and I don't see how a dumping ground for political venom is consistent with that. The same would apply to articles on right-wing politicians and attacks on far-left websites. We should stick with notable commentary in mainstream sources, not just random spite. JzG (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JzG has tenaciously removed quotes about Hillary Clinton by very notable people such as Julian Assange, Hugo Chavez, Bill Clinton, Chris Hedges, Jay Leno, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. This massive censorship of quotes is unacceptable. The quotes that he's removed actually are "notable commentary", quoted in various sources all over the political spectrum, not just "in the far-right media". He's removed quotes with sources as diverse as RT, Breitbart, Newsmax, Weekly Standard, Truthgig, The Gateway Pundit, World Tribune, National Report, The New York Times and Mediaite. But other secondary sources could be found for the same quotes. He's also removed quotes by Hillary Clinton herself. Take Hillary's (in)famous quote "I believe that marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman" – a quote tellingly censored by JzG, when obviously it must stay on the page. As I explained to JzG, "if you dislike the source that accurately quotes the words Hillary or others have said, replace it with a better one, just don't censor the quote itself". We can't remove notable quotes just because we don't like them. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding linked ref. edit

I'm trying to create a clickable ref to The Congressional Record that contains the speech transcription.

Hey Æthereal. What link were you trying to add and where? GMGtalk 01:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to add a link to a quote source edit

There is a link to a quote by Penn Jillette ( that doesn't appear to lead to the content anymore. Here is the section of code with what seems to be a defunct link:

I located an alternate site hosting the video but it was not the original site or location. I was unsure if I should erase the original location as it is likely historically accurate (and maybe of some use?) So I added the alternate site using this code:

 I attempted to follow the directions to add the code and it gave me an error and invited me to this page to explain it.  I did attempt a second time to change the page thinking maybe I was at fault for error (typing the wrong button or mistyping the "CAPTCHA Security check" word but I received this message: "Error: This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed. If you believe your action was constructive, please inform an administrator of what you were trying to do. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: Link spamming"
 So, I'm not sure what the proper way to handle this change or addition.

Shamelessness quote edit

Hi, I am trying to add a quote. My source is a biographical site on webnode, I don't know how to leave a link properly. Sorry if it's a problem

The Community Wishlist Survey edit

11:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Editing News #2—2018 edit

14:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion regarding quote policy/practice edit

- - - Begin text copied from Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Inceldom - - -

I think that should be acceptable, GreenMeansGo. I would like to note that, although not a valid objection to the renaming and continued existence of this page, Wikiquote notably lacks coverage of many topics of a sexual nature, including pages the genitalia and most sexual fetishes and I feel this lack of effort is deliberate. Do we really need a page to differentiate notable quotes on hentai (assuming they exist) from animation and pornography? I'm pretty sure more people have heard about hentai than inceldom. No doubt there have been notable sources that have written on the more technologically primitive fetishes, even some of the seemingly more recently invented ones like robot and or furry fetishes which tend to have very strong conceptual parallels in mythology one would argue would warrant inclusion, (the metal maidens of Hephaestus and various zoomorphic figures like satyrs and centaurs, or the Ornithes Areioi, just to use Greek and Roman mythology as an example). More pertinently than arguing over whether love poems about pan belong next to psychological studies discussing the furry fandom, the difference (if any), between lolicon, shotacon, hentai and pedophilia is sure to be a discussion waiting to happen sometime down the line if we continue adding sexuality pages to Wikiquote. I would like to know just how many people would consider adding these nonexistent sex related pages to be an actual improvement, there's pages for individual makes of guns now, so I don't see why to exclude different varieties of sex, there's an inane amount of detail in both subjects. We should probably draw the line before creating pages for all the individual mechanical parts or genes though lest it vastly outnumber the pages for books and themes. This notably is not Wikipedia so we don't have to cover absolutely every single subject that they do. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...I guess this is getting a bit off topic, but doesn't really hurt anything to do a bit of musing, and it could be helpful to organize our thoughts. I'd say there are a whole host of human sexuality related pages that could, and probably should be created. The main issue that seems to cause more problems than anything else, is that WQ currently seems to have comparatively little in the way of objective inclusion criteria for individual quotes. This leaves entirely too much discretion up to individual editors, and means that the end-state of a WQ page has more to do with who is editing it, than it does to do with the subject of the page itself. I'm not entirely sure how to fix that, but it is a problem what we will have to deal with at some point. I wonder if other language projects have come up with a solution to it that we have not yet found. GMGtalk 22:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to take this off topic either, but right now I think the pages for guns, black people and vagina could very well end up mostly consisting of rap lyrics given the current lack of objective inclusion criteria to provide direction, and I take issue with the fact the self elected goal keepers of the page for guns allow all kinds of questionable rap lyrics from admittedly very high charting records, yet allow no anti-gun quotations from an an equivalently well selling Batman film, comic, or cartoon, is considered notable for inclusion. I think if this is based off number of people who have heard the quote from observing the source in it's entirety than something or rather Batman related on guns is probably notable, as are platinum record rap lyrics, that or neither source is notable simply because they are popular and there are additional criteria that exclude them. I have been sticking to movie reviews and science journals because newspaper circulation is calculated as is impact factor, though notably these are for the source as a whole not the individual quotations included in them; secondary sources are not actually provided for the vast majority of the quotes of any given page. I assume the general thesis in the introduction or conclusion is the most oft quoted part, though often it is some other aside somewhere in the middle. I assumed when I added the quotes from Fahrenheit 451 without a secondary source specifically quoting it to the the page for books that secondary sources weren't required, it's been a while since that happened, I apparently have multiple people intermittently going through my edits, and I assume that page is fairly frequently visited, including by the people who most revert me, so the lack of correction if this is indeed a problem seems a bit odd, though than again given how unclear Wikiquote can be, not really that surprising. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- - - End text copied from Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Inceldom - - -

  • Well CensoredScribe, it does seem that this problem crops up frequently. There's related discussion above at Wikiquote:Village pump#About section on film pages (courtesy ping for User:UDScott). Then there's disputes like this one, (courtesy ping for User:JzG and DanielTom). There's also issues like this one (courtesy ping for User:JessRek6). For guidance, we are given WQ:NQUOTE as part of WQ:N, but that's just an essay. We have WQ:Q, which is a guideline. There's discussion on the talk page there going back years, but overall I find that WQ:Q lacks focus and fails to provide a clear concise standard that is easy to intuitively apply. So we end up with are quote pages that reflect the editor more than they do the subject, and that causes all kinds of problems, with no real standard for settling differences of opinion.
    My intuition was that criteria should be simplified if possible. I had considered distilling things down into exclusion criteria and inclusion criteria, where exclusion criteria are quick-fails, and inclusion criteria are matters of relative weight.
    • Exclusion criteria - If a quote fails any one of these criteria then it is not suitable for inclusion on Wikiquote.
      • The quote is verifiable - (from WQ:Q) Quotes that can be sourced only to things like personal experience or unpublished rumors are not appropriate for inclusion. (from WQ:NQUOTE) Quotes that can be verified only by low quality sources such as blogs, Twitter, or online forums are also usually not appropriate, unless they have themselves been quoted by other reliable secondary sources. (Note: this replaces the notability of the author with the use of the quote in other sources as an independent judge of notability. Notability of the author is moved to inclusion criteria.)
      • Is the quote original - (from WQ:Q) Quotes that are not original to the author or work are not appropriate for inclusion. For example, a common aphorism, even when said or written by a notable person, should not be included on the page for that person when they are themselves simply repeating a common aphorism.
      • Is the subject notable - (from WQ:Q) If the subject of a quote has not itself been the subject of sustained in-depth coverage in reliable source, then the subject should generally not have a stand-alone page on Wikiquote, meaning quotations about the subject are also not appropriate.
      • ... So on an so forth...
    • Inclusion criteria - Individual quotes that do not fail the exclusion criteria above, qualify for inclusion based on the weight given by meeting one or more of these criteria. Quotes that meet none of these criteria should generally be avoided. Quotes that meet multiple criteria should be preferred over those that meet only one or few.
      • The quote has been widely quoted - (from WQ:NQUOTE) Prefer quotes that have been widely quoted by independent sources. Quotes taken directly from the primary source, and chosen based on the preferences of individual editors, should be avoided in favor of those that sources themselves deem quotable. The wider the variety of sources, the more varied the context of their use of the quote, and the wider the time frame across which the quote is used, all lend weight to this criteria.
      • The source(s) of the quote are themselves notable - (from WQ:NQUOTE, WQ:Q) Quotes are given increased weight for inclusion if the person being quoted is themselves notable. We should, for example on the topic of Fish, prefer a quote from William Shakespeare over a quote from a fisherman in a local newspaper. We should further prefer a quote from The Merchant of Venice, as both the author and the work are independently notable.
      • The quote is quotable - (from WQ:NQUOTE, WQ:Q) Quotes themselves should be quotable, meaning they are novel and original; pithy, witty, wise, eloquent, or poignant; of particular fame or endurance. This may be a difficult and subjective determination. However, clearly mundane or routine quotes should be avoided, even from notable people, in notable works. For example, "Call me Ishmael" is an iconic quote from a notable work by a notable author. "Take the bucket", while from the same work and same author (chapter 43), is clearly routine and unremarkable.
      • ... So on an so forth...
So my intuition is that if we structure our guidance like this, then we make it more digestible, and the community can then decide what criteria should be added, while keeping it more intuitive as a whole, and avoiding meandering extended prose like is currently (IMO) a large part of the current guidance. GMGtalk 14:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
user:GreenMeansGo: Your first point above, especially, is excellent. If the "quote" hasn't been widely quoted, then it's not actually a quote, is it? WikiQuote becomes an indiscriminate collection of random stuff someone said one day. That is not the purpose of the project. The fact that we might like or dislike a thing that is said should be irrelevant, the important question is, is it widely referenced by reliable independent sources? This will have the side benefit of removing about 90% of the profoundly mundane cruft that fills up articles on living individuals. JzG (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GreenMeansGo, I would vote for these very precise guidelines despite them calling for the deletion of a large number of references included in the about sections that I have created, simply so that the matter can be clearly defined and others won't be confused as to what to do. JzG makes a good point about living people, Wikiquote noticeably lacks pages for most actors, and the ones it does have pages for excludes dialogue taken from their films. There's a rather large problem with this proposed criteria for inclusion though, as celebrity break up related quotations have an abundance of secondary sources for them in noteworthy TV, magazine and web sources, however I think making the biographies of actors mostly about their breakups instead of their work seems odd. Unfortunately, the actual interviews they give about the movies they make, (like I've been adding) are not quoted nearly as often as the details of their love lives, or at all outside of fan pages, which are not notable. I have the strangest feeling I would not be on thin ice right now where I to add objectively more quoted quotes from artists about their love lives instead of their work, such as this quotation from a Rolling Stones interview with Rihanna about Chris Brown, "“You see us walking somewhere, driving somewhere, in the studio, in the club, and you think you know. But it’s different now. We don’t have those types of arguments anymore. We talk about shit. We value each other. We know exactly what we have now, and we don’t want to lose that.” Rihanna's page has quotes about her singing but they are in the minority compared to quotes about her appearance, friends or other subject matter, there are currently no quotes about any particular songs or albums which is the norm for most singer's pages.
There's also the question of whether or not paraphrasing counts as quoting, as scientific journals record citations for the impact factor, not the number of direct quotations, though there typically are several direct quotations of some part of the work still so I imagine most if not all of these references themselves are actually fine even if another part of the article in question must be selected and another source provided where in a direct quotation of the article is made.
Finally keep this in mind, the vast majority of pages for films, television, video games, music, and yes, even books, do not actually presently contain any indication that any of the dialogue from these works has ever been quoted. The works that do provide this are the ones that are recognized as "the literary canon", Moby Dick has obviously been quoted from before and we should have a page for it, even if that page should only be 1/10th the size of the current one, however, I'm not so sure there should even be a page for Free Willy, I mean, can anyone here tell me what "notable" work quotes it? CensoredScribe (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll +1 on pretty much all of that. Yes, notable movies' articles are where movie quotes should go - it was Charlie Croker who said "you're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off", not Michael Caine. Celebrity breakup crap should not be here at all IMO. It's the age old distinction between what is in the public interest and what interests the public. JzG (talk) 09:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll not pretend that I can foresee all the possible implications of such a policy update/reboot. Like any major legislative initiative in the real world, it's gonna be a matter of getting the principle down on paper, and tweaking it as we find test cases (read content disputes).
What I feel fairly strongly about is that we currently don't have much to settle content disputes with other than "I like it/I don't", which means they seem to most often go nowhere, and one or the other party probably goes away feeling ganged up on and unfairly treated, because we don't have a better mechanic for settling these in a way that feels even handed. If this results in shorter pages, then I'm fine with that. I think it's probably better for readers to have a shorter page with better quotes, rather than an immense page filled with forgettable content.
The question I would put out at the moment is what other exclusion/inclusion criteria should belong (assuming this is an agreeable framework). I would probably add 1) on topic (not just passing mention) and 2) unsourced or poorly sources contentious material about living persons, both to exclusion criteria. I'm not sure what else though. GMGtalk 14:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just hoping for broader input, shotgun pinging off the top of my head: @FotoDutch: @Kalki: @Risto hot sir: @Koavf: GMGtalk 14:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On de.wq, it is a requirement that a quotation has been reproduced in a secondary source. I think we would do well to consider that. Quotes should have to have a citation template associate with it that has 1.) original source information and 2.) secondary source quotation. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That project is not the best reference. It has extremely low participation, almost no active admins, low article count... And their rules also reflect the difference in laws regarding copyright and other aspects (see
Well, in the example above, I'm not sure we would need to provide a secondary source for "Call me Ishmael". But we could surely provide a thousand if the quote was challenged. So that would kindof be similar to how notability for encyclopedia articles works. You might have a stub with only two sources, but when challenged at AfD, if you could provide dozens of sources, that still demonstrates notability, even if none of them are yet used in the article. So while the verifiability of a quote needs to be demonstrated with a source, if the source is independently notable as is the case with Moby Dick, then quotability is a state-of-being that can be demonstrated on the talk page if challenged. GMGtalk 13:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know this discussion has mostly petered out, but here is a good example of what non-notable primary source quotations makes: Alex Jones. By my ctrl-F count, that 62 different citations to primary YouTube videos. Again, that's a paradigm that says more about the editor than it does about the subject. GMGtalk 22:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Open call for Project Grants edit


Greetings! The Project Grants program is accepting proposals until November 30 to fund both experimental and proven ideas such as research, offline outreach (including editathon series, workshops, etc), online organizing (including contests), or providing other support for community building for Wikimedia projects.

We offer the following resources to help you plan your project and complete a grant proposal:

Also accepting candidates to join the Project Grants Committee through November 15.

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) 19:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sherman ading quote forbidden edit

I wanted to add this quote to Michael Shermans quotes but I was not allowed because I triggered an automated filter designed to detect and prevent spammers.

  • There’s no such thing as the paranormal or the supernatural. There’s just the normal, the natural, and the things we haven’t explained yet.

Creating pages for comic book crossover story lines for which Wikipedia has distinct pages. edit

I was considering whether it would be a welcome change to create pages for the many comic book crossover events Wikipedia has pages for, given the story lines for most of these are spread across series we already have pages for. For example: Wikipedia has a page for The Death of Superman which would be useful if there were such a thing as noteworthy quotes about this subject as a whole rather than the individual issues comprising the story line divided across, Superman, Action Comics, The Adventures of Superman, Superman: The Man of Steel, Justice League America, and Green Lantern. The Dark Phoenix Saga is a distinct page despite only taking place in the pages of Uncanny X-Men. CensoredScribe (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, it would be helpful if we could use all the same images Wikipedia does under fair use like for comic book covers that aren't in the public domain, to include on the page specifically about that story line. I'm confused why the same rules that apply to Wikipedia don't apply here for equivalent pages. CensoredScribe (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@CensoredScribe: See the Exemption Doctrine Policy for English Wikipedia from summary at en:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance. The English Wikisource community could adopt a similar policy with a similar community discussion, but that kind of extraordinary consensus has not happened in 10+ years anywhere so fat as I know. User:Green Giant organizes lots of discussion on this at meta:NonFreeWiki. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change coming to how certain templates will appear on the mobile web edit

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aspects of works with their own Wikipedia pages. edit

I don't believe that there's any guideline or rule which specifically prohibits creating pages for aspects of a work like fictional technologies or religions, and I think we should probably make this a bit more clear that these quotes would be better located on the page for the work they are specifically from. We have a page for Daleks an various minor comic book superheroes, why not Skrulls, the Shiar, Martians or Neptunians? If Doctor Who companions that appeared on the spin offs have their own pages than I think the same would probably apply to half the cast of Star Trek: The Original Series and Star Trek: The Next Generation for the occasional episode where someone had a cameo on another show. What's the general consensus here on how many times does a character have to appear in another work to justify this? I personally don't think we should have a page for Mork separate from Mork & Mindy or have a page for John Munch.

I think we should be pragmatic. If we have huge pages for the main topic and its subsidiaries, it would be cumbersome to merge them. If we hav eonly a few quotes on each, there iis a good case for a merge.--Abramsky (talk) 10:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have never seen the need for these derivative pages (for characters from a TV show) and in fact I believe they open the door for copyright issues and overquoting. I believe the best place for these quotes is on the page for the work from which they came, end of story. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I personally find the numerous pages for "Last words in ______" to be a bigger problem than noting every crossover episode on a separate page for a fictional character, given not every franchise has a character that appears in other media but many include a death in some form. We could have one of these pages for nearly every fictional work, though as it is, the "Last words in _____" tend to be for franchises consisting of more than one entry. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Although many Doctor Who character pages have had deletions or merges suggested I haven't noticed any attempt or discussion regarding consolidating the pages for the dozen some portrayals of the main character. In contrast, the page for Sherlock Holmes seems to be unquestioned even though it could be divided into pages for each individual story; whether or not an author's works get their own pages here or the book title's are just redirects to the author's page varies considerably. These two pages seem fairly popular and like they've been this way for a while, though perhaps these pages have been discussed before with a contention which does not seem to me to be present. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently been asked whether Wikiquote:Wikiquote is policy. Although the page clearly needs improvement, including links out to other policies, I can't see why it wouldn't be considered a policy page. BD2412 T 01:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's basically the organizing principle of policies as it defines what Wikiquote is in the first place. Any other policies or guidelines should really follow from the fundamental scope. (Good question and good points.) —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The question is whether it has ever formally been adopted as policy. I see no obvious evidence for this, but maybe those with longer memories can point to something.--Abramsky (talk) 09:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the oldest pages on the project, so it likely preceded the development of those sorts of formalities here. Examining this from the other direction, is there any reason that we should not consider this page to be policy? BD2412 T 19:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to putting this page into the "policy" category. (That said, I am concerned that an editor reading only WQ:WQ#What_is_Wikiquote? would think that anything "attributed to a notable individual" may appear on this site. So I am hoping the "policy" designation won't keep us from improving this page going forward.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one seems to object so, unless someone stops me, I'll soon put {{Official policy}} on WQ:WQ. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Community Wishlist Survey vote edit

18:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Archive bot? edit

Is there an archive bot for Wikiquote? For example, ClueBot III or Lowercase sigmabot III. Thanks! Markworthen (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to revive this old thread, but answering your question, no, it doesn't seem to be any archive bot active for this project. In fact, looking at out of 23 flagged bots, just two are active (MediaWiki message delivery is a pseudoaccount, as well as others listed there) so perhaps a bureaucrat could clean the list a bit.
Back on the topic of the archiving robot, I operate a bot (MABot) that carries out that task on some projects (es.wikiquote for example) and I'd be willing to run it here should the community agrees. I operate the standard pywikibot script, which is based on MiszaBot. The code is old but it works for basic archiving. If the community expects some sort of more advanced archiving then I'd not be able to provide such service.
Regards, MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey MarcoAurelio. I'm like the third least tech savvy editor on any Wikimedia project, but at least on our most visible pages, like this and AN, I can certainly see how an archive bot would be helpful, and thank you for volunteering to help us out with your technical expertise. GMGtalk 12:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Search edit

Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 10:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated reinsertion of quote edit

This user's (obviously the same person) only contributions have been repeatedly reinserting "Okay, this is epic" on Ben Shapiro sourced to his twitter account. I feel like it's fairly obvious that's a pretty crap quote. They appear to be of the opinion that it is "iconic" and "famous". Since they don't appear to have any interest in stopping, and have been at this since July, I suppose I'll look for a third opinion on the matter. GMGtalk 20:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppeteering: the later account indefinitely, the earlier one for a short symbolic block. MB, please justify including this quotation. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote: Canvassing edit

Would anyone be interested in creating Wikiquote:Canvassing? I'm confused if this is a guideline or an actual rule, and why there's a rule that makes discussing discussions at the village pump forbidden, particularly when those deletion discussions end up lasting months or years because so few people contribute to them. What about for FVD discussions that have larger implications for the website as part of a trend? Would it still be acceptable to discuss this larger trend without mentioning the specific page or pages being discussed as part of it? Having a page explain canvassing in more detail would really help, it can't be canvassing just to ask people at the village pump to vote on a discussion, even if they don't agree with you, can it? CensoredScribe (talk) 04:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(I'd note that Commons also did not have a page explaining canvassing until earlier this year when it imploded an RfA from out of nowhere.) But following the generally accepted norms across projects, no, it would not normally be considered canvassing to leave a neutral note at a neutral public forum like the Village Pump. Canvassing is generally only an issue when a notification is made, or those notified chosen in such a way that would bias the discussion unfairly. GMGtalk 13:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Triggered spam filter with edit

I made a small edit, using an archived version of an existing link in a page, because it has since disappeared. WQ made me fill out a captcha and then blocked me anyway. Might want to have your script check the submitted changes, and if someone is just adding*/ to a link, they are probably not a spammer. —This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) .

New Wikimedia password policy and requirements edit

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link to -- an interview with Margaret Cho on Larry King's RT show "PoliticKING" -- to cite the source of the quote added to Margaret Cho's quote page. I believe this is an appropriate use of the URL. —This unsigned comment is by 2001:978:2305:44::9d (talkcontribs) .

Hm. Thanks for this--we have been having trouble with link spam and finding an appropriate balance for legit links. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for discussion: Extensive definitional essays at the beginning of Wikiquote articles seem to violate WQ:NOT: "Wikiquote is not an encyclopedia" edit

The official policy in WQ:NOT states that Wikiquote is not an encyclopedia. Readers of Wikiquote come to the site looking for quotations, not encyclopedic content. Extensive definitional essays at the beginning of Wikiquote articles, while many of them are of excellent quality, are not in compliance with this official policy, and detract from the aim to present quotations. I propose that leads be shortened to a single sentence briefly defining the term. ~ Peter1c (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will be blunt — mandating an intro of a single sentence AS IF such were appropriate "defining" statement, for all pages, indicates a will to impose something akin to a "Tweet" level form of IDIOCY. Readers definitely do not come here for encyclopedic articles, and should not — but neither should they be subjected to nothing but what amounts to short casually or craftily produced snippets of rather stupid, asinine absolutist propaganda and nonsense by which introductions are narrowed and confined to the most shallow, presumptive, bigoted or casual forms of expression and assumptions. I generally can agree that most articles should have no more than a short paragraph of introduction, and no more than a very few, but I have always been very averse to mandating ANY absolutist rules in regard to things, such as some people seem to gravitate towards.
As I have a short bit of time here, before leaving again, I will note that amid my relatively brief and often very rushed visits here in recent months, I have also at times noted that you seem to have taken the injunction that "Wikiquote is not an encyclopedia" AS IF it forbids quoting definitional statements from encyclopedias, dictionaries or other reference works, and taken it as your own personal task to discourage and purge many quotations of many of these — and I find that generally improper and sometimes drastically impoverishing of the articles. Short quotes from reference works have NEVER been forbidden here, and SHOULD NOT be. I have always believed that beyond purging obvious spam and vandalism, content disputes should be discussed and argued upon, with well tempered reason and with well tempered passions, and options to do so not simply obliterated by blanket rules by which much valuable material can be discouraged or discarded, and much nonsense imposed in absolutist ways.
I hope to have more time to engage in discussion on some current issues in coming weeks and months, but know that I also have many other things which continue to keep me extremely busy, and am likely to not be able to attend to many things here so much as I previously was inclined to do, in previous years. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 16:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter1c: Can you give me an example of an entry that you think is too long? I'm reluctant to say that all entries can have only one sentence at the beginning but to be sure, very few would need more than three. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have not surveyed many articles very meticulously in quite some time, but in the past there have been some which were very clearly too long and these were subsequently reduced, and I am not particularly aware of any existing at this time, though I am sure there could be a few which I could agree run too long.
I restored most of what Peter1c had removed from the Conspiracy intro, because what he had left was far too cursory and simplistic, and thus quite deficient, and in many contexts simply wrong, but after doing so, did see that there were at least a couple sentences which could be cut out without drastic reduction in exposition of several prominent ways the word has been used, and continues to be, and I commented out these to remove them from displaying, retaining them for expositional nuance for future editors. ~ Kalki·· 18:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kalki, thank you for explaining your position. I understand that you are concerned about mindless application of rules, and that seems to me a legitimate concern. I also understand that you would permit inclusion of some quotations from reference works. This seems reasonable to me. I agree that disagreements about content should be discussed, and the summary field isn't an adequate space for that. Thank you for elaborating. ~ Peter1c (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some basic information is needed at the beginning, so the readers don't necessarily have to go to Wikipedia. At German and Swedish Wikiquotes in most articles no information is given - and I think it's a problem.--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation from Wiki Loves Love 2019 edit

Please help translate to your language


Love is an important subject for humanity and it is expressed in different cultures and regions in different ways across the world through different gestures, ceremonies, festivals and to document expression of this rich and beautiful emotion, we need your help so we can share and spread the depth of cultures that each region has, the best of how people of that region, celebrate love.

Wiki Loves Love (WLL) is an international photography competition of Wikimedia Commons with the subject love testimonials happening in the month of February.

The primary goal of the competition is to document love testimonials through human cultural diversity such as monuments, ceremonies, snapshot of tender gesture, and miscellaneous objects used as symbol of love; to illustrate articles in the worldwide free encyclopedia Wikipedia, and other Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) projects.

The theme of 2019 iteration is Celebrations, Festivals, Ceremonies and rituals of love.

Sign up your affiliate or individually at Participants page.

To know more about the contest, check out our Commons Page and FAQs

There are several prizes to grab. Hope to see you spreading love this February with Wiki Loves Love!

Kind regards,

Wiki Loves Love Team

Imagine... the sum of all love!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]