Wikiquote:Village pump archive 54


Inactive administrators edit

Is there a process for removing administrator rights for inactive admins? I was just looking through the list for an active admin to protect a page from IP vandalism (see the admin noticeboard) and a number of them haven't edited for some time - years in a few cases. Just a query. TLPG (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Risto hot sir adding unsourced content and personal commentary edit

This content which User:Risto hot sir seems intent on keeping in the article, is entirely inappropriate in my personal opinion. It's entirely unsourced, (e.g., there is no indication who Nellie Wilson is supposed to be or where the example comes from) and I see absolutely no reason why we would ever have commentary to the effect of "Thousands of these can be read at Estonian and Finnish Wikiquotes" in the quote section of any page. We don't even generally link to other language versions in the external links section. GMGtalk 18:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that I'm the best expert in spoonerisms, just look who has made the most spoonerisms at et- and fi-Wikiquotes - I'm the reliable source.--Risto hot sir (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are not. GMGtalk 19:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of anyone's expertise in the topic, in this case, I do not believe that the text belongs on the page - it is not a quote and such examples and advice to look at other sites is not appropriate here. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I will publish spoonerisms books, at least for children - when the illustrator has done her job. Then you'll have printed sources. Do what you do, but some humor is neededǃ--Risto hot sir (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External link "not appropriate" from news site/magazine? edit

"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." I quoted an interview Julián Castro from Texas Monthly in the Beto O'Rourke quotes page, as the quote was about Beto O'Rourke. Why is this not an appropriate source? Booknerd0720 19:03, 12 January 2019‎ 19:03, 12 January 2019‎

I'm not seeing your edit or the revert in the Beto O'Rourke history. Hard to tell what is going on. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit seems to have tripped an abuse filter. The filter isn't necessarily an indication of whether a source is appropriate or not. Hiàn (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FileExporter beta feature edit

Johanna Strodt (WMDE) 09:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Server switch FYI edit

Just an FYI, but there is a server switch planned for tomorrow. As of right now it is not supposed to affect the English Wikiquote. If that changes, and things start to get wonky here tomorrow, here's the phab link to see what's going on. GMGtalk 18:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article had a PROD added and later removed by an IP. It has never contained sourced quotes and I'm unsure as to what the appropriate cause of action is for this page on this wiki. Cheers, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 07:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. It can be recreated if there is something to put there. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Koavf. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 08:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Demonyms in category names edit

I expect most people don't care about this even a little bit, but it would require the semi-automated moving of I thousand pages maybe? So I figured I'd start a thread rather than moving a third of the project unilaterally. (Also ping User:koavf, since they participated in the Commons discussion that got me thinking about it.)

But we're currently super inconsistent when it comes to national people categories. Compare:

We also have Category:People by nationality, which is mostly filled with people "by country", and not "nationality", which seems to imply citizenship (Wikidata:Q42138), but is actually used to demonstrate major association without regard to citizenship (Wikidata:Q19660746).

Being super honest, I'm partial to the system used on Commons, e.g., c:Category:People of Japan, c:Category:People of the Americas (all of the Americas), diffusing into c:Category:People of North America and c:Category:People of the United States.

Anyone have any thoughts or opinions? GMGtalk 15:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents on all of this: Of course you are correct in that many of our categories related to people are inconsistent. Your suggestion (using the system employed on Commons) is probably the best course of action. I must admit I have become a bit dismayed by the plethora of new categories that have been added to our site (especially in people categories) that are driving ever more specific classification of pages (to me it seems to be much more specificity than we needed with much fewer pages in each subcategory than WP has), to the point where when I create a new page, I fear that I will become hopelessly lost in trying to identify which extremely specific categories to add to the page. That being said, your plan is a good one and I believe that is the best way to remove some of the inconsistencies we have. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, honestly this concern of categories wrt readers is in my experience a fairly unique thing to the English Wikiquote community, though you're not the first person here I've seen make the argument. But pretty much anywhere else categories are approached as a purely internal tracking mechanism, as the only native form of structured data for Media Wiki (without getting into the weeds about recent software changes on Commons). While thematic groupings for the benefit of readers is generally done via lists and navigation templates, which are usually seen as being more accessible without needing readers to get into the "back end" of a project. While having a logically consistent and semantically meaningful "back end" categorization allows editors to more easily create things like lists and navigation templates for readers, while filtering out categorization that is consistent and meaningful, but not thematically relevant. GMGtalk 17:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your points are well taken and I get all that. My concerns are that as users create pages (I being one of those as well), the sheer amount of new subcategories makes it highly likely that the new pages will have some degree of miscategorization - which will create some effort to control. I've just seen so many things on this project over the years that have quickly spun out of control (and leave behind a lot of detritus to clean up) and just fear that things are becoming overly complicated here. Perhaps I'm just overthinking it, but I've just spent a lot of time here and the amount of cleanup that still remains to this day is mind boggling (and there are only a handful of people interested in working on this backlog) - and this could just lead to more. Sorry to be a downer - your efforts to clean up these people categories are commendable despite my tangent fears. Carry on! ~ UDScott (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To GMG's main point (i.e. not discussing category proliferation but naming): It is no surprise that I 100% agree and I feel like a consensus is emerging here. If there are no further comments or criticisms in two weeks, I would feel very confident that this is the correct way to name categories: "[x] from/in/of [place]" rather than "[fooian] [thing]". Thanks again for the ping and the thoughtful proposal. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some notes: Wikipedia has many odd categories, like Male actors is as silly as Women actresses would be. And there's 4740 American male novelists to categorize more specifically. In my opinion we should not create categories containing only one person (like Saudi Arabian astronauts).--Risto hot sir (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Category:American male novelists is a red link. GMGtalk 22:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google books edit

Can not insert a link to the specific page of the specific book. Guess should be allowed to linked after CAPTCHA, and probably other sites that feature online preview of paper books too. It is better to have a quote ready to read and check, than not to have. 18:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe "protective" measures have gone a bit extreme when any blanket block of links to Google Books become a problem which prevents very useful links. I think I noticed that problem some time ago, but was in a rush, and did not have time to note it here. ~ Kalki·· 18:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is not particular to Google. The issue is AbuseFilter/21 by Koavf (a.k.a. Justin), which essentially prevents posting any external links by newcomers and unregistered contributors. The situation is confusing because there is no written policy prohibiting it, and no indication in the abusefilter message about what was prohibited or why. Even Wikiquote's administrators appear to be largely unaware of the automated enforcement of this "rule". ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disabled. We've had too many complaints about it. We should refine it but until I have the time to do that, I've just turned it off. Anyone else who is w:regex-savvy can refine it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

subquotes edit

response to a whales ping and or pong ? —This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) .

Sure. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Time to adopt WQ:BLP as a policy? edit

This came up a little while ago in the debate about the article for Jonathan Mitchell, which centered around whether it was appropriate to cite an attack blog for quotes about a living person. I suggested then that we should adopt this as a policy, but it looks like the response when it was first proposed in 2007 was that it was already treated as a policy, so there's no point in officially adopting it. The problem is, that for anyone who is well versed in Wikimedia projects, it's simply impossible to enforce in any serious way so long as it is merely an essay. We can't really warn or sanction someone for disregarding an essay, and at the extreme end we get articles like Alex Jones, which includes some 40k worth of quotes that are sourced only to YouTube.

To be clear, I'm not saying that WQ:BLP can't be improved, or that it is perfect in it's current state, but this kindof thing has wound up in lawsuits before, and it is the official stance of the Wikimedia Foundation that all projects should adopt policies governing content about living persons. I'm not sure I see a compelling reason not to do so here as well. GMGtalk 22:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's do it. Keep up the good work, GMG. Anyone object? I find it unlikely that anyone is going to sue us based on what we host but better safe than sorry. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well in the case of Mitchell, the attack blog was by someone who was already fairly litigious. So even though the risk may be low, it's not necessarily irrelevant. GMGtalk 23:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No objection. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the recently added paragraph "This applies on any page..." should be moved farther down the page; giving prominence to the paragraph beginning "All quotes attributed to a living author or about a living subject...", which appears to be the main meat of the issue. Apart from any issues of structure or style, I approve of the substance of the current draft as policy. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support having this as a Wikiquote policy. BD2412 T 20:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support having such a policy - but I do have one reservation: the language includes the following "All quotes attributed to a living author or about a living subject must be verified by a reliable source. This is both to protect living persons from having statements falsely attributed to them, and to insure that such quotes have been deemed sufficiently notable for an independent secondary source to print." I get the intent, but I fear that it might be a bit limiting in some circumstances. For example, when Stephen King writes his next novel and one wishes to quote from it, this might be a problem if said quote is not also quoted by another party (outside of the novel itself). Assuming the quote in question meets standards for being memorable, the fact that it is written by an undoubtedly notable person may not be enough, given the proposed language for this policy. I just wonder if in all cases, we need for a quote to be also quoted by a secondary source. Thoughts anyone? ~ UDScott (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ping User:BD2412, since they're the one that originally proposed the language in 2009.
I'm not sure I have a better idea when it comes to dealing with the issue in a systematic policy based way. In a situation where content is both 1) apparently chosen to cast the speaker in an intentionally bad light, and 2) is arguably libelous (with the only real legal defense being sheer ridiculousness), we really should have some rationale for inclusion other than "an anonymous user saw it on YouTube and found it particularly inflammatory". Of course, in this particularly egregious example, we're also talking about content we're hosting on Wikiquote from a person who is literally being sued right now for defamation by multiple people (see w:Alex_Jones#Controversies). But I'm not sure how you can the best of both worlds there. GMGtalk 20:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is more of a choice for us than a legal necessity - we basically enjoy the reporter's privilege to repeat libelous statements published by others. However, we should take care that negative claims that we present as quotes are in fact notable quotes, i.e., quotes deriving from notable persons published in notable sources. Directly transcribing a YouTube video or a Tweet or a blog post should not be allowed. BD2412 T 21:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "we" as a project, but not "we" as individuals. For example, I've identified to the WMF I think three separate times, four maybe? If I as an individual added egregiously libelous information then someone could absolutely seek a subpoena for my identity. Same for anyone who can be traced back to their real identity through technical or other means. We as a project do however have to balance the obligation to not do active harm, and not allow a platform that can be used to do so. GMGtalk 22:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For this particular project, I think we as individuals would receive the same protection as individual reporters if all we are doing is faithfully reporting that others have published quoted text. BD2412 T 17:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is my understanding also. If a reliable source publishes something and we repeat it, then the fault is mainly theirs. GMGtalk 17:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like everyone is on board with this. (Subject, as always, to editing the article to improve it.) One last chance for an objection before I add the "policy" tag. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've mostly just been waiting to see if someone besides me would move for a close. I didn't feel comfortable enacting the change as the person who proposed it. But after a month of open invitation to discussion, I don't know that anyone can really call foul on not having an opportunity to weigh in. GMGtalk 17:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Like UDScott in his remarks above, I recognize and accept the aim of minimizing the wanton spreading of largely derisive, disparaging and denigrative remarks about ANY persons, living or dead, but I do not accept that any provisions actually requiring citations of secondary sources actually diminishes that particular problem, of itself. In the cultural climates which currently exist in many realms of social discourse, there is very probably actually MORE likelihood that various derisive and denigrating remarks about many people or groups will find their way to a host of secondary sources, and even generally reliable ones, than generally complementary and constructive comments will. Thus I would find the policy page fully acceptable if the statement "This is both to protect living persons from having statements falsely attributed to them, and to insure that such quotes have been deemed sufficiently notable for an independent secondary source to print" is simply altered to "This is to protect living persons from having statements falsely attributed to them." I recognize that some people whose aims actually are to spread disparaging remarks about various individuals or groups would then have less of an absolute barrier in spreading relatively obscure remarks, but I believe that most unworthy of these could be removed, after discussion, without making a requirement of secondary sources something implicitly or explicitly imposed upon ANY statements of ANY kind. ~ Kalki·· 18:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I could probably also accept wording as makes clear that such limitations as requiring "secondary sources" applies specifically to ONLY derisive or denigrating remarks of some kind. ~ Kalki·· 18:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder whether this is a separate discussion, more appropriate to the WQ:BLP talk page. Or, perhaps, a bold edit to the BLP page itself and then a discussion if anyone disagrees. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the moral imperative to not actively cause harm with our content covers all content on living persons, and not just content attributed to living persons, keeping in mind the age of the internet where content may be verifiably about a living person, but attributed to an organization or some anonymous person online. This seems to be in line with the Foundation's official stance. I also think that "some secondary source" is a very low bar, and most of the things you're going to be filtering out are things like blogs, youtube and social media. I don't think those are really sources that are terribly helpful on any project, for much of any purpose, most of the time.
If we added language saying that this only applies to derogatory information, then I fear we would be opening ourselves up to lawyerly debates about whether content is subjectively derogatory. And at the end of the day, all that garbage secondary sourcing is still going to be out there whether we rule out primary sources or not. I can see how this could be turned back on itself, and have someone argue that because it is in a secondary source then it must be included. I would be sympathetic to adding some type of language to the effect of verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, in order to head that off.
But I tend to agree with BWDIK, in the sense that can be a productive discussion about how to best write the policy, and not a fundamental discussion about whether we should have one. The policy as written can certainly be improved, but that should be an ongoing discussion based on real examples of how it has been applied and failed. GMGtalk 21:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Policy templates added. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also simplified the statement, in accord with above suggestions, and expressed reservations and objections by both myself and UDScott about implicitly or explicitly mandating secondary sources. ~ Kalki·· 02:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to us about talking edit

Trizek (WMF) 15:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation re-branding discussion/planning edit

See the recent Foundation blog post at Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030 and the ongoing discussion on Meta at m:Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 research and planning/community review. Just dropping a few public notifications since I'm not sure this project has been otherwise notified. GMGtalk 15:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read-only mode for up to 15 minutes on 19 March 15:00 UTC edit

Hi everyone, a short notice. On 19 March 15:00 UTC your wiki will briefly be in read-only mode. That means that you’ll be able to read it, but not edit. This is because of network maintenance. It will last up to 15 minutes, but probably shorter. You can read more on Phabricator (phab:T217441, phab:T187960), or write on my talk page if you’ve got any questions. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for bot flag edit

Hello. I am not sure if it is custom on this project to notify the VP about ongoing bot flag requests, but I have initiated Wikiquote:Bots#MABot to have my bot approved. Thank you, --MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may now become 'Wikiquote — A Wikipedia project' edit

According to this discussion at Meta, Wikimedia Foundation is considering rebranding. This means for you, that rather than Wikiquote being a Wikimedia project, it would become a Wikipedia project.

The proposed changes also include

  • Providing clearer connections to the sister projects from Wikipedia to drive increased awareness, usage and contributions to all movement projects.

While raising such awareness in my opinion is a good thing, do you think classifying you as a 'Wikipedia' project would cause confusion? Do you think newcomers would have a high risk of erroneously applying some of Wikipedia principles and policies here which do not apply? If so, what confusion? Could you please detail this. I have raised a query about that HERE in general, but I am looking for specific feedback.

Please translate this message to other languages. --Gryllida (talk) 23:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question about space between quotes edit

Is there a 'rule' about that? Seems that double spacing between quotes is more palatable than single spacing sometimes. Om777om (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No specific rule, per se, but the templates on which the pages are based do not contain such double spacing. It's not that it is a bad idea, but the point of the templates is to have a fairly uniform appearance to the pages. If you would like to suggest a change, I would recommend that you start a discussion about the templates and seek to have them changed if community consensus favors it. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Om777om (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: Admin activity review edit


A policy regarding the removal of "advanced rights" (administrator, bureaucrat, etc. ) was adopted by global community consensus in 2013. According to this policy, the stewards are reviewing administrators' activity on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis with no inactivity policy. To the best of our knowledge, your wiki does not have a formal process for removing "advanced rights" from inactive accounts. This means that the stewards will take care of this according to the admin activity review.

We have determined that the following users meet the inactivity criteria (no edits and no log actions for more than 2 years):

Administrator Last edit Last log action
Fys 2017-03-04 14:42 2007-11-19 16:43
Jaxl 2016-10-25 01:34 2007-02-26 04:37
Rmhermen 2016-05-09 21:42 2005-10-25 16:26
Aphaia 2015-12-02 14:00 2015-12-02 13:45
LrdChaos 2015-02-20 02:57 2009-06-01 18:25
Cbrown1023 2014-08-07 22:35 2010-10-08 22:46
EVula 2014-01-08 20:42 2014-01-08 20:41
MosheZadka 2010-09-03 17:33 2007-10-06 15:38
Iddo999 2010-07-12 19:56 2008-07-10 17:32

These users will receive a notification soon, asking them to start a community discussion if they want to retain some or all of their rights. If the users do not respond, then their advanced rights will be removed by the stewards.

However, if you as a community would like to create your own activity review process superseding the global one, want to make another decision about these inactive rights holders, or already have a policy that we missed, then please notify the stewards on Meta-Wiki so that we know not to proceed with the rights review on your wiki.

-- MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote: experimentally organizing quotes blog edit

Over the past 2 years, I've been collecting and organizing quotes from Wikiquote. I have tried to organize quotes into experimental projects. Here are some below:

List of person posts

Explanation of person posts

List of fundamentals posts

Belief analysis method

Example of belief analysis

Explanation of organizing quotes

Please let me know your thoughts and if you have any suggestions. I also want to thank editors for making Wikiquote an awesome website. --Mcnabber091 (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Thanks for sharing this. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Veeery fineǃ Could the people be in alphabetical order? - Something like that I've done in Most notable people. The problem with it is who is notable. The list works best at fi-Wq where it contains ALL the quoted persons. Danish and Estonian versions have so far mostly red links. Et- and fi-Wikiquotes also have list of all subjects.--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Risto hot sir for the suggestion to alphabetize the person list. That's a good idea. --Mcnabber091 (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

et- and fi-Wikiquotes also have a list of opinions alphabetically in the form X = Y (like Love is blind) (Arvamuse and Käsitteiden määritelmiä).--Risto hot sir (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Blessings, ♞♞♞♞♞, Josephina Phoebe White♞♞♞♞♞ (talk♞♞♞♞♞) 04:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read-only mode for up to 30 minutes on 11 April edit

10:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Medium-Term Plan feedback request edit

Please help translate to your language

The Wikimedia Foundation has published a Medium-Term Plan proposal covering the next 3–5 years. We want your feedback! Please leave all comments and questions, in any language, on the talk page, by April 20. Thank you! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elevate Wikiquote:Quotability to a policy? edit

Policy pages say they have "wide acceptance among editors and [are] considered a standard that all users should follow." Is that not a fair characterization of WQ:Q? If so, any objection to making it a policy page? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So far, no objection. I'll elevate it unless someone chimes in against it within the next week. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the above changes. There remains far too little participation on this wiki, and interest in carefully and fairly crafted procedures for the expanding mandates here, and I have an intense objection to the casual "elevation" of generally accepted guidelines, which have persisted as such for years, to "official policy" by which they can be portrayed as MANDATED RULES binding upon all editors, on the whims of those most prone to prefer simplistic impositions of mandates to such guidelines as remain subject to further debate and discussion. ~ Kalki·· 01:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am disappointed that you waited until now to express your concern (the substance of which I discuss below). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we all know how you hate rules. BD2412 T 01:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely have an intense hatred of casually imposed MANDATES. I will clarify that I have had no objection to this page as a strongly suggested GUIDELINE — but there are definite elements to it that I do not seek to casually shift into becoming mandated policies. IF there were one policy mandate that I would easily agree to, it is that guidelines and suggestions should NOT be casually or easily shifted into becoming mandates, simply because there is generally little interest or participation in creating, developing, imposing, or even taking much note of such rules as have been undesired or unnecessary for over a decade. ~ Kalki·· 01:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC) + tweak[reply]
Kalki, does WQ:Q contain any mandates? To quote from that page: "There is no absolute test for the inclusion of either a page or a specific quote." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MANY years of experience here have provided abundant examples of people very often treating even suggestions presented as non-binding guidelines AS IF they were absolute mandates, and when another entire page which hardly anyone ever even looks at can be actually cited as "POLICY" AS IF it was fully supportive of some removal of material that someone simply for some reason does not like, I fully expect such abuses to be even more abundant, and people treated as "violating" policy or advocating violation of policy, if they so much as disagree. ~ Kalki·· 10:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Am I correctly understanding you to say "no, WQ:Q does not contain any mandates, but 'people' will use it to claim that someone else has violated a non-existent rule that they read into it"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, NOT at all — that would actually BE reading a non-existent assertion into what I actually stated. I simply observed that there WERE such elements that could be treated as such — I did NOT say that there were NOT assertions which WOULD effectively BE mandates were the page as a whole given the status of "official policy", rather than official guidelines. There are actually many assertions which are stated in such imperiously presumptive ways as could easily be interpreted or properly understood as imposed or obligatory mandates — were the status of the entire page simply changed from guideline to policy. And it is definitely such casual "elevation" of definite suggestions into definite obligations which I find most objectionable. ~ Kalki·· 01:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are there "assertions which ... could easily be interpreted as ... mandates" in WQ:Q that you find objectionable on substantive grounds? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One of the MANY reasons I, who am in an extreme minority in that I have been involved in this project from its very first months, and never totally abandoned it as many have, have myself in recent years become far less actively involved with it, are promptings to utterly time-wasting REPETITION or expansion of such arguments as I have made very extensively and thoroughly years before, and the propensity of some to create nearly unceasing and endless argumentations on many diverse subjects, no matter how definite, extensive and rational the arguments have been which are presented against whatever intentions they embrace.
You began this section with the statement:
Policy pages say they have "wide acceptance among editors and [are] considered a standard that all users should follow." Is that not a fair characterization of WQ:Q?
IF you had so much as simply browsed through the discussion page for that page I believe that you would have found that such was NOT a "fair characterization" of the page you have sought to elevate — and I had stated extensive SUBSTANTIVE objections to it YEARS ago, in 2010 and 2012, and clearly indicated that I did NOT consider it to be entirely nor primarily a presentation of policies anything close to being "considered a standard that all users should follow."
At this point I have no intention of extensively expanding on my past arguments, but to simply return to a summary statement I made in 2012:
My general view regarding "official rules" is that though a few simple ones, (ALWAYS explicitly provisional and open to discussion and revision), are usually necessary in most groups, the growth of MANY of them and their devolution into MANDATED strictures, USUALLY serves the more clever of the DEVIOIUS, DECEITFUL, and MALICIOUS far more than the genuine interests of the weakest or strongest of the honorably honest and benevolent.
So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 07:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: To avoid the need to repeat your past arguments regarding rulemaking you may want to create a sub-user page with your arguments laid out. Then you can simply say "I oppose this for the reasons set forth [[subpage title|here]]." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have not asked you to expand "arguments as [you] have made very extensively and thoroughly years before" in opposition to official rules. I am trying to open a discussion with you regarding the provisional WQ:Q guideline. With that in mind, I again ask that you let me know whether you have any concerns regarding the specific recommendations in the current content of the WQ:Q guideline. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, I support the proposed elevation to policy. Notwithstanding Kalki's objection he would be as quick as any administrator to remove content that clearly was not quotable within the meaning of this guideline. We obviously need some floor of standards. BD2412 T 20:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Civil War: duplicate categories edit

Hi, I noticed Category:Participants in the Spanish Civil War and Category:Participants of the Spanish Civil War are duplicate categories with the same meaning. Cheers, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 09:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done Thanks Rubbish computer. Sorry for the delayed response. GMGtalk 17:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers GreenMeansGo. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New categories? edit

New categories like Lawyers from Illinois have been created. I think that the community should discuss whether we need 'em. If somebody wants to find the lawyers from U.S. states it's easy to do at Wikipedia. The already existing categories have 0 - 10 visitors per day. And eventually we might have categories like Musicians from Essex, Philosophers from Bavaria etc. You wouldn't see the whole picture anymore...--Risto hot sir (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually believe we have been almost overrun with very specific categories over the last few months. I don't see the need for many of them (and some have very few pages within them). It's not that they are incorrectly categorized, but I just fail to see the value of having such granularity in our categories. I have argued this before, but there did not seem to be any consensus that these are unnecessary. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we are taking issue with the creation of a category that aligns Wikiquote with the English Wikipedia, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Commons, in addition to projects across six different languages, and where a search via Wikidata indicated there were 50 existing pages on this project linked to corresponding pages on other projects already in the category...then I struggle to find a basis for the objection.
It's not entirely clear what "seeing the whole picture" is supposed to mean exactly. If you want to explore any combination of depth, breadth and overlap of categories, that's what PetScan is for. If you want to create tools for readers to navigate the project, then you should be creating navboxes, see also sections, and lists. If you want to create internal and cross-wiki tracking tools, then you should be creating categories. That's what categories are for. GMGtalk 19:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at the statisticsǃ Executed people 2, People from New York City 2, Lawyers from Kentucky 0 visits a day. It's impossible to remember the categories now, so usually you must to search 'em, like Italians > Italians by occupation > go back to make the edit.--Risto hot sir (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I get it - categories are best used to classify pages, not as a navigation tool. But that may very well be how some users use them anyway. Also, at sites like WP, they do have more lists that bundle similar topics, etc. but we do not generally encourage many here (as they are not pages of quotes. I also fear that we have some areas where the granularity of the categories (e.g. Category:Deputy Magistrates of the Republic of China on Taiwan, with only two pages within it) are just a bit much. Where do we draw the line? The extreme form would be to end up with so many specific categories as to have some with only a single page in them. I realize I am likely more old school with this, but we used to do it more where a subcategory wasn't created until there were a decent amount of pages that would fit into it (I know, I know very subjective). Again, it's not that the additional categories are wrong, but whether or not we actually need them. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With the strength of the tool you are using, there is no meaningful difference between two and zero. There is no way to differentiate hits from a reader and hits from an automated tool or an editor. Moreover, "views" are not "unique views". Tracking unique views requires tracking IP addresses and this is disabled across projects for privacy reasons. In other words, in having this discussion and investigating the number of views that these pages have had, along with my editing and compiling data about these pages using automated tools, we may likely comprise the entirety of the views you are using as an argument.
Whether we permit things like lists and navboxes, or employ them on a large scale if they are permitted is a separate issue. If you are concerned about internal integration and ease of navigation, then I think that's where you should buy stock, because that's what those things do best, not just on the English Wikipedia, but on other projects as well. Commons has been trying for months if not years to integrate some non-category-based navigation system, principally because categories are so notoriously bad at user navigation, even though they are powerful as the only form of structured data native to the Mediawiki software.
Category:Deputy Magistrates of the Republic of China on Taiwan doesn't appear to exist on any project other than here. If you nominated it for deletion I would support. Because it is not a cross-wiki category, it is not useful for things like compiling information about articles we are missing, or subjects not covered by other projects that we may have here. It doesn't link anything here to anything else, and it doesn't link anything else here. That's all in addition to being underpopulated, but because it's not a cross-wiki category, there's no way to tell what the potential population is. GMGtalk 22:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SUBJECT: Complaint against an ADM or an Adm's assistant. edit

I wish to file a comlaint against an apparent assistant to an Administrator that placed negative, insulting, innuendo on my talk page without a shred of evidence that his allegation had any valid factual basis.

In addition, I discovered that assitant and/or his Adm was conducting a Sock Puppet investigation against me, only after I found that vile innuendo posted on my talk page. I checked it out and found that investigation was closed. I had never been properly notified; Thus, no chance to defend myself against that totally false allegation.

I went to the Administrators' Notice board. It says: "Please feel free to report incidents, a complaint about an administrator, or anything you want administrators to be aware of."

However, it also says: "Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content, reports of abusive behavior..." I am mystyfied as to how I am to go about filing any complaint at all. It then suggested I contact the Village Pump for advice.

Question: Do I have any right at all to file a complaint about abusive conduct of an Adm (or one who is assisting an Adm)? If I do, HOW can I accomplish that task? Any advice will be appreciated, thank you. EditorASC (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey EditorASC. This is the English Wikiquote, and not the English Wikipedia. It does not appear that you are involved in any dispute here, and there is nothing we can do here to affect your dispute on Wikipedia. If you are looking for the village pump on the English Wikipedia, it can be found here. GMGtalk 10:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages consultation: Phase 2 edit