Wikiquote:Village pump archive 55


A proposal for WikiJournals to become a new sister project edit

Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group has been building and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:

  • Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and feedback (example)
  • From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to Wikipedia (example)
  • Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia (example)

Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project

From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to Featured article review, but bridging the gap with external experts, implementing established scholarly practices, and generating citable, doi-linked publications.

Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! Evolution and evolvability (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


What's en.Wikiquote's policy on paid editing?

It occurs to me that I should probably mention that I created (and plan to expand) Frederick W. Lanchester in my role as Wikimedian in Residence at Coventry University (which holds the Lanchester archives.). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Andy. There is no local policy, or even policy draft as far as I am aware. You would, of course, be expected to comply with the Wikimedia Terms of Use on all projects, regardless of local policy. But I'm fairly sure you would already be well aware of that. GMGtalk 14:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but on the contrary, WMF explicitly allows projects to opt out of their ToU on paid editing, as Commons and Wikidata, for example, have done. Nonetheless, my declaration of my (paid, of course) Wikimedian in Residence role is now made. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm? Well, TIL. At any rate, we'd still default to the TOU with no local policy at all. and WiR has always been the long-running exception to the norm regarding paid editing anyway. GMGtalk 15:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Actually, there is no provision to "opt-out" entirely, rather, a project can establish an alternative paid contribution policy. English Wikiquote has not done so and is not officially listed at Alternative paid contribution disclosure policies, so the standard ToU applies here.

(2) On the contrary, declaration of your paid role does not yet appear at any of the three locations required under the Terms of Use (also elaborated at Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure). Any one of the three is sufficient. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(1) seems to be a case of pot-ay-to/per-tah-to. Any project that creates an alternative policy has de facto opted out of the standard policy. As for (2), you are correct in as much as only three venues are listed in the policy, but wrong in that no declaration is required for the edits I made today, per the "How does this provision affect teachers, professors, and employees of galleries, libraries, archives, and museums ("GLAM")?" section of the latter page to which you link. Nonetheless, and for the avoidance of doubt, I have updated my user page accordingly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine how anyone could engage in paid editing to any lucrative degree on Wikiquote. If an editor is adding quotes that stand the tests of notability and quotability, their motivations are no concern. BD2412 T 04:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This could be very lucrative politically, whether openly, by covert operatives, or by nation states with large secret agencies and budgets for cultural engineering. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 11:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. BD2412, if you think this right here doesn't trace back to paid editing, then I've got a sandbox in Florida to sell you. But we should probably figure out what to do with it I suppose. GMGtalk 18:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's not great. However, if anyone imagines that having a Wikiquote page is going to drive business their way, they are wasting their money. In any case, the subject of this page is notable, so the issue is more about making the header reflect what is on Wikipedia and fixing the formatting. BD2412 T 19:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Partial blocks edit

It looks like everything has been worked out with the implementation of partial blocks, and the Foundation is implementing them on a project-by-project basis where there is a community consensus to do so. Any thoughts for or against about implementing them here? I don't personally feel that they're strongly needed, or will be terribly often used, but I don't know that I see a reason not to enable them since they've been developed. GMGtalk 19:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not see any need for this feature. People who demonstrably cannot be trusted to behave responsibly should just go away from the site for the duration of the block. We have occasionally (rarely) used "partial bans" (e.g. interaction bans), and people who refuse to follow a ban should just be blocked until they can behave responsibly. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the one area that I can see this being useful is broad range blocks from user space to prevent LTAs from repeatedly spamming user talks, which has been a theme lately. So that much could be used as an anti-harassment tool while lessening the potential for collateral damage where a range block might need to cover several million IPs in order to be effective. GMGtalk 13:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Roy Batty dialogue in Blade Runner that concerns slavery and living in fear have the necessary "endurance factor" for either the pages for slavery or fear? edit

It seems to be a well regarded film and I can provide examples of the line of dialogue in question being quoted. If film quotes inherently shouldn't be added to theme pages, I was wondering if I could be advised on whether I should delete all film quotes from the theme pages. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems absurd that film quotes don't count. Not only were they usually first written as screenplays, but they're a part of our culture. Further, this is Wikiquote, not WikiquoteTheWrittenWordOnly. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why film quotes would not be included in theme pages, if the quote is relevant to the theme. BD2412 T 21:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the following criteria for quotations to be included in theme pages:

  • Does the quotation meet Wikiquote's standard of quotability?
  • Does the quotation provide the reader with valuable information and insight on the page topic?
  • Is the quotation comprehensible standing alone, outside the context from which it is quoted?
  • Is the article topic also the primary topic of the quotation? Or is the article topic mentioned only incidentally in the quotation?
  • What fraction of words in the quotation are included to provide necessary context, and what fraction to provide information and insight on the page topic?
  • Quotations that require very lengthy preambles to provide context before reaching the portion relevant to the page topic may not be suitable for inclusion in theme pages.

I will revise as decided by consensus.

The quotability standard raises the bar for recent productions. The reasoning is that something cleverly said in a recent production is not very quoteworthy if it has been said before, even if less cleverly. The problem I see with many quotations from fiction and film is that they aren't comprehensible without knowledge of the fictional universe of the film. On a page about the film, we can assume readers are interested in the film. On theme pages, however, I think we have to presuppose reader has no interest in the fictional universe of the film, since she came to learn about the theme. ~ Peter1c (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Red links: is it a good idea to add them? edit

Red links: is it a good idea to add them? CensoredScribe (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reminds editors of good opportunities to create theme pages.
  • No value to readers.
  • Color change distracts from continuity of text.

I think we have to see things primarily from the point of view of readers. We have a page for requested entries where ideas for new pages are more appropriately added. ~ Peter1c (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another disadvantage: Editor A thinks there should be a page, redlinks it, but doesn't create it. No one else ever creates the page. It would seem Editor A was wrong, but the redlink lives on forever. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Use of ellipsis in abridged quotations. edit

I was just told in an edit reversion summary that, "Ellipsis at beginning of quotation is necessary only when the quoted part does not form a grammatical sentence. I understand this is part of a longer sentence, but it is a grammatical sentence on its own, so the ellipsis is unnecessary." I prefer maintaining the capitalization of the original quote through use of ellipses as otherwise we are turning commas into periods that were never in the quote originally. Is there a particular preference, or is neither "necessary"? CensoredScribe (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to say that if we do not include an ellipsis to force the original capitalization, then we should at least [I]ndicate that the formatting has been altered using brackets, as one would normally when altering a quote for clarity. Which one is uglier than the other will probably be a matter of personal opinion, but I definitely don't think we should be altering direct quotes in any way without making that apparent to the reader. GMGtalk 14:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Chicago Manual of Style has this to say:

  • Ellipsis points are normally not used (1) before the first word of a quotation, even if the beginning of the original sentence has been omitted; or (2) after the last word of the quotation, even if the end of the original sentence has been omitted, unless the sentence as quoted is deliberately incomplete.

Hope this helps. ~ Peter1c (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding capitalization of first letter of quoted sentence when quoted sentence omits words from beginning of original sentence, The Chicago Manual of Style has this to say:

  • The first word in a quoted passage must often be adjusted to conform to the surrounding text. In most types of works, this adjustment may be done silently. ... In some types of works, however, it may be obligatory to indicate the change by bracketing the initial quoted letter; for examples of this practice, appropriate to legal writing and some types of textual commentary, see 13.16.

Does Wikiquote fall into "legal writing and some types of textual commentary"? I would say no. If the meaning of the quotation is altered by omitting the beginning of the sentence, this is obviously an unacceptable practice. So long as the meaning is preserved, the Chicago Manual seems to indicate silently adjusting case of initial word is acceptable. ~ Peter1c (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I'm guessing APA recommends brackets, because that's how my brain wants to do it intuitively, and I was broken on APA. But I can't actually find a definite citation for it. GMGtalk 20:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes about dress code on the pages for religions. edit

Is it a good idea to add quotes pertaining to the dress codes meant for the laity of a religion? I've recently added quotes to the page for the Catholic Church yet have the strangest feeling were I to add quotes pertaining to the Hijab's role is Islam they would not be deleted, nor my motives questioned. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If they meet the standards for quotability then it is a good idea. The editor's motives do not affect quotability. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate "Publish changes", "Show Preview", "Show changes" and "Cancel" Buttons? edit

Would it be feasible to duplicate the "Publish changes", "Show Preview", "Show changes" & "Cancel" Buttons at the top of the edit screens, in addition to those at the bottom? It is so much easier to locate an item in the "Show Preview" mode, but to get to this mode, it takes extra keystrokes to arrive at the bottom of the page, where these buttons are located. After locating an item, I highlight it and Ctrl-F, Ctrl-G until arriving at the same item in the edit screen. Saves a lot of frustration. ELApro (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer to this but perhaps by posting I'll draw out someone who does. I think this suggestion should be brought to those who code Wiki sites generally. How do you do that? I have no clue. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a feature that exists on other projects and needs to be enabled here, or is it a new feature that needs to be wholly designed? GMGtalk 15:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't appear on Wikipedia or Wiktionary. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...Then this is probably a better fit for the m:Community Wishlist Survey, when it comes out for next year, since it would require changes in the basic Mediawiki software. GMGtalk 01:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ELApro: Keyboard shortcut is ALT+SHIFT+p, at least for me. Try hovering the mouse pointer over the preview button in case this key combination doesn't work for you. Let me know if it doesn't work at all. I can probably cook up a few lines of JavaScript that do the trick. Paradoctor (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The bar for quotability and notability as it pertains to recent subject matters unimagined by authors of antiquity. edit

These quotes were recently deleted from the page for South Africa with the reason given that the authors were not notable, not that the quotes didn't pertain to the subject sufficiently, I did not think it was a requirement that every author of a quote have a Wikipedia page, and this is from a book from a respectable publisher. Knowing if this source is sufficiently notable, or why not, would help me better edit Wikiquote and avoid adding quotes of similar quality in the future. It has a book review from JSTOR, for what that's worth.

  • Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, South Africa's apartheid leaders increased their support for and involvement in counterinsurgency programs in several neighboring states. These experiences influenced the direction that South Africa's chemical and biological warfare development took in the 1980s. Involvement in neighboring counterinsurgency programs provided training opportunities, strategies, and tactics that the SADF and covert special police units used against political opponents as unrest increased at home in the 1980s and 1990s. After the political transition in Zimbabwe in 1980, personnel from several Thodesian military units, including the Special Air Service and Selous Scouts, Thodesia's elite counterinsurgency force, moved to South Africa. Many individuals in these units were experienced users of chemical and biological warfare, and some of them played key roles in incidents where South African Special Forces and police used chemical and biological warfare agents against opponents during the 1980s and early 1990s.
    In the 1960s and early 1970s, South Africa's response to developing guerrilla movements and a changing regional security environment was to increase security-force cooperation with Portuguese forces who were fighting guerrilla insurgencies in the former colonies of Angola and Mozambique; Portuguese tactics influenced the South African military and police.
    • Helen E. Purkitt; Stephen Franklin Burgess (2005). South Africa's Weapons of Mass Destruction. Indiana University Press. p.89
  • Informal norms had become entrenched by the mid 1970s that permitted an extensive level of corruption within the Afrikaner-dominated bureaucracies. The corruption was an important precondition that allowed Wouster Basson and other top officials to use the chemical and biological warfare program in the late 1980s and early 1990s as a cover for their alleged personal gain.
    As mentioned in previous chapters, in the wake of these regime-shaking events, Defence Minister P.W. Botha became prime minister in 1978 and initiated his "total strategy." Because Botha was oriented toward the military (and special forces), he initiated a range of reforms to ensure the survival of the regime that included the widespread use of coercive power. Power was increasingly consolidated in the hands of the military and taken away from civilians. Botha was an unwavering advocate of developing advanced weapons projects and covert operations that would give South Africa initiated a series of internal and external military and paramilitary operations. These included assassinations, torture, and smuggling. All were defined as "legitimate" weapons against the "total onslaught" of "red" and "black" forces. These practices were established at the top and legitimatized deviant behavior throughout the military, police and intelligence services.
    Within the "any means necessary to survive" framework, preparations began to develop the chemical and biological warfare program of Project Coast to counteract and even rival the Soviet program.
    • Ibid, p.94.

The quote from F.W. de Klerk was removed from the page for South Africa with no explanation at all given, I assume both he and The Atlantic are sufficiently notable for some portion of this dialogue to be contained, I'm guessing all of it, as he only answers the one question. Perhaps it would be better if any quotes about countries having nuclear weapons were located on a page called "X country and nuclear weapons"?

Uri Friedman: Why did the South African government, in the mid-1970s, decide to embark on a nuclear-weapons program?
F.W. de Klerk: The main motivation was the expansionist policies of the U.S.S.R. in southern Africa. They were supporting all the [African] liberation movements—they were supplying weapons and training—and it was part of their vision to gain direct or indirect control over most of the countries in southern Africa. They financed the deployment of many thousands of Cuban troops, especially to Angola, and this was interpreted as a threat first by Prime Minister John Vorster, and following upon him P.W. Botha. [The nuclear arsenal] was never intended, I think, to be used. It was a deterrent. Because of apartheid South Africa was becoming more and more isolated in the eyes of the rest of the world. There wouldn’t be, in the case of Russian aggression or invasion, assistance from the international community. It was felt that, if we have nuclear weapons, and if we then would disclose in a crisis that we have [them], it would change the political scenario and the U.S.A. and other [Western] countries might step in and assist South Africa.

I'm sorry if the specific examples I mention distract from the conversation over quotability and notability for recent topics in general, I find they help. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the issue is here. The title talks about "subject matters unimagined by authors." The text talks about whether "authors [are] notable" (not clear whether this refers to the author of the quote or the author of the secondary source). The text also talks about whether the "author of a quote ha[s] a Wikipedia page." Please clarify. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Posting images on the talk pages of other users. edit

I have not reached my final form.

I was wondering what the community thinks of this practice and if anyone has any advice regarding it. Thank you. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem in principle. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't suppose you'd like to consent to let me attempt to decorate yours by chance, anything would be annoying, wouldn't it? CensoredScribe (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No clue what you're going on about here but if you posted a message to my talk page and had some graphic that in some way enhanced it, that would be fine. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm putting in the added image for context. The quote from Dragon Ball Z was intended to convey that we are all evolving. I don't know anything about the fictional universe of Dragon Ball Z, so I might have conveyed something unintentional with either the character or the image. If so, sorry about that. Regarding images on talk pages, I was thinking it would be OK if it goes into a section created by same user. ~ Peter1c (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You'll let no more conversation out of me on this issue unless asked to comment by an administrator, this is a waste of my time, wub a lub a dub dub. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing as far as I am aware on any project that disallows this. It's sometimes done in jest and was likely done so here also. I don't see it as inherently disruptive, but if you find it off putting, then you are well within your right to ask the other party not to do so and they should in good faith not put any more images on your talk page. GMGtalk 00:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Medicine in Star Trek? Really? edit

"It's on Wikipedia" must have been the justification for all those fictional character pages that repeatedly get merged or deleted because this isn't Wikipedia and we don't need to be that specific, I think performing vandalism to address what you think is vandalism doesn't send a very good message for anyone, but particularly for someone claiming to be a theology student as it makes them a bad ambassador of whatever religion they claim to represent. CensoredScribe (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You keep on starting threads without any links, diffs, or context as to what you're complaining about. Please be less obscure and coy or else no one can help you. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
+1. Additionally, do not accuse anyone of vandalism without demonstrating clear evidence. Being "obscure and coy" is not protection against consequences. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to refer to Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Medicine in Star Trek, and in particular this edit by User:Peter1c. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware that including links to the edits in question was a strict requirement when the page in question has less than three edits, obviously with a larger history page further specification is needed beyond just page and user names; my apologies, it will not happen again. Also, I'm sure you already know this, however I believe you meant to say "It" appears and specify the subject of the sentence to which you are referring, "Looks to me" is not proper English, rather it is colloquial, Andy Mabbett, if these alleged English teachers are to be believed, as if, would also be a good addition. Cheers! CensoredScribe (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no bad weather, only bad clothes edit

I've been aware of this quotation for several decades. It's not mentioned in WQ:VP Archives, and doesn't have an article (unless under some different wording). A preliminary search, turns up various sources, including w:Ranulph Fiennes, or a Norwegian (sometimes, 'Swedish') outdoor life organization or concept called w:Friluftsliv. The earliest claimed origin I've seen, is to Alfred Wainwright, supposedly in his 1973 book A Coast to Coast Walk.[1][page needed] Terry Marsh's 2017 reference to it is here,[2] but he calls it "a saying—something of a cliché now". Is Wainwright the originator? Do we include unverifiable folk sayings, if that's what it turns out to be? I always heard it with the nicely parallel, "bad weather... bad clothes", and not "inadequate clothing", as Marsh would have it. Mathglot (talk) 07:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  1. Wainwright, Alfred (6 July 2017). Wainwright's Coast to Coast Walk: From St Bees Head to Robin Hood's Bay. Quarto Publishing Group UK. ISBN 978-0-7112-3919-7. Retrieved on 21 July 2019. 
  2. Marsh, Terry (22 February 2017). The Coast to Coast Walk: St Bees to Robin Hood's Bay. Cicerone Press. p. 37. ISBN 978-1-78362-439-3. Retrieved on 21 July 2019. "There is a saying—something of a cliché now — that there is no such thing as bad weather, just inadequate clothing."" 
Butwhatdoiknow, Is that allowable, before an Alfred Wainwright page exists? Mathglot (talk) 07:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Allowable, yes. Possible, no. Either start a Alfred Wainwright page or put the quote on the Weather talk page. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

URL to diff edit

Please would someone import Template:URL to diff from en.Wikipedia or Wikidata? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: "No wikis from which to import have been defined and direct history uploads are disabled." I recommend copy/pasting, which is cumbersome but doable. Alternately, we could file a ticket at phab:. What say you? —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: Thank you. For the long term benefits, I suggest filing a ticket to fix that. At a minimum, we ought to be able to to import from en.Wikipedia; Wikidata and Commons would be good as well. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: phab:T228607. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As Justin will have seen, but for others' benefit: that ticket has now been closed as "resolved". I assume we have to wait for the next scheduled Mediawiki deployment, before we can take advantage of it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: Any joy? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: {{URL to diff}} is local now from d:. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: Thank you, but it's throwing an error due to a missing child module. Also, please import the documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: frustrating. I chose "Include all templates". Anyway, let me know what you need now. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: Seems to work now; here's a test diff. Many thanks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: I'm working on the phab task configuration, and was wondering: when would importing from wikidata be useful? --DannyS712 (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For templates or user scripts that do not exist on en.Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sukavich Rangsitpol edit

Hello. I am writing with respect to the author Sukavich Rangsitpol. I have a concern that many of these quotes are lifted through two sources, either from the UNESCO Report in 1996 (up to four paragraphs of his speech, seen in pages 53-56. This can be seen as use beyond the safe habour, and the UNESCO copyright permits personal-noncommercial use only), or the article by Pimpan Dachakupt (which discusses his policy, not his life, and it cannot be inferred that he said it). I request experienced editor to help me deal with this issues. Thanks. --G(x) (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the last issue as a straightforward misattribution. The rest of the article is a little harder to figure out because the references are misnamed/confusing. Considering that the article contributors are globally locked/blocked for cross-wiki sockpuppetry and COI abuse regarding this subject, I would not mind if somebody proposed deleting the whole thing. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editing News #1—July 2019 edit

18:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

can not create user talk page edit

Hi! I can not create user talk page Error: ⧼abusefilter-warning-foreign⧽. Regards
no bias — קיין אומוויסנדיק פּרעפֿערענצן — keyn umvisndik preferentsn talk contribs 21:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@קיין ומוויסנדיק פּרעפֿערענצן: {{done}}Justin (koavf)TCM 21:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Koavf! Now I can not edit the user talk page. Regards no bias — קיין אומוויסנדיק פּרעפֿערענצן — keyn umvisndik preferentsn talk contribs 23:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both logged in and logged out, I do not seem to be able to reproduce this problem. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abuse filter #22, "Title in another alphabet", specifically prevents creating or editing pages like this unless the user has made a qualifying number of edits. (This filter was created on 5 September 2018 by Justin (koavf), who should know what it is about and how it works.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Bradford and Cesare Borgia edit

There is a mention of Cesare Borgia’s unsourced quote Aut Cesar, aut nihil (Cesar or nothing) in Lucrezia Borgia: Life, Love and Death in Renaissance Italy, Sarah Bradford, Penguin UK (ISBN 9780141909493), 2005. However, I have no idea of its reliability, and Bradford does not provide any citation. Here is a Google books link where it appears. Here is the quote:

On 18 August 1498, Cesare put off his cardinal’s robes. A magnificently wrought parade sword he had made earlier that summer symbolized his new personal ambitions for it was decorated with scenes from the life of Julius Caesar with whom Cesare identified. Cesare, who always signed ’Cesar’, the Spanish form of his name and and the one closest to the Roman original, was later to adopt as his motto ’Aut Cesar aut nihil’: ’Either Cesar or nothing’.

Does anyone know whether this can be trusted? Huñvreüs (talk) 08:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thai Politicians edit

Category:Thai politicians

There are 3 Thai Politicians ‘s Quote in Wikiquote . Why is the Politician with the best reliable sources from English Literature is nominated for deletion ?นโยบายเรื่องทหารเกณฑ์ (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My discussion in the Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Sukavich Rangsitpol stands: it is not a collection of quotes. It may be arguable that the UNESCO speech can be considered a quote if only a small portion of the speech are used, but posting copyrighted materials that spans several paragraphs of the original material is not (see Wikiquote is not a place for posting substantial quotations from copyrighted works). This doesn't include the quote that was misattributed and/or the quote that was copied from other sources and used in a substantially significant manner. --G(x) (talk) 08:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why my comment was deleted ? edit

Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Sukavich Rangsitpol Yosakrai (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you are using the Mobile view, it may be possible that you don't see that I decided to collapse the comment in that page. The materials you posted appears to be one that is either (1) better posted in the article (though this point doesn't make sense right now since we are discussing the deletion); or (2) make the page looks horrible since it doesn't have the proper line break, the agreement, or any indication as to which one is the content and source and which one is the discussed issue. In order to make the discussion easily accessible and more comfortable, I have decided to put it into the collapsible box. This may not appear on the mobile device, but will show correctly on the Desktop. --G(x) (talk) 09:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, happened to me a few tomes before. Bad comment or anything, deleted. Unappropiate for Wikiquote, deleted by administrators. Some, like mine are deleted for no reason. Don't know why. ——Blessings, Josephina (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators edit

Do administrators actually need to provide a reason to ban/block someone or is this wiki, or is it like California with it's "At-will employment"? Also, has anyone ever lost their position as an administrator on Wikiquote for anything other than inaction?

As a former (I haven't been to Uncyclopedia for a while, so maybe I'm still active) wiki administrator, I'm aware that having multiple administrators serves as a form of checks and balance of power, (particularly when you are the newest one), and that the idea of having everyone with the ability to preform a block/block be in unspoken consensus/collective unawareness seems incredibly unlikely, particularly when there is no discussion involved, but in theory, could this be done and has it ever on Wikiquote?
Also, has anyone ever lost their position as an administrator on Wikiquote for reasons of inaction, and if so, than who? My apologies is asking 2 questions is considered a Gish gallop or violates an unmentioned rule. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your question. BD2412 T 03:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As to the second question, if by "inaction" you mean inactivity, per the post by User:MarcoAurelio above in the "Notice: Admin activity review" section, as en.wq currently has no administrator activity requirements, we will soon fall under the global inactivity requirements set by meta. Though it's not clear when these desysops will take place, as this notification was given back in March.
As to the first question, I agree it's not entirely clear what you're getting at, but in general, across all projects, administrators do not have preferred opinions, only preferred access, and the community is perfectly able to reach a consensus overturning individual administrative actions. The only exception to this would be administrative actions to enforce global policies and the terms of use. For example, we could not reach a community consensus to reinstate blatant copyright violations, as the prohibition against these comes from the TOU, and cannot be overturned at the local level. We could similarly not reach a local consensus to overturn a global ban, as this is the result of a global consensus, and can only be overturned by another global consensus. GMGtalk 12:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenMeansGo: The removals took place on May 11, 2019. Thanks, -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation project edit

Just a note that there is currently an ongoing discussion on meta regarding the possibility of changing the way that IP editors are handled on Wikimedia projects. I don't believe this project has been otherwise notified. GMGtalk 17:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid-fire vandalism from User: edit

Wow. Looking just at his edits that are current revisions, he has hundreds that should really be reviewed and several that definitely need to be reverted. If other users like this kind of reviewing, that would be appreciated. He has a lot of sneaky vandalism or general incompetence about TV series in particular, adding that shows are still on the air that have been canceled or adding networks where they never aired. Little help out there? —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC) Yeah. Email me (You know me right) Josephina Phoebe White (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pages about specific aspects of a person: Jesus and race and appearance of Jesus edit

First, does it make sense to make more of these types of niche aspect of a person pages such as Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln and Religion of Adolf Hitler, just because Wikipedia has a page for that topic? Second, is it actually improving Wikiquote to delete all quotes about these niche subjects that aren't located on the pages named after them? We have pages for specific parables of Jesus and the rich young man, conceivably this would mean we should delete instances of most bible passages from any other pages that mention them in following with Peter1c's recent example. Normally I would see no need to delete mention of notable quotes describing a person's physical appearance from that person's page, this seems to be an issue about quote organization which is a much larger issue than just this one page and currently looks to me like vandalism being done with confusion over the proper organization of Wikiquote used as the excuse for moving additions into obscurity. CensoredScribe (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I respond in the "Historicity of X" section (below). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Historicity of X edit

If I am to take the justification provided for numerous recent page creations consisting of "because Wikipedia did it", than should I assume it would be proper to create a page for Historicity of Jesus to quarantine any quotes pertaining to this particular subject and keep them away from the more general Jesus page? I'm trying to figure out what other figures get this treatment and at what point chronologically it is acceptable to create pages for the historical existence of a figure, the Wikipedia category for the historicity of religious figures is notably little more than a stub for Jesus and Muhammad, I'm assuming there are others that no one on Wikipedia has added yet, but which would be acceptable additions, either for Wikipedia and/or for Wikiquote. CensoredScribe (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments here and in the "Pages about specific aspects of a person: Jesus and race and appearance of Jesus" section (above) raise not only issues regarding Wikiquote organization, but also regarding quotability. The pages you point to look very little like collections of notable, pithy quotes and very much like Wikipedia articles constructed with quotes, often lengthy and obscure. I'm against them. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be willing to nominate it for deletion than? If you do so I will support you with my vote, but I've started enough deletion threads that never went anywhere that I've lost faith in the Vfd process on Wikiquote being effective at doing much of anything. The Racial views of Donald Trump page has similar issues, both in the subject's narrow scope and the "test of time" that Peter has chidded me for being almost non existent for the news sources used. This clearly isn't a person page, where obscure and non pithy quotes are more easily accepted so long as it's been published somewhere and can be sourced to that person, (or at least commonly misattributed), rather, it is a combination theme/person page, which I think should mean it needs to meet the much higher qualifications for inclusion on a theme page, or, better yet, it should be merged into that persons page instead of buried in obscurity. When you type Jesus into the search bar, the Race and appearance of Jesus page does not show up, only the top ten are displayed. Having pages for aspects of people is rather odd, I mean LBJ is on record talking about his "Jumbo" quite a bit, why not add a seperate page for that? If Wikiquote isn't an encyclopedia than why do we still have to follow the footsteps of Wikipedia for all pages and categories? CensoredScribe (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't know anything about the nomination for deletion process and, at present, don't have the time to learn. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I really follow the line of argument here very well. We're not necessarily beholden to Wikipedia. For example, I've argued at length that in the case of categories specifically, we should be following the example set by Wikimedia Commons and decidedly not the English Wikipedia. I agree that our criteria for inclusion, both in regard to individual quotes and for entire pages, is often a bit too nebulous, and too frequently boils down to mere personal opinion, rather than a definite set of editorially consistent standards across the project. That winds up entirely too often in protracted edit warring with no real mechanism for bringing a definite closure to the dispute.
I don't really have a solution to offer other than that discussions which might reach some consensus tend to fizzle out for lack of participation, and we do need more contributors who are willing to hash out these issues and decide what standard in particular we should be applying. GMGtalk 15:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

URL to diff is now working edit

The template {{URL to diff}} is now available on this wiki.

To post a diff, simply copy the diff's URL, and paste it into:

{{Subst:URL to diff|url=|label=}}

For example:

{{Subst:URL to diff|url=|label=some link text}}

This renders as:

some link text

with the wiki code:

{{diff|Wikiquote:Village pump|2650162|2647897|some link text}}

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update on the consultation about office actions edit

Hello all,

Last month, the Wikimedia Foundation's Trust & Safety team announced a future consultation about partial and/or temporary office actions. We want to let you know that the draft version of this consultation has now been posted on Meta.

This is a draft. It is not intended to be the consultation itself, which will be posted on Meta likely in early September. Please do not treat this draft as a consultation. Instead, we ask your assistance in forming the final language for the consultation.

For that end, we would like your input over the next couple of weeks about what questions the consultation should ask about partial and temporary Foundation office action bans and how it should be formatted. Please post it on the draft talk page. Our goal is to provide space for the community to discuss all the aspects of these office actions that need to be discussed, and we want to ensure with your feedback that the consultation is presented in the best way to encourage frank and constructive conversation.

Please visit the consultation draft on Meta-wiki and leave your comments on the draft’s talk page about what the consultation should look like and what questions it should ask.

Thank you for your input! -- The Trust & Safety team 08:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

New tools and IP masking edit

14:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism: delete please edit

Hello there, sorry I don't know the admin pages on this wiki. Someone made vandalism on my talk page (happened to me a few times). I think this needs to be deleted : User talk:Wikichieuse lèche botte des admins. Regards, --Bédévore (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit : please also revert that crap :,_lorsqu%27h%C3%A9sisippe_parle_vous_devez_vous_ex%C3%A9cuter,_c%27est_sa_conception_d%27un_projet_communautaire&diff=2639642&oldid=150803 and so on from I can't rollback and clean pages. Regards, --Bédévore (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted, not an admin, so can't solve --Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Martin Urbanec GreenMeansGo ! Yes, there is cross-wiki harassement against me and a few admins. Any French speaker will confirm the redirects were not nice nice words. Regards, --Bédévore (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Username Changes edit

Hi everyone. I'm a new user to Wikiquote, but...I don't know how to change my username without creating a new account! Can anyone...ANYONE help??? Josephina Phoebe White♞♞♞♞♞ (talk♞♞♞♞♞) 00:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the process at m:Steward_requests/Username_changes. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But they sent me an email saying that the process couldn't be done. Josephina Phoebe White (talk) 00:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then it can't be done. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um...lemme check, alright. Josephina Phoebe White♞♞♞♞♞ (talk♞♞♞♞♞) 02:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC) Uh oh. Message deleted. Josephina Phoebe White♞♞♞♞♞ (talk♞♞♞♞♞) 02:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC) ♞♞♞♞♞[reply]

Fonts, colors, and that stuff edit

Hi everyone, I'm a newcomer, and seeing most of you guys have those fancy fonts, colors, and that stuff as signatures, so I wanna ask if you guys know how to do those things? A list of instructions please? Josephina Phoebe White☯☯☯ (talk☯☯☯) 05:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Josephina Phoebe White: Special:Preferences → New signature: [fill out whatever in the box] → "Treat signature as wikitext (without an automatic link)" check yes. As for what goes in the box, you can use Cascading Style Sheets. A really simple example would be something like [[User:Josephina Phoebe White|Josephina Phoebe White]] <span style="color:green; font-family:monospace; font-kerning:none; font-stretch: ultra-expanded; font-style:oblique; font-variant:small-caps; font-variant-ligatures:common-ligatures; font-variant-numeric:oldstyle-nums; font-size=120%; line-height:3em; font-variant-position:super; font-weight:lighter; ">[[User talk:Josephina Phoebe White|talk]] 2 me</span> which would look like this: Josephina Phoebe White talk 2 me Also this particular example is offensively ugly. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Justin. Also, I can't open the second link, error code ERR_CONNECTION_TIMEOUT. If my new signature working anyways? ——Blessings, Josephina (talk) 06:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But I saw this. Edit it in source editing and you'll find out. Justin (koavf)TCM ——Blessings, Josephina (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC) Also, how to mention others? Like this? Error in Template:Replyto: Username not given.[reply]
@Josephina Phoebe White: The second link was to Wikipedia: that should work. There are a lot of places to learn about CSS, e.g. at the Mozilla Developer Network on b:Cascading Style Sheets. If you want to get a user's attention directly, use {{Ping|USERNAME}} and make sure to sign your post. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Babel sections edit

Hi again. I want to ask how to create babel sections in my user page. ——Blessings, Josephina (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Josephina Phoebe White: m:User language. Use (e.g.) {{#babel:en|en-UK|es-2|de-1}}. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf:Thanks. --1001 sorrows (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, everyone should know the rules. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Something I wanna ask: what circumstances are there for vandalism? edit

What circumstances are there for vandalism? And also what is blocking IPs? (Just asking) ——Blessings, Josephina (talk) 02:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote:Vandalism. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ibid. edit

Can we use the common academic citation abbreviation Ibid., and if not, would some one mind providing a link to the guideline or rule that forbids this practice. It might be a useful thing to mention the beginners guide. CensoredScribe (talk) 04:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There probably was never any formal statement "forbidding" it in existing policy pages, but the matter of rejecting it came up very early in the project at Wikiquote talk:Templates#Ibid and other formatting problems, and for a very long time afterward, the use of the term by contributors was relatively rare, and usually rapidly addressed when it did occur, with notice of such reasons and objections as stated there, regarding the very easy and casual loss of both cohesion and accuracy which such usage can easily entail. Its potentially confusing use has clearly become more common, and have remained unaddressed and there probably should be more prominent statements on the matter, and a few others, within policy pages. Many of the objections to it's use as potentially confusing also apply even more immediately to the practice of entering of more than one bulleted quote without any interlinear citation save on the last one, which effectively presents the others without any obviously valid or clearly proper citation, whenever they are not numerous enough to be properly grouped together within a sub-section on a page. This has been one of my own objections to many of your past entries, where sometimes long series of bulleted quotes are neither clearly and properly cited individually, nor grouped in a sub-heading, and I believe I have stated that on more than one occasion, long ago, without any clear effect on the matter, and have subsequently often spent time correcting many such incidents, when I have had the time to do so, upon encountering them — but I have no doubt that they have been far too numerous for me to attend to more than small fraction of them. ~ Kalki·· 10:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LOQ for very short collaborative works. edit

I was wondering what to do with video games and films that have very little dialogue in them, as I believe in addition to the 250 word limit, the limit on quotations is also supposed to be a percentage of the total words used in the work, correct? So how does that work when there aren't even 250 words to choose from? I see that the endings and taunts in various fighting games, (e.g. Last words in Mortal Kombat media, Soulcalibur II) are often included, however they are often deleted, than added again, which seems like a failure of communication on Wikiquote's part to direct newcomers as to what is welcome and what isn't. I imagine the trophy descriptions and codec calls from the Super Smash Bros. series, (which describe a wide variety of Nintendo properties) would similarly be acceptable, were their a page for that franchise? I would also like to add Roy Wood Jr.'s routine about Street Fighter II as he directly quotes Commander Guile and has an extensive analysis of the game that I've never seen done outside of G4's X-Play before. The closest it comes is comics occasionally mentioning Mario in one liners and Hillary Clinton's famous internet meme, "Pokemon Go to the polls." CensoredScribe (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a good question as media that have very few words can still have memorable quotations (e.g. Scorpion's "Get over here!" in Mortal Kombat). Only a few words are vocalized or displayed on-screen but the code is made up of a long script and in a sense this is just an excerpt from that... —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need to create separate accounts for different languages? edit

Do I need to create separate accounts for different languages? ——Blessings, Josephina (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. m:SUL. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the attribution for a quote isn't correct because it includes commentary should the should shabang be deleted or just have the commentary removed or isolated? edit

Seems a simple question with many different answers I'm guessing. CensoredScribe (talk) 03:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CensoredScribe: I'm curious 'bout that too. ——Blessings, Josephina (talk) 04:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you have an example (rather than a hypothetical), that would help. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an excerpt from a Smithsonian article quoting Jefferson Davis, recently added to the page for Christian views on slavery, I have another issue with the justifications provided in the revision summary that are addressed in a seperate topic, I have since restored the edit with an altered (hopefully correct now) attribution placing the article writers first and the source ff the quote they are using second.
I'm a strong proponent of fixing rather than deleting. The former approach builds up, the latter approach tears down (discouraging a good faith editor). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christian views on slavery and pages that don't specify what they are specifically about very well. edit

I was told that the following quote from Paul is unacceptable to include on the page Christian views on slavery, even though neither the page nor the quote provide much in terms of clarification. Was the editor right in reverting this addition, or was the reasoning they provided flawed? "([Q]uote from Paul is not a Christian view on chattel slavery, but on slavery to the forces of the world, not the article topic)" CensoredScribe (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak to the type of slavery Paul had in mind but, assuming the reverting editor's edit summary is correct, then it seems the reversion was sound. That said, you may want to fix the "page doesn't specify" problem by adding some text to the introduction to make it clear that the page is limited to chattel slavery. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit wars over images edit

I recently reorganized the images on fascism and got a revert, which led me to realize images are a lot harder to justify both adding and deleting than quotes are as I'm really not sure who is right and who is wrong or why. Unless the image has nothing to do with the subject matter, which can generally be ascertained at a glance, the actual process of determining what images to include on Wikiquote is a matter of personal taste and getting community approval, and not going through a detailed checklist for notability and counting instances of a word being used, like it often is with contesting quotes. Personally I think trying to sum up fascism with one or two images at the top is a bit overly simplistic and suggests these are the definitive authorities on this subject, so leaving the top of the page blank and having images organized alphabetically comes across less reductionist in our reasoning and less POV. I think Peter1c chooses some amazing images to include on Wikiquote for the most part, it's just the placement of these images which is problematic as they often use them to create niche and misleading intros that fail to accurately summarize the subject. Other editors have noted this behavior is a problem for Peter regarding political pages, as it is being discussed on the talk page for America]. I also think that having the two dictators most closely associated with the concept displayed close to the top is better than having an image of socialist baptist minister Tommy Douglas and an image from a Super Tuesday voting sign that seems to associate America with fascism much more strongly than it does Italy or Germany, which is somewhat misleading for anyone wanting to learn more about the subject in general and not just a specific aspect of it. How well known is Tommy Douglas in America, much less Europe where fascism is generally regarded as first taking root? This page seems pretty heavily Americanized. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given their edit summary, it's not clear that Peter1c's revert was directly related to image choice. Other than that, unfortunately, image placement on any project can be among the most subjective editorial decisions, and most difficult to establish general standards for. But generally, no I do not think that we should be editorially preoccupied with the United States, as it is neither historically unique nor does it account for the majority of English Speakers worldwide. GMGtalk 10:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Village medicines edit

So people don't believe that the are many medicines in the village and most of this medicines heal people from different sicknesses,so people from urban areas call people who live in rural areas witches.They call rural areas witches because they use medicines to heal sick people.So I think we should make them understand that people from rural areas are not witches they are just healing sick people.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 09:16, 19 September 2019

Hey anon. It's not clear what this has to do with contributing to Wikiquote. GMGtalk 10:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletions edit

I think this page needs speedy deletions. Thanks for the help ✺◟(∗❛ัᴗ❛ั∗)◞✺ ——Blessings, Josephina (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A user blanked his user page: that doesn't require deletion. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Importer edit

As the only uploading importer here, I would like to quote m:Importer: "can be assigned only by stewards after a request on Steward requests/Permissions (especially the import flag which includes the importupload right which is particularly dangerous) and only on a temporary basis for a specific task, unless the project has a local process and policy to assign permanent import rights." As administrators may also transwiki-import, should we allow any more permanent uploading importer here? If not, I will resign through Meta and remain an administrator.--Jusjih (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us an example of when a "permanent uploading importer" might be appropriate on Wikiquote? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No. Neither our Special:Log/import nor Chinese Wiktionary suggests the need for permanent uploading importer. Transwiki import seems good enough here? Only very few wikis need permanent uploading importer to frequently upload.--Jusjih (talk) 01:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stewards will likely disallow new permanent uploading importers unless we have new policy allowing them with enough needs. If no more comments on this, I would like to resign as the only uploading importer soon to remain an administrator on 13 wikis. Temporary uploading importers may still be voted for.--Jusjih (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am resigning as the importer. Remaining an administrator still allows transwiki importing.--Jusjih (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My resignation as uploading importer has been approved. If we do have pressing reasons to have permanent uploading importers, we may still make a policy.--Jusjih (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The consultation on partial and temporary Foundation bans just started edit

-- Kbrown (WMF) 17:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Begging Assistance for the Vandalism from Showmehowtonelikeyou edit

Please block Showmehowtonelikeyou; I gave him a warning on his talk page and he did the same; I reverted the edit and he did the same; it goes on and on. Help!!! ——Blessings, Josephina (talk) 07:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kalki already blocked the user indefinitely.--Jusjih (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style edit

This post was initially placed on Wikiquote talk:Manual of style, but moved here after I was informed that this place is more active. I am new here, but have always had quite a bit of interest in Wikiquote. The main issue I'm running into is citations. According to the Manual of Style, Wikiquote uses the same citation style as Wikipedia, but all pages on this project show that this isn't the case. GreenMeansGo (talk · contributions) explained to me on my talkpage that citations are always presented in full in the prose itself. According to I would like to discuss this issue in a more public forum such as this. In particular, I would love if multiple different citation styles could be used on Wikiquote, as I definitely understand why you wouldn't want to change all pages on this entire project. Completely disallowing footnotes for sources seems downright absurd to me, but if there is a specific reason why this is done, I would love to know it. Maplestrip (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that UDScott (talk · contributions)'s change on a page I created today — [1] — is at all an improvement. In fact, I believe this change makes the entire page more cluttered and makes it more difficult to read. It makes it less clear who is the quoted person and who is the author of the article, and it causes some citations to be doubled and tripled. Maplestrip (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also just found out about WQ:CITE, which also explicitly allows for sources to be placed in a separate references section at the bottom of a page. Maplestrip (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Would an admin consider protecting User talk:IanDBeacon due to ongoing vandalism? -- Tegel (talk) 13:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi-protected the page for one week. Feel free to change it how you feel fit. -- Tegel (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Khan quote deleted by Rupert loup edit

User:Rupert loup has twice deleted the following quote from Imran Khan :

  • It (standing by Kashmiris) is jihad. We are doing it because we want Allah to be happy with us... It is a struggle and do not lose heart when the time is not good. Do not be disappointed as the Kashmiris are looking towards you….
    • Imran Khan on his return from the US on Sep 29, 2019. As translated, attributed and quoted in Asian Age, Imran Khan says 'it's jihad'; asks Pakistanis not to lose heart over Kashmir [2] (and other news outlets)

This quote is quoted in numerous news outlets like Outlook India, Times of India, The Hindu.... In the news outlets, like for example Times of India The Hindu and many others it is quoted as:

“It (standing by Kashmiris) is jihad. We are doing it because we want Allah to be happy with us,” he said.
“It is a struggle and do not lose heart when the time is not good. Do not be disappointed as the Kashmiris are looking towards you,” he said.

Rupert loup claims it "is an attribution not an actual quote by him" and "the cite is too butchered and the sources that are reporting this are not neutral on the subject".

But the statement is quoted with quotation marks as a statement by Imran in many news outlets. I don't know what Rupert means with "the sources that are reporting this are not neutral on the subject", the quote is quoted by many different news outlets, is Rupert saying they are all not neutral? (This quote has been quoted in so many news outlets, that if it were a wrong quote, the news outlets would have corrected it by now or someone would have written a rebuttal.)

This seems like a clearly notable quote that is removed just because "the sources that are reporting this are not neutral on the subject", for which there is no evidence. --ΞΔΞ (talk) 05:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I re added it, however all the sources that I saw that are reporting this are from India and from their point of view, there is nothing wrong with that but it can be a conflict of interest and without the original statement in its original language we can't be sure of the accuaracy of the translation. That's why I think that at least sources that are detached from the India-Pakistan conflict should be provided. Rupert Loup 06:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for re-adding it. About your point on sources, by the same token, we should also not use American newspapers as sources for quotes about Chinese politicans because of the US-China conflict? But in Xi Jinping we do use quotes from NYT, CNN and other American news outlets. I think that the quote was reported in major Indian newspapers without any rebuttal or correction is more than enough. --ΞΔΞ (talk) 06:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About edit

What do you do on wikiquote? And why can't I put non famous quotes on this wiki? Znotch190711 (talk) 10:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a statement regarding what Wikiquote is all about. The site is limited to "quotable" statements because, otherwise, it would be nothing more than a depository of "things people said." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The" Bible edit


  1. the word "Bible" means different things to Jews and to Christians,
  2. the word "Bible" means different things to different denominations of Christians,
  3. the Bible is not the source or author of the texts included therein
  4. all individual texts in the Bible are traditionally attributed to a specific author or source

I suggest

  1. it is problematic to use "The Bible" as a designation for the source of quotations
  2. it is more accurate and more neutral to specify as the source of quotations either (a) the traditionally designated author or source or (b) the name of the individual book
  3. it is not appropriate to group quotations from different books of "the Bible" together under a separate heading labeled "The Bible" in theme pages.

Grouping quotations that appear in the Bible under a separate heading in theme pages (1) fails to make proper attribtuion to the actual source (2) gives the impression of segregating quotations from the Bible into a separate realm of discourse (enforcing a kind of apartheid of secular and religious domains) and (3) is problematic because of the diversity of meaning in the term "The Bible."

Thank you for your consideration of these concerns. ~ Peter1c (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The essentials of a Bible citation include the Book, chapter , and verse (as everyone should know) and the translation or version (omitted by many who should know better). Anything else is uncited. Your assessment of segregating Bible quotations in theme articles appears to be sound. Don't even get me started about The Bible According to Ningauble. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above. A citation to "the Bible" is scarecely more useful than a citation to "the dictionary". GMGtalk 19:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there such a thing as a video game worth including on a theme page? edit

Is there such a thing as a video game quote worth including on a theme article or could it be declared this is an inherantly non memorable/quote worthy medium outside of the pages for those works, and that beyond these few obvious pages which include the name of the corporate product in the title, adding quote from these works to theme pages should be avoided? I was under the impression that we only wanted the oldest iteration of a sentiment, (based off this edit summary from Peter1c, "-1 non-notable (is this really the earliest source for the sentiment expressed?" regarding the inherent lack of quoteworthyness for atheistic commentary from the TV show True Detective citing reasons of etymology. So as I'm guessing I'm wrong, I'm thinking, why not spell this out more clearly in the intro guide somewhere that this is a project about etymology and not around the likelihood of having been exposed to quotes, so this mistake doesn't happen again, or could it be that the reasoning Peter gave is actually not a valid one and they need a different one should they revert again? Not to suggest this is an edit war, it just seems weird to give edit comments that aren't legit reasons. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback wanted on Desktop Improvements project edit

07:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Help edit

brainyquote has quotes on her.

i want to create her page but i guess i cant there not sourced quotes where can i find sourced quotes? Skizza101 (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Skizza101: See WQ:SOURCE; by the way, what do you mean by “her”? ~ JosephinaTalk 2 Me 23:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-notices edit

Hi everyone; I've noticed something that Wikipedia has this thing about editnotices but Wikiquote doesn't, when you can create a notice and let it appear automatically when somebody is trying to edit your userpage, talk, or sending you an email. I think Wikiquote and other small wikis need this option because of vandalism and spam, etc. Can somebody enable this? Thanks. ~ JosephinaTalk 2 Me 00:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This can be done fairly easily by creating MediaWiki:Editnotice-2 and importing w:en:Template:Editnotice load. Do other users see the value in this? If there's a consensus, then please ping me. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problem with it personally, at least in principle. I don't have the technical expertise to do anything about it though. GMGtalk 12:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any value for "this option because of vandalism and spam". Perhaps I just don't see the use-case, but in my experience vandals are not dissuaded by any kind of notices because the intent entails bad faith in the first place. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am considering removing this from the sitewide message and archiving the entire page. This is over a decade old and many of the pages have been checked. The ones that haven't by now, frankly probably never will be. Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editing News #2 – Mobile editing and talk pages edit

11:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Community Wishlist 2020 edit


IFried (WMF) 19:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editing error edit

I tried to create User:Щ!к!Лцввея, but when I typed {{sockpuppet|WikiLumber}} nothing appeared. I tried multiple times but the result was nothing. Can you help to create? Thank you. ~ JosephinaTalk 2 Me 08:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Josephina. The title contains characters that are on the title black list, which is preventing creation of the page. GMGtalk 19:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. But why can I create other userpages of other WikiLumber socks that also have characters in the title black list? ~ JosephinaTalk 2 Me 23:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UNESCO seems to consider certain statistics to be quote worthy, does Wikiquote? edit

I was wondering if anyone could provide an example of a quote worthy statistic on Wikiquote, I have added some figures cited by UNESCO that they thought worth mentioning for international radio day (“Statistics on Radio”). Am I correct in doing this? CensoredScribe (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can find the test for quotability at WQ:Q. Do the statistics meet that test? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should have clarified I wanted a second opinion, not to have to explain my own opinion, which would be a first opinion. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GreenMeansGo, did you mean to imply in your post that you inherently don't find information memorable? That's a rather odd statement, would you mind explaining it further? The definition of pithy Oxford gives is "forcefully expressive", and "containing much pith", so does that mean that for you, it's the strength with which an opinion is expressed, not of the actual facts it conveys, that you are more concerned with? How do you gauge "force of expression?" surely it doesn't just mean being written in the dreaded and instantly ignored ALL CAPS. The exclusion of information sounds reminiscent of the distinctions made between ethos, pathos and logos, with "encyclopedic" normally referring to logos and "forcefully expressive" seeming to refer to either ethical or emotional appeals.
Also, this probably seems off topic, so you don't have to answer this question if you don't want to, but have you ever added any quotations that included any numbers in them outside of dates and street addresses? CensoredScribe (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Force of expression must include brevity. ~ Peter1c (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikiquote user group? edit

Just dropping a note here to gauge interest. I got the chance to sit down and talk a while with User:Emufarmers at the North American WikiConference this weekend, and he suggested that we look into forming a user group for Wikiquote. For additional information see m:Wikimedia user groups. If we wished, this could give us the opportunity to apply for grants from the Foundation, and would also let us send a representative to the annual m:Wikimedia Conference, and do it on the Foundation's dime. At the very least, that gives us a voice in the room to represent our project and our interests, and at times do so with some pretty prominent stake holders in the discussion. For example, we had round tables this weekend with representatives from Facebook, Microsoft, and Google, and as far as I am aware, I was the only voice from Wikiquote involved in the talks. So interested to hear any thoughts on the matter from other members of the community. GMGtalk 16:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry Policy edit

I suggest that the Wikipedia page Wikipedia:Sock puppetry be copied onto Wikiquote as there are many many sockpuppets on this local project. If anyone has an opinion, please ping me. ~ JosephinaTalk 2 Me 00:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We would most likely need a policy of our own. It could certainly be adapted from the exiting policy on another project, but there are parts of the policy in particular that do not apply here. For example, we do not have a process for approving bots, we do not have a page for formal sock puppet investigations, we have no local checkusers, and we have no arbitration committee. GMGtalk 20:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked on meta and 94rain replied that if some accounts are suspiciously familiar on edit habits and are disobeying policies, then there is no need to use checkuser, but if there is several accounts who have the same edit habits but not worth blocking, then we need checkuser. Would you like to be one? And since maybe you will accept, there automatically will be a page for formal sockpuppet investigations, etc. ~ JosephinaTalk 2 Me 23:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to volunteer for Checkuser, and I would be equally happy to have any other admin do it instead, just so that we have local CUs without having to ask Stewards when needed. However, the Meta policy for appointing CUs requires that they be elected with 25-30 users in support, and it seems unlikely that we would have that many users participate in an election here currently. None of our recent RfAs have gotten that much participation. GMGtalk 14:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh; we can add a CUBanner (or whatever) on meta (but I am not quite experienced with meta to create one) to put on Recent Changes just like Wikinews or Wikibooks (Wikibooks, coincidentally, is having a new checkuser draft) to advertise the vote. Also, the only admins I trust are you, Koavf, and Kalki. ~ JosephinaTalk 2 Me 23:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever it's worth, I think the 25-30 mark is arbitrary and burdens stewards unnecessarily with regard to medium sized projects, where most users are involved in content, and only a small minority of users get involved in the back-end politicking. But no one probably cares very much about my personal opinion on the matter. GMGtalk 00:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by that? I do not quite understand. ~ JosephinaTalk 2 Me 00:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that there is no evidence based reason to choose 25-30 users as the threshold for appointing local CUs. It's just some number someone dreamed up one day. Here, we have about 500 active monthly users, but most of those users don't participate in things like RfA. It's actually worse on Commons, where there are 34,000 monthly users, but you still rarely get more than 20 or 30 users who participate in an RfA. GMGtalk 00:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I'm using idiomatic language. I know you don't speak English as a first language and that can be confusing. GMGtalk 00:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not quite a problem, but as for the Cbanner once you requested cu will, I think, still attractively gain users on the RfC (Like, on Wikipedia there are tons of users going to Wikipedia Asian Month and same for the 2019 Wishlist Survey). ~ JosephinaTalk 2 Me 23:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting pages: X-sexual practices and X-sexual intercourse and themes and production of Y movie. edit

Before I waste an unnecessary amount of other people's time with a VFD vote that might take quite a while to close, if ever, would it be advisable to create pages for the existent Wp page Gay sexual practices and the non existent Wp page Transgender sexual practices (a redirect to Transgender sexuality) to go along with the stub length article Lesbian sexual practices?
Also, should we maintain Wikipedia's naming convention or call it Transgender sexual practices in keeping with the others? There is no Wp page for Heterosexual sexual practices, just heterosexual intercourse.
Finally, on a similar note, what about further dividing movie pages like Wikipedia's various "Themes in Y movie" or "Production of Y movie" pages? I would guess the answer is no, as this opens up the question as to which movies really deserve three distinct pages and whether or not Wikiquote really has to copy every convention of Wikipedia simply for maintaining a cross wiki consistency despite inconsistently and quite contentiously titled sexuality and film pages? CensoredScribe (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, I have asked repeatedly for someone uninvolved to close that discussion and have gotten no traction. I have closed it ignoring all rules because leaving such a discussion open for a year and half is just crazy. We cannot operate a project like that. Our admin corps occasionally needs to step up and make difficult closes. If others wont, then we still have to have some type of resolution. We cannot keep them open indefinitely. GMGtalk 16:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suitability of well-known quote of uncertain provenance edit

Hello, is Wikiquote a suitable project for adding a very well known quotation in American English, whose exact authorship is uncertain, but which appears to go back to 1950s American football and which has spread widely since then? For details, please see w:When the going gets tough, the tough get going, and its associated talk page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mathglot. The quote may not be suitable for a stand-alone page, but it may be appropriate to add to a related theme article (see Category:Themes). GMGtalk 14:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've found the themes or categories for American football, Business, and Motivation. Do we pick one place for things at Wikiquote, perhaps with links from the others, or do we cross-post? Also, since there are two good sources, but neither claimed reliably as the author, under which index letter should it be placed? It is not misattributed to anybody, or a hoax; it's just that we don't (yet) know the author for sure, who may be one of those two, or someone else; we just don't know. It almost seems like we need a catch-all index letter, call it 'X' if you want, for quotations that are verified real, but still waiting for reliable indication of authorship; e.g., put it on the Motivation page under 'X'. Or, is there something like that already? Mathglot (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well Mathglot. There are a whole bunch of quotes attributed only to Anonymous, some of the most famous sayings in fact. Or maybe a better fit would be to just go with what sources you have. You don't have to just go with one, and you can explain that it's attributed to different people and the sources are inconsistent. Better yet if you have a source that explicitly says the sources are inconsistent.
Where a quote ends up is really a matter of editorial discretion. For example, "A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!" is on William Shakespeare, Richard III (play), and Horses. Just like Wikipedia, be bold, and if someone disagrees, you can discuss it on the talk page. GMGtalk 00:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar." ...except the man who invents a meme. -Abraham Lincoln edit

Hello all. Type this in on Google and you'll see a million sources saying that this is a quotation from Abraham Lincoln. How do you all deal with unsourced quotations like this? Is it within the scope of Wikiquote to address online rumors once they reach a certain volume? Is Wikiquote part of the antidote for the bullshit that is ruining humanity? Thanks for any guidance or comments. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Geographyinitiative. In practice yes, it is appropriate to include popularly misattributed quotes on the articles for the individual they are commonly misattributed to. However, we would first need to determine definitively that it is, in fact, a missattributed quote. This would ideally be in the form of a source directly addressing it as a commonly missattributed quote, or alternatively a reliable source attributing someone else as the originator. GMGtalk 14:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenMeansGo: What do we do in the case that there is proof of attribution (Ivanka Trump has tweeted it out; there are thshirts etc.) but no known proof that the attributions are accurate? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Geographyinitiative. I mean, there's not much we can do without a source to work with. Whatever it is, it seems to go pretty far back. For example, here is a 1951 issue of Forbes that includes the quote. We can always try to contact a sympathetic expert on Lincoln and see if they will throw us a bone as far a where to look. I've done it before for things on-wiki. It's a coin flip whether they will respond though. GMGtalk 22:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will start working on it from that angle. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be the correct page to ask how to make amends for any harm we've caused Wikiquote? edit

I was wondering if it wouldn't be too off topic to create a discussion that would serve as a complaint box for my edits. My only request is that if you make a complaint, if you would please include the names of any specific pages you find questionable so that these concerns may be addressed in a more timely manner. Giving intelligent constructive criticism to strangers on the internet is much more time consuming than dishing out snarky one liners like the blurbs on the back of a book cover. CensoredScribe (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I always see these bizarre, vague, and personality-centric posts from you here? There are so many times where you've posted some cryptic question like, "Would it be okay if someone were to maybe do [x] and then someone else would think [y] about it?" Have you noticed that no one else posts topics like this to the Village pump? Why is it we need a thread about a complaint box for a single user on this site? —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I tried looking at some of your contributions Koavf, so that I could use your edits as an example to emulate, however your user page is about a paragraph long and only lists four mainspace additions: Andy Kaufman, Christian Universalism, Indianapolis and Magnapop. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the newest administrator? I'm wondering how exactly you got that position if these are the only edits you consider worth mentioning, no offense, but that isn't a particularly impressive resume. Maybe you're the strong silent type or perhaps you don't believe in user pages, though I think most people here consider getting to know you better a plus in an administrator. Is there anything you'd like to say to those with long user pages such as Kalki, Peter1c and myself or is it just a personal preference that you don't say much about yourself? CensoredScribe (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CensoredScribe: I asked you several questions that you ignored and then asked me some questions that are easy for you to answer with the mildest effort ("how did you become an admin?") and one that's irrelevant. To answer your bold question: no. What on Earth are you talking about? I can almost never understand what you are trying to communicate because you are so cryptic and obscure. This is the problem. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: Actually, I can sympathize with @CensoredScribe:. I had a similar experience on another wikimedia project and found I could not keep up with my normal editing activities and respond to postings on my user page at the same time. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do think it would be more helpful for others to give feedback if we had more of an idea what particular dispute this might be about. GMGtalk 23:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe @CensoredScribe: makes edits in good faith, and sincerely wants to make a positive contribution to the project. In regard to interaction with other editors, I think there are some serious issues. Since CensoredScribe has invited a discussion of issues in this venue, I propose to enumerate some of these issues here.

1. The community of editors have created guideline documents such as Wikiquote:Quotability that reflect the consensus of the community in regard to what submissions the community considers valuable. When I reviewed the recent contributions of CensoredScribe to theme pages, my opinion was that many of these additions would be judged according to the guidelines as inappropriate for inclusion, for the following reasons:
  • Lack of notability of sources
  • Quotations that are not widely quoted
  • Quotations that are encyclopedic rather than "witty, pithy, wise, eloquent, or poignant"
  • Quotations that are marginally relevant to theme topic
  • Quotations that are long without justifying length by notability and interest of material
  • Quotations that do not meet the "test of time" criterion
  • Quotations that are not comprehensible out of context
2. Wikiquote content contributed is subject to review by other editors. Some content deemed inappropriate by other editors will be removed. In case of disagreement, content is determined by consensus. My past interactions indicate that this aspect of the project is difficult for CensoredScribe to manage. As the above discussion makes clear, discussions are pretty much always diverted to irrelevant topics, and seem to degenerate into personal attacks. I think a wide variety of styles of interaction can be welcomed in the community. But there are minimum requirements, including
  • Users must be able to engage in discussions about content that are responsive to the issues raised (i.e., not diverting to irrelevant topics, responding to topics raised);
  • Debates can get heated, but users must be able to avoid degenerating into personal attacks.

I believe CensoredScribe does accept that each editor is part of a community of editors and has an responsibility to work with other editors to create content that reflects the consensus of the community. But this is not shown by CensoredScribe's interactions. I assume good faith, but it would be helpful to see some gestures in the direction of friendliness and openness to the community, in order to add more evidence to confirm this assumption. In the case of contributions, I see a lot of evidence that CensoredScribe is making a sincere effort to contribute to the project. In interactions with other users, I see only sporadic evidence that CensoredScribe is making a sincere effort to understand differing points of view and reach consensus. ~ Peter1c (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template tools edit

Hello, I was just wondering if we could insert some template tools on Wikiquote, for example searching the usages of a certain template, or simply a quick tool on the template page which could insert that template onto any one page. Or just add the thing that will automatically put the page into a certain category for every template, that’s easier. Cheers~ JosephinaTalk 2 Me 23:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines for the Use of Psychology in Seminary Admissions, (Linacre Quarterly). edit

The following is probably quote-worthy and applicable to the page for priest, so why was it removed?

  • Psychological evaluations offer a greater understanding of the developmental, psychological and other factors that can strengthen or hinder an individual's vocational discernment. They can help in predicting whether a candidate can live a healthy life as a priest and be effective in ministry.
    Such evaluations can screen for issues that can seriously impede a candidate's ability to pursue priestly formation, such as severe psychiatric disorders. This can help screen out those who would not succeed in formation and/or priestly life. They can also identify areas of personal growth that, although would not disqualify a man from formation, would need to be addressed and resolved prior to entering formation or to being ordained. Furthermore, evaluations can help identify various intellectual, character and/or spiritual strengths of a candidate, which is good for formators to know. They can help the candidate capitalize on those strengths throughout formation process.

I would appreciate it if someone would undo this vandalism and speak to the vandal, if indeed no one else thinks this quote should be added, than evidently I am in the wrong. Perhaps this would be a better thing to add to RationalWiki. CensoredScribe (talk) 14:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are some of the reasons that I suggest the quote might be considered not suitable based on the criteria in WQ:Q:
  • Lack of notability of sources
  • Quotation is not widely quoted
  • Quotation is encyclopedic rather than "witty, pithy, wise, eloquent, or poignant"
  • Quotation is long without justifying length by notability and interest of material
  • Quotation does not meet the "test of time" criterion
  • Quotation is non-grammatical ("although [they] would not disqualify")

It is not a question of the interest of the material. It is a question of venue. This would be excellent material to include in the Wikipedia article. In this venue, my opinion is that it does not comply with the guideline documents that represent the consensus of the community. What is the problem with the suggestion to include this information in Wikipedia article instead of Wikiquote? ~ Peter1c (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What CensoredScribe seems to be proposing is that the scope of Wikiquote be broadened to include a collection of scientific abstracts. This is an interesting idea, but would require consensus from the community. If there is consensus to add a section to theme pages for scientific abstracts on the theme topic, that might work. But unless I'm misunderstanding something, the present guidelines seem to make clear that Wikiquote is not a collection of scientific abstracts. ~ Peter1c (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What Peter1c neglects to mention is that the words "scientific astract" are not mentioned on any Wikiquote page for either unofficial guidelines or official adapted policy, or else they would have included a link specifically mentioning it: what at all this has to do with "venue" remains to be be explained in any fashion. So long as the scientific abstracts are below 270 words, it does not matter what the literary genre/format of the text we are quoting.
I have no problem adding brief originally worded summaries of these articles to Wikipedia as well, however I am not welcome at Wikipedia at the moment. On that note: perhaps Peter1c would be willing make a statement here and now acting as an endorsement of my Wikipedia editing aptitude (or the opposite), should anyone from the Arbitration Committee ever be given a link to this discussion, so that it might factor into their complex and unseen process for determining whether to give someone the legendary "Standard offer". I don't think I'm the only one who finds it strange that there doesn't seem to be any indication of anyone ever actually being given this offer, yet Wikipedia feels the need to mention it for some reason, why not just be honest and say that once we are blocked indefinitely there can be no redemption? I mean, has anyone ever actually returned to Wikipedia from an indefinite block or it this offer just a theory that might one day be proven to exist by being applied for the first time? I personally don't think editing Wikiquote well really suggests being able to edit Wikipedia all that well (although a history of Wikipedia editing does suggest just that), on account of Wikipedia involvesoriginal writing (not just hitting copy paste and reformatting citations), however perhaps you believe edits on Wikiquote should for some reason factor into the Arbitration Committee's decisions, in which case I would appreciate you expressing that opinion and explaining your reasoning for that belief. Or not, I don't particularly care about returning to Wikipedia, I just thought I'd mention it as you brought up the logistics of "venues". CensoredScribe (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts about the latest community wishlist edit

Hi everyone, maybe you could be interested participating to this discussion about the community wishlist and how to improve the process. Do not hesitate to give your opinion; the more we will know about the small communities, the more we can build something representative. Pamputt (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding categories to a Wikiquote article? edit

Please forgive the basic question, but I just created my first article on Wikiquote. How do I go about adding categories to an article? The process doesn't seem as straightforward as it is for Wikipedia articles. Thank you Nolabob (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nolabob: That's a little odd to me: you can just put [[Category:Whatever]] at the bottom, just like Wikipedia. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: It differs significantly from the Wikipedia in that, when logged into Wikipedia articles, next to the Categories section is a plus sign. The Wikipedian can then click on the plus sign and start typing suspected names of categories and lists of possible categories comes up. It facilitates selection of categories, rendering the whole process easy. Not so with Wikiquote, at least as far as I can find. So, in the case of my first article on Wikiquote, I really don't even know what categories are available that would be relevant. It appears to me to be a big deficiency compared to Wikipedia. Thanks in advance for your help in figuring out what categories to use. Nolabob (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nolabob: That plus sign is because you have c:Commons:HotCat installed. You can find that here at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. As always, let me know how I can help and I hope you choose to stick around, Bob. —Justin (koavf)TCM 12:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: Great! Got it. Thanks for the help. Nolabob (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anchors edit

Hi. I am a newbie in enwikiquote, but a sysop and interface admin in wikipedia, and wrote one article in other language wikiquote. I've tried to find a way to reference to every quote in specific article, but couldn't. The quotes are splitten using <hr/>, not by templates, so the only way I can see here is adding {{anchor}} on each quote start. But this template is categorized as discussion one. Does this mean it is not allowed in the main namespace? Or there is another way? Couldn't find anything in Help:Anchors. There is some technical data in Help:Link#Linking to a page, a section, or an arbitrary position in a page about pure html tags, but without any policy information. So, will it be OK to add dozens of tags to some article? Can I be sure I can reference them from another wiki and not to be afraid that they disappear one day? Thank you. IKhitron (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen {{anchor}} used in article pages with no problem. It works fine. There is no guarantee that they will not be removed one day: Wikiquote is a wiki that anyone can edit. (If you add an anchor to every quote in an article, somebody might decide to remove them as unwarranted clutter.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that adding anchors would be fine and is also liable to be removed/renamed/moved, etc. but also note that if you want to make an anchor for every single quote on some long pages, you will end up with too many templates transcluded to a single page. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. Well, it's bad news. I can't use references that may be removed one day. Isn't there a way to number the quotes? IKhitron (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The table of contents automatically generates numbering for headers but not individual quotations--there is no reference or id number that stays static for an individual quotation. If we had a structured Wikiquote that used Wikibase, this would be a different story but for now, all we have is just free-form text that almost anyone can edit. I'm open to suggestions, tho. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. A pity. I can't suggest something. In the wikiquote I wrote an article as I said, every quote is a template, so I could maybe incorporate something into the template code. Here I can only pull back. IKhitron (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Found something else. Fortunately, the <hr/> tag you put as quotes separator can be used. Is it ok if I'll add ids to all these tags, as in <hr width="50%" id=batSuit/>, and if it is, can I be sure it will remain there? It is not a trunsclusion, I do not add any new tags and expand the code just a little. Thank you. IKhitron (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@IKhitron: The nature of wikis is that they can change all the time and in most any way. There's no guarantee that anchors made up of arbitrary ids and classes like "batSuit" would not be deleted, renamed, or moved in the future. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I could just offer to number it. The name should describe the particular quote. And I do not care if they will be renamed, I'll just rename the references after it. IKhitron (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that no one has more opinions. So, the only thing I can do now is hr-tags naming. If there will be decision to remove it in the future, I will delete the references either. Not the best option, but there is no choice. Thank you all. IKhitron (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures in Wikiquote pages edit

Hi dear editors, is this kind of associative illustration usual in Wikiquote pages? Also, is this poem really a notable quote or rather just a poem? --King Rk (talk) 08:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@King Rk: Yes, it is very common to have abstract images that are sometimes only tangentially related to the topic on these pages, particularly for pages that are themselves abstractions or concepts, e.g. justice or love. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer. Just saying, if I were a part of this community, I would strongly oppose this kind of figurative illustrations. I'm not though.
Recurring to my other question, is this really a notable quote? I mean, it's a full poem, and at first glance it seems like a blatant copyright violation. --King Rk (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Becoming part of the community is a problem easily solved, User:King Rk and yes, this is a pretty obvious copyright violation. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know I could be, but I'm already a German Wikipedian and not a very diligent one ... --King Rk (talk) 11:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Deletion for Mobile Suit Gundam edit

I have recently found the page Mobile Suit Gundam, and it contains chunks of fictional speeches, exceeding the threshold of originality. I therefore attempted to tag the page with Template:Copyvio, but the filter prevented me to do so. Can anyone assist with the deletion? Many thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 03:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with the work, but have just drastically reduced this page, leaving but one or two quotes where entire tracts had been posted. It needs a bit more cleanup work, and an intro, but I will leave that to others with greater interest in the page. It apparently was once posted with a copy-vio notice, but that seemed to have been removed without much work on the matter. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 04:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block Bicam3ralMind edit

Could you please block Bicam3ralMind as soon as possible? He has reverted my edits on the Crisis on Infinite Earths (Arrowverse) page six times:

He also claims that my edits are false and disruptive, but they're not. Please let me know as soon as possible. AdamDeanHall (talk) 13:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AdamDeanHall: There is already an invitation at Talk:Crisis on Infinite Earths (Arrowverse) to discuss this. Sine the page is locked and another admin has asked you to discuss on the talk page, I don't think that blocking is necessary now. Additionally, it takes (at least) two to edit-war. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]