Wikiquote:Village pump archive 62


Cite Q template edit

Please will an admin import w:Template:Cite Q, and the Lua modules it uses, from the English Wikipedia, so that it can be used here to cite works which are represented in Wikidata? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done Saroj Uprety (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. {{Cite Q}} is now in use, for example, on Daniel Gooch. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Split edit

Could an admin also please check if these templates Template:Split article and Template:Split have been correctly imported? Template:Split article does not seem to work correctly? thanks! pinging also @Saroj Uprety: who handled the last request.-- (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I imported the module related to the template. Please check if the template is working or not. Saroj Uprety (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, thank you. It works. -- (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT: Admin activity review edit

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

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

  1. Miszatomic (administrator)

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

However, if you as a community would like to create your own activity review process superseding the global one, want to make another decision about these inactive rights holders, or already have a policy that we missed, then please notify the stewards on Meta-Wiki so that we know not to proceed with the rights review on your wiki. Thanks, Stanglavine (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Stanglavine, Can you please explain why you are considering the removal of the admin designation from user:Miszatomic now. The policy you are referring to was adopted, you say, in 2013. So why the sudden interest in English Wikiquote (ENWQ) internal affairs?
I am also wondering if the consideration of wq:Stewards is done in public or behind closed doors? If it is done in public will you notify us where this particular discussion regarding Miszatomic is taking place? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ottawahitech: I doubt the stewards are singling out ENWQ. Removal of rights if an account is inactive as is good practice as having them is a security risk from a bad actor taking over. Its also not a stain against the user characters and if they wished to indicate that they would like to resume as an admin they would typically be welcomed back but there would probably need to be a certain level of activity seen first. Thankyou. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 17:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Djm-leighpark, not so quick please.
Should Stewards be trusted to decide behind closed doors who gets to be an admin at Wikiquote? What do you know about @Stanglavine, the steward who started this topic but has not responded to my question posted 3 days ago even though they were pinged to this discussion?
Do we really want to trust users who are not part of this community and who are not accessible to us to make the right decisions? Ottawahitech (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the very nature of stewards: they are trusted with very broad rights across the entire scope of WMF wikis, but you're right that the extent to which they need to intervene largely depends on the extent to which there is a local community that is self-regulating. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Justin. And this is just a standard procedure probably agreed quite openly somewhere, the steward is being open about the upcoming de-sysop which is triggered by bots according to an algorithm. And this sort of monitoring is an extra burden the sysops here could likely do without and prefer to leave centrally. They are also needed to handle some cross-wiki abuse. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 22:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of what both of you have said so far answers any of my original questions addressed to @Stanglavine who is still MIA (missing in action)?

I am also wondering if the consideration of wq:Stewards is done in public or behind closed doors? If it is done in public will you notify us where this particular discussion regarding User:Miszatomic is taking place?

btw I personally much rather have inactive admins than semi-active ones who undermine active content-builders, but I am wiling to listen to reason if anyone can convince me otherwise Ottawahitech (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consideration or discussion, in private nor in public, regarding User:Miszatomic. As explained by the links in Stanglavine's post to the community, this is a routine activity specified by established policy. It is nothing new or sudden, it as has been done periodically for previous inactive administrators at Wikiquote and elsewhere. The Stewards are simply carrying out the plain instructions of the policy, and giving public notice of what is happening. Miszatomic has ample opportunity to address the situation if desired. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re: As explained by the links in Stanglavine's post
which links are you referring to? There are 6 links in @Stanglavine post above.
Re" established policy
which established policy?
Re: it as has been done periodically for previous inactive administrators at Wikiquote
I have been here since 2020 and don't remember a similar post on the Village pump. Can you please link to all such notices for removal of admin rights of previous inactive administrators? (before and after 2020)
Thanks in advance Ottawahitech (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ottawahitech: I'd suggest intentionally or not your probably beginning to try peoples patience with this thread. I think a number of people have spent their time coming to this thread to try to good faith give their best response and may like me think why did I bother?. We bother a little bit because you do a fair bit of good work on Wikiquote and we'd like to give you the time of day for that. But while not directly relevant this thread reminds me of painful AfD's on Wikipedia where one wishes someone (and that might arguaably include myself) had read w:WP:Don't bludgeon the process. Any putting bits in bold or shouting in capitals usually doesn't help anyone's case. Per that I'll soon start ignoring you completely or giving "." acknowledgement answers of having read you question. Thankyou. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 08:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ottawahitech I don't want to be so aggressive, but some seemed a little hard to understand.
1.As explained by the links in Stanglavine's post
FWIW, Admin_activity_review is a global policy, if we do not have a local one, this is automatically active. as has been done periodically for previous inactive.....
Yup, please search the archive yourself, you may get some or none.
3.I am also wondering if the consideration of wq:Stewards is done in public or behind closed doors?
Emmm, steward is globally, I believe even back to when User:Hasley has been elected as a steward, there is nothing called local steward. The consideration of steward regarding important issues are done privately, they have a group for private information on email list or IRC. If you are interested in steward's work, you can try to ask user:Vermont or user:Sotiale, they are nice and kind, IMO. Lemonaka (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to be a bit more clear. Ottawahitech, it would be helpful if you would stop assuming bad faith with topics like this. The policy, as well as this year's review, is public on Meta. It's linked in Stanglavine's message. Your assumption that there's some secret meeting of stewards to remove local admins is completely baseless and unhelpful in constructive dialogue. Vermont (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry @Vermont, I didn't find out that question is a trap. I used to believe ottawahitech is asking "Do stewards have a private group for communication?", But what they really intend to ask is "Do stewards have a secret meeting to do some bad things...." Oh, hell.... Lemonaka (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Vermont for supplying a link to the Global admin activity review policy.
I understand, please correct me if I am wrong, that:
  • The maximum inactivity for admins at the English wikiquote (enwq) is defined as zero edits and zero admin actions in the last two years
  • The Stewards conduct annual or semi-annual audits of all holders of enwq admin rights
If this is correct I wonder if members of the enwq community can have access to the detailed results of this audit?
In other words I believe this community should be made aware of the current activity level of all its administrators. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Special:ListAdmins, and then click on contribs :-) Vermont (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For specifics on which admins were identified in the review, see meta:Admin activity review/2022/Data. Vermont (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are the stewards planning an announcement on village-pumps across the wmf-verse about the upcoming elections and annual reconfirmation of stewads? Would it not be a good idea to encourage participation of all members of the wikimedia movement? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ottawahitech For this object, you may contact @Zuz Lemonaka (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ottawahitech, a CentralNotice is created that appears on all wikis informing users of the election. Announcements on village pumps aren't necessary and I've never seen one before, so I don't see why this year would be different. --Ferien (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Ferien. I have a couple of questions:
  • who gets to see a CentralNotice?
  • who decides what goes on a CentralNotice?
  • how many CentralNotices can we have running on enwq simultaneously?
  • how long does a CentralNotice run?
  • can ordinary members of this community comment this process and if so where?
Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ottawahitech, I don't know, it's all controlled from meta. You will have to ask a Meta CentralNotice admin who will know a lot more about that kind of thing than me! Thanks, --Ferien (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot. I am blocked on META. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ottawahitech, oh, perhaps m:CentralNotice and the pages linked to it will be able to answer your questions? I hope that helps, --Ferien (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferien: Thank you for your continuing to provide information on the topic of The 2023 Steward elections, and addressing the concern regarding the CentralNotice that informs members of this community how they can participate in these elections.
Since I consider myself to be a member of this community in good standing I check the ongoings at the stewards elections periodically, even though I am not permitted to participate. I am surprised to see that you are the only member of ENWQ who is actively participating in these elections. There is only one other admin from this community who has voted "Remove" in the reconfirmation process, but it appears that other than the Russian Steward who resigned, all other Stewards will be passing with flying colors. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ottawahitech: Fyi, TheresNoTime also resigned. --Ferien (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit of edit

This user was blocked on English Wikipedia for disruptive editing, I doubt that whether these additions are accurate or not? FWIW ,[1] Special:Diff/3227682 and so on. Lemonaka (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There would appear to be a major problem in general with block-evading non-collaborrating anon-IPs making (for practical purposes) unverifiable dialog changes in films/tv-series/video-games etc. Even blocked IP's from known sockpuppets are editing here with near immunity and sysops taking criticism it their unenviable task of having to deal with it. The edit you mention is trivial in my opinion in the grand order of thngs. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 10:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Djm-leighpark Yes, that's why I'm sending this question to Village pump, some of these edits could not be verified on time. Previously I have caught some IP editors making these disruptive edits, then began vandalizing more aggressively. But if they don't be so aggressive, some minor hoaxes may never be caught by others. Lemonaka (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming vote on the revised Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct edit

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

Hello all,

In mid-January 2023, the Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct will undergo a second community-wide ratification vote. This follows the March 2022 vote, which resulted in a majority of voters supporting the Enforcement Guidelines. During the vote, participants helped highlight important community concerns. The Board’s Community Affairs Committee requested that these areas of concern be reviewed.

The volunteer-led Revisions Committee worked hard reviewing community input and making changes. They updated areas of concern, such as training and affirmation requirements, privacy and transparency in the process, and readability and translatability of the document itself.

The revised Enforcement Guidelines can be viewed here, and a comparison of changes can be found here.

How to vote?

Beginning January 17, 2023, voting will be open. This page on Meta-wiki outlines information on how to vote using SecurePoll.

Who can vote?

The eligibility requirements for this vote are the same as for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees elections. See the voter information page for more details about voter eligibility. If you are an eligible voter, you can use your Wikimedia account to access the voting server.

What happens after the vote?

Votes will be scrutinized by an independent group of volunteers, and the results will be published on Wikimedia-l, the Movement Strategy Forum, Diff and on Meta-wiki. Voters will again be able to vote and share concerns they have about the guidelines. The Board of Trustees will look at the levels of support and concerns raised as they look at how the Enforcement Guidelines should be ratified or developed further.

On behalf of the UCoC Project Team,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 08:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voting now open on the revised Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct edit

Hello all,

The voting period for the revised Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines is now open! Voting will be open for two weeks and close at 23.59 UTC on January 31, 2023. Please visit the voter information page on Meta-wiki for voter eligibility information and details on how to vote.

For more details on the Enforcement Guidelines and the voting process, see our previous message.

On behalf of the UCoC Project Team,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voting closes soon on the revised Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct edit

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.
More languages Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

Voting closes on the revised Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines at 23.59 UTC today, January 31, 2023. Please visit the voter information page on Meta-wiki for voter eligibility information and details on how to vote. More information on the Enforcement Guidelines and the voting process is available in this previous message.

On behalf of the UCoC Project Team,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 10:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change to Religious-stub template edit

Notification: I am proposing a change to {{Religious-stub}} as it classifies people to which it is applied as a religious leader which gives a misleading impression in some cases. I am thinking particularly of cases such as Derek Malone-French (see history) and the martyr Claus Felbinger where leader perhaps gives a false impression though they may be thought of as a leader in a more abstract sense. The discussion is at Template talk:Religious-stub#Proposed fix to misleading usage of Religious-stub so feel free to contribute there (or suggest a better forum). Thankyou. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 08:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voting on the revised Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct is closed edit

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.
More languages Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

The vote on the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines is now closed. The results will now be counted and scrutinized to ensure that only eligible votes are included. Results will be published on Meta and other movement forums as soon as they become available, as well as information on future steps. Thank you to all who participated in the voting process, and who have contributed to the drafting of Guidelines.

On behalf of the UCoC Project Team,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steward elections CentralNotice edit

Am I the only member in good standing in this community who does not see a CentralNotice about the Steward elections which opened on February 5, I think? Anyone else not getting notified?

See more Ottawahitech (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawahitech, I have not seen a CentralNotice about it either, not here nor on any other project. --Ferien (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Martin Urbanec: Can you take a look at these messages about the Steward elections campaign? Thank you, DerHexer (talk) 08:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Ottawahitech and @Ferien, thanks for the report! This is interesting. I double checked the banner configuration, and it seems to be correct. I also see the banner myself routinely across projects. There is also another set of campaigns ongoing (community wishlist and Wiki loves monuments), so the steward elections one might simply have less chances to appear, too.
By any chance, is it possible that you disabled some/all banners in your preferences? If not, would it be possible for you to check browser console (Ctrl+Shift+I) and see if the output mentions anything about a banner?
Have a great day, Martin Urbanec (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Martin Urbanec, I do not get a CentralNotice on ENWQ of any of the campaigns you mentioned:
  • community wishlist
  • Wiki loves monuments
  • steward elections
I did get the one about Shesaid a couple of months ago.
I have not checked to see if I get this notice on any other wmf-project. I suspect I do not, probably because I am blocked on META. But @Ferien is not - so why is ferien not getting a CentralNotice?
Thank you for checking this issue, Ottawahitech (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Martin Urbanec, thanks for your reply, all banners are enabled in my preferences and I can't see anything about banners in the console. --Ferien (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Code of Conduct revised enforcement guidelines vote results edit

The recent community-wide vote on the Universal Code of Conduct revised Enforcement Guidelines has been tallied and scrutinized. Thank you to everyone who participated.

After 3097 voters from 146 Wikimedia communities voted, the results are 76% in support of the Enforcement Guidelines, and 24% in opposition. Statistics for the vote are available. A more detailed summary of comments submitted during the vote will be published soon.

From here, the results and comments collected during this vote will be submitted to the Board of Trustees for their review. The current expectation is that the Board of Trustees review process will complete in March 2023. We will update you when their review process is completed.

On behalf of the UCoC Project Team,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

question about a template edit

do you(en.wikiquote) have a template that about marking wikiquote articles with "this article dominantly has quotes about one side idea"(my english is bad, sorrry)? i think mass filling articles with quotes like that is breaking neutrality. Modern primat (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{Npov}} —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf how about articles that just contain 2 or 1 quotes? Modern primat (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. I'd go {{expand}}. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Justin on {{expand}}. My personal view on Wikiquote is there is no requirement for neutrality in quotes made by a person, but there is need for neutrality and balance in the lead section; and the best thing for anything controversial is to have an article on the English Wikipedia where there are resources to deal to neutrality. I'd generally mostly consider using {{npov}} where there is a significant concern in that area and the article may be edging deliberately or by good faith accident into an attack page. However @Modern primat I have reviewed your contributions on other wiki's and have concerns you may be heading into areas that have caused you issues before, so while we appreciate your contributions here I suggest you already are fully aware of those issues and you may be aiming to perform a mass tagging operation which is may well prove to be disruptive. So I urge you to be very, very cautious. Thankyou. -- Djm-leighpark(a)talk 00:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having said that about {{expand}} is should be fairly obvious is in most cases expansion is useful and its probably unnecessary in most cases and more unhelpful than helpful. -- Djm-leighpark(a)talk 00:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this question @Modern primat. I am often looking for a template which is hard to locate in Category:Templates. I also wonder if there is any point in adding a template such as {{Npov}} to a page. See for example Talk:New York Post which was tagged with this template back in 2010, but has drawn no comments other than the original OP. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Community feedback cycle about updating the Wikimedia Terms of use starts edit

Hi everyone,

This February 2023 the Wikimedia Foundation Legal Department is planning to host a feedback cycle about updating the Wikimedia Terms of Use (ToU) from February, 21 to April 2023. Full information has been published here.

The Terms of Use are the legal terms that govern the use of websites hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. We will be gathering your feedback on a draft proposal from February through April. The draft has been translated into several languages, with feedback accepted in any language.

This update comes in response to several things:

  1. Implementing the Universal Code of Conduct
  2. Updating project text to the Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 license (CC 4.0)
  3. A proposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing
  4. Bringing our terms in line with current and recently passed laws affecting the Foundation including the European Digital Services Act

Regarding the Universal Code of Conduct and its enforcement guidelines, we are instructed to ensure that the ToU include it in some form.

Regarding CC 4.0, the communities had determined as the result of a 2016 consultation that the projects should upgrade the main license for hosted text from the current CC BY-SA 3.0 to CC BY-SA 4.0. We’re excited to be able to put that into effect, which will open up the projects to receiving a great deal of already existing CC BY-SA 4.0 text and improve reuse and remixing of project content going forward.

Regarding the proposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing, the Foundation intends to strengthen its tools to support existing community policies against marketing companies engaged in systematic, undisclosed paid editing campaigns.

Finally, regarding new laws, the last ToU update was in 2015, and that update was a single item regarding paid editing. The last thorough revision was in 2012. While the law affecting hosting providers has held steady for some time, with the recent passage of the EU’s Digital Services Act, we are seeing more significant changes in the legal obligations for companies like the Foundation that host large websites. So with a decade behind us and the laws affecting website hosts soon changing, we think it’s a good time to revisit the ToU and update them to bring them up to current legal precedents and standards.

See the page on Meta to get all the information.

On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Legal Team,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 12:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editing news 2023 #1 edit

Read this in another languageSubscription list for this multilingual newsletter

This newsletter includes two key updates about the Editing team's work:

  1. The Editing team will finish adding new features to the Talk pages project and deploy it.
  2. They are beginning a new project, Edit check.

Talk pages project

Some of the upcoming changes

The Editing team is nearly finished with this first phase of the Talk pages project. Nearly all new features are available now in the Beta Feature for Discussion tools.

It will show information about how active a discussion is, such as the date of the most recent comment. There will soon be a new "Add topic" button. You will be able to turn them off at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion. Please tell them what you think.

Daily edit completion rate by test group: DiscussionTools (test group) and MobileFrontend overlay (control group)

An A/B test for Discussion tools on the mobile site has finished. Editors were more successful with Discussion tools. The Editing team is enabling these features for all editors on the mobile site.

New Project: Edit Check

The Editing team is beginning a project to help new editors of Wikipedia. It will help people identify some problems before they click "Publish changes". The first tool will encourage people to add references when they add new content. Please watch that page for more information. You can join a conference call on 3 March 2023 to learn more.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your wiki will be in read only soon edit

Trizek (WMF) (Discussion) 21:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Office hours about updating the Wikimedia Terms of Use edit

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.
More languages Please help translate to your language

Hello everyone,

This a reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation Legal Department is hosting office hours with community members about updating the Wikimedia Terms of Use.

The office hours will be held today, March 2, from 17:00 UTC to 18:30 UTC. See for more details here on Meta.

Another office hours will be held on April 4.

We hereby kindly invite you to participate in the discussion. Please note that this meeting will be held in English language and led by the members of the Wikimedia Foundation Legal Team, who will take and answer your questions. Facilitators from the Movement Strategy and Governance Team will provide the necessary assistance and other meeting-related services.

On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Legal Team,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 11:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for adminship by Lemonaka edit

Just to let those interested know that Lemonaka has requested admin tools. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ottawahitech Thanks for your noticement Lemonaka (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Pages Listings on the home page edit

Considering that the Main_Page has had a daily average of 5,743 views(!) in the past 90 days == it seems there should be a push here to feature articles which are most likely to be of interest to readers & a service to the world community, rather than the opposite (ones that are very unlikely to be of interest)? What do you think? 19:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Did you have any ones in mind? And how is this related to listing new pages? —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Justin(koavf) for your reply. Seems to me that it would behoove WQ to aim to frequently feature bright, living people - favoring females in general (in accordance with recommendations of the Wikimedia foundation '...closing the gender gap' ). Notable of course, but also when possible arguably, heroic women (and men) who are known for their integrity - whose quotes/ideas are most likely to stimulate/inspire the readers.>
Re your question: How is this related to listing new pages? Sorry I'm not sure of what you mean. On the /Main_Page, as you can see there are ~14 new pages & one of them is featured with an image - at the moment it is Peng Dehuai (A Chinese communist military leader who passed in 1974).
Featuring someone like Alice Phoebe Lou - might interest many of the almost 6,000 people who visit that main page daily.
Do you have any pages in mind? Thoughts? 20:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newcomer edit

I am new to wikiquote, to any admin, please give me an insight on how I can contribute efficiently and what I should do next to help out the community. Thx 2601:5C7:4100:3600:6D6C:55DB:3DE9:DB22 01:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin, but I think you might want to check out the Welcome, newcomers page. BurningLibrary (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the inputbox boilerplate telling me to do about dates? edit

I quote,

Full Name (Date of birth–Date of death) followed by a simple brief note on a person's occupations and social roles. In this and other commentary locations one can optionally provide pertinent links to other locations within Wikiquote, the Wikipedia, or other Wikimedia projects. Please use complete sentences and write dates as YYYY-MM-DD. (Dates written in this format will appear to logged-in users in their selected date format, with links to assist the Quote of the day team.)

Is it saying that date of birth should be written, e.g., 1924-12-29? None of the existing articles seem to do this, and neither do Wikipedia articles. Several Wikiquote articles separately link the day and the year, though, like 29 December 1924. Card Zero (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question - and something I had never noticed before. I have never used this format in all my years on the site, instead preferring a format like March 11, 2023. I'm also not so sure that the rendering of the date is as that states. ~ UDScott (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania 2023 Welcoming Program Submissions edit


Do you want to host an in-person or virtual session at Wikimania 2023? Maybe a hands-on workshop, a lively discussion, a fun performance, a catchy poster, or a memorable lightning talk? Submissions are open until March 28. The event will have dedicated hybrid blocks, so virtual submissions and pre-recorded content are also welcome. If you have any questions, please join us at an upcoming conversation on March 12 or 19, or reach out by email at or on Telegram. More information on-wiki.

Proposal to increase time period for VfD discussions to 14 days edit

There are often only 1 or 2 people voting in the VfDs. While it is difficult to increase the number of voters, one can increase the time period for voting, which makes it more likely that more people participate in voting. I believe smaller wikis should have a longer period for the VfD discussions than larger wikis like wikipedia, where many more users participate. Wikipedia has a period of 7 days for discussion, but there are many more users and much more participation. The wikipedia main page has an average of 5 million page views per day. Wikiquote has only an average of 5000 page views for the mainpage per day. This makes wikiquote a smaller wiki by a factor of at least 100x.

At smaller wikis like the Wikiyoage wiki the time period for VfD discussions is 14 days, instead of only 7 days [2]

At wiktionary it is even one month time [3] for discussion.

I believe it would be better if the time period would be increased here as well so more people would vote. (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems sensible to me, especially since in practice, many of these run much longer anyway. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning oppose: my key wish is that VfD's are closed sooner and not drag on months. I'd prefer the close date remains for 7 days and uncontroversial decisions closures are taken at that time. But no objection to less clear cases being around for say up to 3 weeks, but no longer. And a no-consensus close made at that time if necessary. Ultimately VFD's are a necessary evil but a drain on community time. A uncontroversial guidance delete close might be 3 votes from autoconfirmed users including one administer voting delete with no opposition votes and no contributions in the previous 48 hours. An uncontroversial keep might be 3 keep votes from autoconfirmed users including one administrator with the nominators delete vote excluded and no contributions in the last 48 hours. In general if I see a deletion discussion with sufficient support going the way I'd expect I'd not normally participate in that discussion. -- DeirgeDel tac 23:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are good suggestions. -- (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

South Asian sites that are blacklisted elsewhere added en masse here edit

The following was brought to my attention off-wiki:

Sites that are blocklisted at en.wp:

Have been added many times here at en.wq:

Obviously, we have not blocked them here or else these edits would trip our own filters, but 1.) this seems like a coordinated effort and 2.) these sites seem blocked on en.wp for good reason. My proposal to other Wikiquoters is we should also block these sites locally and remove these references from our project. Do others agree?

As a secondary concern, do we want to have more coordination with the blocklist at en.wp? My assumption is that the blocklist there is much more comprehensive and represents some best practices for what should be blocked that we don't really have the bandwidth to keep up on. If we think that our blocklist should mirror those more, we may need to find an (semi-)automated solution for keeping them in sync. That said, I don't want this secondary proposal to distract from the first one. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask which user made the allegation? If it is from an user without any edits, this reminds one of the TwoHorned account also known on wikiquote as Xsaorapa and MonstrumVenandi. If this is the case, then one should perhaps note that this user has been spamming genocide denial links on wikiquote, see [4] [5]. These links are in my opinion the equivalent of spamming holocaust denial links on wikipedia, as these are articles that deny the 1971 Bangladesh genocide and have nothing to do with a site for quotes. I was thinking of bringing this to the attention of admins some time. -- (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Primary: recusing: Such a block will likely have damburst implications. Too hard. -- DeirgeDel tac 22:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary: Generally speaking I have some concerns about that blacklist (actually from memories there are two, one on meta and one on en:Wiki. I seen one reporter & new media output targeted by hiding them under another publication and the blacklist was in my opinion wrong with "trumped up" charges. However ultimately I found an article where that reporter was using a news information to article to mask SEO advertising so the blacklisting was ultimately correct, but for the wrong reason. -- DeirgeDel tac 22:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The use of news sources is different in several important ways for an encyclopedia than for a compendium of quotes (where verifiability and quotability are more important than if the opinion expressed in a quote is factual or neutral). And as GMG said recently, RSP isn't a policy or guideline, and DeirgeDel said recently about Chinese sources : "Following this through there is a real risk of only anti-establishment Chinese journalists being quotable." The wikipedia list has never been on consensus on wikiquote and it would not make much sense to apply the same list in the same way on wikiquote. Looking more closely at the wikipedia censorlist, these two sites are not actually in the worst category which is the deprecated category. The Daily Mail is in the deprecated category, and the Daily mail is many times more often quoted here. They are in the Generally unreliable category, which also includes Twitter and Facebook, New York Post, Fox News and others, and Twitter and the rest are many times more often quoted here. (Additionally they are in the spam blacklist, but looking at the history, this seems to be because the news sites published one news article where wikipedia and its editors themselves were criticized. The link to this news article was never posted on wikiquote to my knowledge.) Scanning the links shows that most are from interviews, and interviews are usually very quotable if properly attributed. These news sources have featured interviews with prime ministers, among many other notable interviews, so these are not fringe news sites that no one reads or quotes. There may be also be a certain bias in the wikipedia list itself, it only covers Indian sites from one side of the Indian political spectrum, for example The Wire, which has published fake news [6] [7] [8] [9] is not on the wikipedia censorlist. Out of curiosity: Can it be shown if the wikipedia list is based on actual evidence, and what the recorded evidence it is, or is it based, as I suspect, mostly on the opinions of some wikipedia editors? Does this evidence match something like these links about The Wire, which do look serious? (despite that the Wire is not in the wikipedia list). I am curious. Some sources like for example Chinese state media should of course only be used with caution for facts, but when it comes to quotes, it can be useful, for example for interviews, or for the opinion, views and position of Chinese officials, with proper attribution. (The comparison with China is perhaps not optimal, because journalism standards and freedom of press in China are not quite comparable to other countries). Historians and other social scientists quote all type of sources, with proper attribution.
If someone gives an interview to a news site, then he or she is aware of being interviewed, and possibly quoted from that interview. To forbid quotable quotes from an interview just because of who was the interviewer, or where the interview was published, makes not much sense. For example, should this Diego Maradona interview be censored just because he talked to the Daily Mail? -- (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiquote:Policies and guidelines (described as "official policy") is clear: "The policies of Wikiquote's sister project, Wikipedia, usually apply equally well to Wikiquote. In addition, most of them are more mature and hence more polished than Wikiquote's policies, which are still in the process of being developed. Where not specified in Wikiquote, use Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and linked articles." We cannot ignore all Wikipedia guidelines, not least because quotes about living people may be libelous, on the other site the relevant policy concerns the Biographies of living persons. In the current situation on Wikiquote, it means when official Chinese sources attack "anti-establishment Chinese journalists" and other Chinese dissidents, those quotes can be included here. (I think leading figures in the Chinese/Russian/Iranian/North Korean governments, etc are likely to quoted in reliable sources). Similarly, a host of fringe sources could be quoted here which have no mainstream credibility, like the Wikipedia blacklisted Centre for Research on Globalisation (responsible for the Global Research website). It also means quotes from far-right websites such as Breitbart News can be legitimately included, perhaps in thematic articles where a wholly distorted impression of what Wikiquote is about could be gained. Philip Cross (talk) 11:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GMG has already said that RSPS isn't a policy or guideline. I should know. I wrote most of the prose there. ` In addition, there has never been a consensus on wikiquote on this matter. The guidelines from wikipedia should be seen in context: the context of an encyclopedia is different than that from a compendium of quotes. A quote expresses opinions, not necessarily "facts" like in an encyclopedia. The problem is with blanket approaches and simplistic impositions of mandates, or as Kalki once said: MANY years of experience here have provided abundant examples of people very often treating even suggestions presented as non-binding guidelines AS IF they were absolute mandates, and when another entire page which hardly anyone ever even looks at can be actually cited as "POLICY" AS IF it was fully supportive of some removal of material that someone simply for some reason does not like. (The line you quote was also not added by an admin [10].) Or we can also quote another (former wikiquote) admin, Jeffq, who said: en:Wikipedia's huge and incredibly complex set of policies and practices cannot possibly serve as a bible for any Wikimedia project except en:Wikipedia... Wikiquote has used Wikipedia as a starting point for its own policies. But it has always had to be much looser in interpretation and execution... We have been gradually developing Wikiquote-specific policies, many of which are required because of the different nature of quote compendiums vs. encyclopedias. There is also a difference betweeen sources like Swarajya magazine and webblogs like Globalresearch and Breitbart. The former has featured interviews with prime ministers and other very notable people, but webblogs like Globalresearch and Breitbart have never featured interviews with prime ministers. Swarayja has also much more elaborate Fact Checking and Correction Policy than these webblogs Globalresearch and Breitbart. See also their editorial philosphy. I understand the concern about this, but it should be seen more on case by case basis, not with simplistic blanket approaches. Some cases can be fixed with proper attribution. I have added many quotes with opinions that I don't agree with, or from sources that I would usually not recommend, but that I find quotable. Because it is properly attributed I don't see a problem with it, and I trust that the reader takes into account who is being quoted. I agree that some sites like Globalresearch and Breitbart are quoted inappropriately, but even there, there may be a handful of cases where a quote could be justified. Also Breitbart is quoted more often than Swarajya but I have not checked what kind of quotes from Breitbart are used. The problem is not really just about news sites, quotes from other sources are also quoted often inappropriately (a particularly bad example is [11]), but more about quotability. A bad quote is a bad quote even if it comes from the New York Times. When official Chinese sources attack "anti-establishment Chinese journalists" : I think it would be better to discuss concrete examples, on the talkpages of the articles. If the quote has quotability, and if it is properly attributed, than the reader should be able to see themselves if the quote is there because it is factual, neutral, or rather because the quote is eloquent but not truthful or neutral. Perhaps, at wikiquote we should develop our own rules and our own blocklist in this regard that take into account the specific use case here, which is a compendium of quotes and not an encyclopedia. You also mention far-right websites such as Breitbart News, but, half of the sites on the wikipedia censorlist are not far-right websites (Swarajya and Daily Mail for example is center right, Twitter includes the whole political spectrum). On the other hand, many far right websites which have actually been spammed on wikiquote many times, see [12], are not even on the wikipedia blocklist, so this nullifies the argument. Globalresearch is not actually quoted a lot on wikiquote at present from what I can see, but Breitbart is quoted the most. I think the best way forward is to verify what is quoted from Breitbart (or Twitter, Chinese and South Asian news, Daily Mail and the others discussed above), which quotes are problematic, and to discuss the concerns on the respective talkpages. -- (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, there is a distinction to be made between the following two cases:

  • What a hypothetical news agency, Faux News, reports as being the case with regard to the state of the economy.
  • What the finance minister is reported as having said in an interview with Faux News.

The second can still be quotable even if the first is not. For example, another hypothetical news agency, Wox News, might repeat the statements of the finance minister and cite Faux News as a source, without giving credence to any other claims made by Faux News. Here, Wox News trusts Faux News not to misquote the finance minister, and on that basis it reports on the case. BurningLibrary (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quotabilty VFD's on bio articles edit

I think several member's of the community are aware that pending the hoped arrival of a bot system I am currently very much of the business of getting new Wikiquote articles associated with a Wikidata item (sitelinking) relatively soon after they are created. All too often it is appropriate to send items to a deletion process such as Votes for deletion (VFD) for (lack of) notability, spam or technical reasons. However the past couple of weeks has seen a number of articles nominated at VFD for the reasons of Quotabilty where the notability of the biographical subject is not in question; though perhaps emphasis is being placed on the adherence of sources to W:WP:RS guidelines. I have involved in some w:WP:HEY work to preserve some (but not all) of these. I suspect the community here may fall into who camps, one wishing to ensure Wikiquote is populated by only high quality substantial; the other camp may be aiming to achieve quotes for as many subjects/bios as possible. This might be the case for the #SheSaid campaign, Anthere being the example of a person running such a campaign. I suspect articles from #sheSaid and also some non-English language communities might be greatly affected by this. I'm just doing this as a opening of a discussion rather than let what happens be determined by some test cases at VFD. I simply do not have RL. bandwidth to get heavily involved in this matter at this time. -- (formerly Djm-leighpark) DeirgeDel tac 23:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think often those who nominate articles for deletion do so without doing any w:WP:HEY work beforehand. It should be required to do some w:WP:HEY work before nominating an article for deletion. -- (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent Anti-Semitism on "The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion" page edit

Hi, I would like to inform Wikiquote about a page that appears to have been created with Anti-Semitic intent. That page is the page about "The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion" (or "Protocols" for short), a well-known hoax written in Russia during the 1900s that purports to be the secret plans of the Jews to take over the world. This hoax is infamous as it was promoted by the Nazis as supposed "proof" that the Jews are evil and needed to be exterminated, which in turn lead to the Holocaust where over 6 million Jews were murdered by the Nazis. This page was created by the user "MusenInvincible", who in his latest edit to the page, greatly expanded it and added several quotes from the Protocols themselves and from some other sources. An interesting to note here is that all the quotes from the other sources from other Anti-Semitic works which discuss the Protocols, all of which despite the evidence, falsely claim that the Protocols are genuine. MusenInvincible also added some images to the page, including some rather unusual ones, such the flag of the United Nations (UN), the seal of the American CIA and a portrait of Protestant reformer Martin Luther. In some of the quotes for the Protocols themselves, MusenInvincible links to pages that when combined with the images mentioned, imply that the Jews created television, the UN, the CIA, and Protestantism, caused the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and hijacked other governments, culturally, financially and politically. All as part the supposed "plot" by the Jews to take over the world. The user "Philip Cross" had gotten some of the quotes from other works but didn't seem to take a closer look at the page itself. I've tried adding quotes that proved that the Protocols are fake and why they were popular but the word filter removed them for the reason labelled "GRP" which doesn't really explain what I did wrong. One last thing, MusenInvincible is editing other pages to place Anti-Semitic quotes (including some from the Protocols) on them, such as this example linked here I recommend that all of MusenInvincible's edits are checked for Anti-Semitism as it seems to be a common theme with them. I would also recommend that the page on the Protocols add some more quotes (including the ones I tried adding) that show that it's a hoax. Thanks in advance. 20:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I recommend that all of MusenInvincible's edits are checked for Anti-Semitism as it seems to be a common theme with them." I have a better suggestion: invite MusenInvincible to this conversation, and ask them to explain their motives. Do the same for Philip Cross. Here is a link to MusenInvincible's talk page, and here is one to Philip Cross' talk page. I would suggest that you add a message to both pages, informing them about the conversation that is taking place here on the Village pump page, encouraging them to take part in the conversation, and assuming good faith.
I have another suggestion as well: that you make a user for yourself. That will make it easier for other users to contact you and collaborate with you. Furthermore, it may prevent the strange "GRP" error you were encountering earlier. I am not sure what may have caused it, but I speculate that it may be due to Wikiquote's spam filter, which could have been triggered for reasons unknown. If you register a user and it reaches autoconfirmed status after a couple of days, the spam filter will be less suspicious of you, and hence you should have an easier time contributing in good faith.
With regard to the Protocols page, let me offer a few opinions. I think the best approach to take with regard to such a work is a scholarly attitude, with emphasis on factuality and sources. For example, what are some of the theories on how the text came into being? What is the scholarly consensus with regards to the origins of the work, and what are some books and articles where scholarly and well-sourced opinions can be found? A scholarly attitude here means that we concern ourselves with the facts of the matter about the text, without buying into the antisemitic tropes that the text itself espouses. It means that we study the ideology without becoming ideologically possessed.
There are other issues that may be discussed, such as the use of images and links. The Protocols talk page would be a good place for a discussion about what the Protocols page ought to be and how it should be structured. One main benefit of having a page for Protocols is that every quote from the text can be collected in one place: on that page. Since the text is in all likelihood a forgery, it cannot be used as the source for anything, and so one should, I think, avoid quoting it on other pages.
That is all I can offer in terms of advice and opinions on this topic. I have not myself contributed to the Protocols page, and I have no immediate plans of doing so. The text does not interest me much because it is in all likelihood a forgery, and as such, I cannot take it seriously. The only thing I can take seriously is scholarly perspectives about the text. If such perspectives are contributed to the Protocols page, I think it would greatly improve the quality of the page. BurningLibrary (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are both quite correct in pointing to problems with this page. I have cut down the number of quotes from Henry Ford in the past, and now added the second paragraph from the Wikipedia article's introduction and removed some of inappropriate display quotes. It is a repellant article and difficult to work on. Philip Cross (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's me again. Before I came here the first time, I did try to edit the page in question to add quotes that showed the Protocols are fake as well as some explaining why the conspiracy theory became popular (and also replacing some of the image captions to include the new quotes), but the edit filter messed it all up. I looked at the page's "Abuse filter log" and my edits seems to be there. Incase you were wondering, yes, I did include "scholarly perspectives about the text", one of those quotes is by author Umberto Eco from his book Foucault's Pendulum. I basically took the quotes from sources used on enwiki to start the improvement of the page. Philip Cross is already here so there's no need to contact him but I'll contact right MusenInvincible now. Thanks again. -- 21:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Incase you were wondering, yes, I did include 'scholarly perspectives about the text', one of those quotes is by author Umberto Eco from his book Foucault's Pendulum." Right, and this is commendable, in the same way that Philip Cross' efforts to clean up the page are commendable. Of course, there is a great irony in the fact that your good-faith contributions were the ones to get censored by the filter. In any case, I think you will have an easier time working with difficult topics if you register a user for yourself. BurningLibrary (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's done now.-- 22:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MusenInvincible is at it again folks! He made a page contain quotes from Henry Ford's work, The International Jew. I had to remove the Anti-Semitism from the intro by replacing it with the one from the Wikipedia article.-- 17:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you propose be done? Any suggestions?
Currently, a full-text search for "The International Jew" on Wikiquote reveals that there is a number of quotes from the book on the The Holocaust page, where they surely don't belong. I would suggest that these be moved to the The International Jew page, or simply deleted.
In addition to the The International Jew page, there is also a subsection for it on Henry Ford's page: Henry Ford#The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem (1920–1922). I propose that these be merged, so that there is only a single place for quotes from the work to go.
To my mind, the issue is one of categorization: quotes from works like these should be stored in a single place, not spread all across the wiki. Collecting everything on one page also makes it easier to enforce a limit on the maximum amount of quotes from the work, and one may add commentary, scholarly quotes about the author and the history surrounding the work, etc.
On a final note, I think outright censorship (e.g., a blacklist of "offensive works") would be a colossal mistake here. Censorship has a tendency to elicit the Streisand effect, and in any case it distorts history. Better to let history be what it is, even when the historical facts are unpleasant. Henry Ford, the founder of Ford Motor Company and the chief developer of the assembly line technique of mass production, wrote The International Jew. That is a historical fact. I would not attempt to cover up that fact, but I would not spread it all across the wiki, either; I would represent it in a single place, along with scholarly quotes and commentary, and let that be the end of it. BurningLibrary (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to censor, I'm here mainly to add quotes but since I've noticed pages like that here, I'm now also here to debunk some of the Anti-Semitic nonsense people keep adding here. I've just added a quote to the page about the Protocols from Will Eisner's graphic novel The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which shows the true story about how the Tsarist Russian secret service forged the Protocols to serve as an excuse to persecute Jews. The fact I added that quote to the page was not a response to your concern and is actually a total coincidence because I only saw your message after I was done. My idea is not for the Anti-Semitic nonsense to be deleted but to also feature stuff from other sources to show a full picture of the work. This would show that the nonsense is indeed nonsense and not truth. I think BurningLibrary would very much like my proposal. Thanks for reading.-- 23:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I think BurningLibrary would very much like my proposal." I am all for it. But note that for it to be effective, all quotes need to be collected in a single place. The Wikidata item for The International Jew is Q1198947, and the Wikiquote page The International Jew is associated with that item. This leads me to conclude that Henry Ford#The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem (1920–1922) should be merged into The International Jew. If this is carried out, perhaps with a main reference from Henry Ford to The International Jew, then the work is "contained" within a category that is appropriate for it. One can then work on improving that page with quotes from other sources, and so on. BurningLibrary (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great! You do that, then! I'll improve the page on the Protocols in the next few days while you improve the page on The International Jew. The only regret I have on this whole thing is that MusenInvincible ‎is too much of a coward to come here and discuss his edits with us.-- 22:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the quotes found on the The Holocaust and Henry Ford pages to the The International Jew page. Other than that, I don't think I have much to contribute to this topic, but at least everything is in one place now. BurningLibrary (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've now started my work on the page about the Protocols and managed to add almost all the quotes I wanted to add in. All the quotes used were used in the Wikipedia page about the Protocols. I put them into the Wikiquote page one by one. The only quote I wasn't able to add was the one by Nora Levin from her book The Holocaust: The Destruction of European Jewry 1933–1945, which was in the "Germany" section of the Wikipedia page. That one gave me the same "GRP" block I had last time. Those mysterious three letters were listed as a "brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched" and "automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed". At least I now know what caused the problem the first time. Part 2 of my improvements will likely involve adding images and correcting links. For now, would you like to tell me if I did a good job so far? You'll boost my confidence if you do! Thanks in advance.-- 23:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is all good as far as I can tell. I have added the missing Nora Levin quote. I did not encounter any errors when doing so, probably because I am an autoconfirmed user. Which goes to show that it is easier to work on pages like these if one has registered a user for oneself. BurningLibrary (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me, I will start part 2 of my work soon.-- 23:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Part 2 is done. I corrected some links at the bottom of the page and added yet quote there, this time from a Swiss judge called "Walter Meyer" who presided over the Berne Trial, a court case which took place between 1933 and 1935 in Bern (also spelt as "Berne"), the capital city of Switzerland. The case concerned the distribution of books with a German translation of the Protocols by the far-right Swiss National Front in Bern. The Swiss National Front were sued by two local Jewish groups who claimed that the Protocols was an anti-Semitic forgery, the fact that the Protocols was a forgery was proven during the trial and the Jewish groups won the case. The Swiss National Front was then fined by the court. For the record, Walter Meyer was a Christian gentile and had previously never heard of the Protocols before the trial. Once again, I took the quote from the Wikipedia page. I also tried to add move up the Nora Levin quote up a few lines (the quotes seem categorized by last name so she would be at "L", not "N") and add a link to her Wikipedia page but the same "GRP" problem persists. This will be problematic for me because I plan to use that quote as a caption for an image as one of the elements of part 3. Once again, I invite you to take a look at my work and see if it's good or not. I'm done for today. Thanks for reading.-- 21:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The quotes seem categorized by last name so she would be at 'L', not 'N'." That is a mistake on my part. I have corrected it.
I have looked over your changes, and they seem good. I especially appreciate the detailed comment about the Meyer quote. Personally, I wish there were more comments of that kind on Wikiquote, although there seems to be an unspoken rule that such comments should not be too long. You may then ask what exactly constitutes "too long", and, well, there seems to be no official stance on that issue. Just something to keep in mind. There are guidelines to the effect that the introductory part of an article should not be too long either.
I think the present conversation is sufficiently rich in information that it would be worthwhile to archive it on the article's talk page. Doing so, however, would serve to embed your IP address even more deeply into the digital record than it is now. I don't know how you feel about that. If you register a user for yourself, you avoid such problems, but you seem resistant to registering for reasons that I do not understand. BurningLibrary (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Board of Trustees have ratified the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines edit

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.
More languages Please help translate to your language

Hello all, an important update on the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines:

The vote on the Enforcement Guidelines in January 2023 showed a majority approval of the Enforcement Guidelines. There were 369 comments received and a detailed summary of the comments will be published shortly. Just over three-thousand (3097) voters voted and 76% approved of the Enforcement Guidelines. You can view the vote statistics on Meta-wiki.

As the support increased, this signifies to the Board that the current version has addressed some of the issues indicated during the last review in 2022. The Board of Trustees voted to ratify the Enforcement Guidelines. The resolution can be found on Foundation wiki and you can read more about the process behind the 2023 Enforcement Guidelines review on Diff.

There are some next steps to take with the important recommendations provided by the Enforcement Guidelines. More details will come soon about timelines. Thank you for your interest and participation.

On behalf of the UCoC Project Team,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All articles are now linked to a Wikidata item edit

All articles are now linked to a Wikidata item. Well almost all. The (current) circa 90 exceptions here. I believe all on that list are in a deletion/move/mergeto process (or victims of a distributed transaction fail) and my basic intent is that they will get a sitelinked wikidata item if that process does not complete or is stalled. That UnconnectedPages(main) has always been a small proportion of the articles of Wikiquote, though it probably rose to over 1800 with the surge in #SheSaid articles at the beginning of December though this was resolved by the start of 2023 with about 1245 on the list from memory. While I was able to use some automation to resolve part of that at the start of January over 600 were resolved on an article by article basis. Connecting the Wikidata item for articles with an associated English Wikipedia article is trivially easy, and mostly takes under a minute for most cases unless there's an underlying discrepancy (e.g. bio article linked to disambiguation page). While most of the action for this has occurred on Wikidata a visible effect here is my decision to send articles to the VFD process when it seemed there was both a good reason to do so and I was not prepared to create a Wikidata item for them. I'd prefer the VFD list was under 40; not over 50 at a push; and certainly not over 60. Obviously I've pushed that up to circa 83. I was at one point thinking of deferring adding items to the VfD list. In weighed my priorities, difficulties if momentum of the reduction of hte Unconnected page list was lost and the painful though of getting back into it, the unexpected option of getting a relatively good run on the last part of that list meaning the endpoint was in sight. In particular 11 February 2023 or soon after might see my contributions over the WMF wikis in totality change considerably and I wouldn't want to leave outstanding stuff on Wikiquote. Thankyou. -- Djm-leighpark(a)talk 21:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


All articles are now linked to a Wikidata item. Well almost all

What about other pages such as categories templates, etc?
Also, who will take care of new pages after you leave?
Thanks in advance Ottawahitech (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Broadly speaking that's up to the community, and remember most pages were sitelinked before I came here and up to recently many were sitelinked soon after being created. Any its almost a trivial case for any article that has an associated English Wikipedia item. The problems can get trickier if there is no associated English Wikipedia item. Over the past month I've been really hot on getting new articles sitelinked ASAP but that was only so I could really keep an eye on the Special:UnconnectedPages list. It my view its only the mainspace articles that really matter with regards to links to Wikidata items. -- Djm-leighpark(a)talk 01:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It my view its only the mainspace articles that really matter with regards to links to Wikidata items.

Why not categories & templates? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not bovvered. Yes they it might be nice. So would sitting in the garden. Not a great time/effort/value and I've better things to do. Ask someone to write a bot about it if your that concerned. -- Djm-leighpark(a)talk 06:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"In particular 11 February 2023 or soon after might see my contributions over the WMF wikis in totality change considerably" Can you unpack that some? —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see my contribution pattern changing, I've been heavily on Wikiquote/wikidata but xxWP; commons and wikidata are my more natural home than WQ and I am minded I will be more active on those if I remain contributing on WMF wikis: there's reasons I may not and RL is one of a number of possible reasons. Regards -- Djm-leighpark(a)talk 01:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Authority control edit

Now that this excellent milestone has been achieved, it would be good to consider making {{Authority control}} pull in its values from Wikidata, as it does on other projects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with the term Authority control and the link Andy included above leads to 8 pages of what to me looks like gobbly-gook. Can anyone here enlighten me pease? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ottawahitech: I've added {{Authority control}} added it to W.B. here and on simple. Whereas here I've had to set explicitly VIAF=46768718 on simple a load of identifiers have been picked up from Wikidata automatically with no effort on my part. I'm probably more used to the Gaelic Wikipedia where whole infobox grab stuff from Wikidata which help's even a simple stub sometimes look quite impressive for minimal effort. -- Djm-leighpark(a)talk 22:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am also not familiar with the following terms:
  • W.B
  • VIAF
  • Load of identifiers
  • infobox grab stuff
  • simple stub (I think I understand wq-stub, but which stubs are simple and which ones are complex?)
  • Gaelic Wikipedia (I assume it is a wikipedia in the Gaelic language?)
And only faintly acquainted with:
Ottawahitech (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ottawahitech: Okay. more fool me for wasting my time trying to give an example to you. I'll refrain from trying to assist you in future. Thankyou. -- Djm-leighpark(a)talk 01:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1 ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ottawahitech: You don't need to understand the template to be able to see what Authority Control does. What it does is that when placed on a WP page, it provides the information where the relevant material (to the subject of the page) can be found in world libraries. It is usually placed on a person or a book-related article (how I understand it).
For example: if you go to any WP page, e.g. Mark Twain, then scroll down to the bottom of the page to Authority Control (usually under External Links), then you can click on any link there, for example WorldCat Identities and you can search in which libraries you can find any of the books. That is all that is and it is done automatically with the data available in Wikidata. - Emilija Knezevic (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much @Emilijaknezevic. It is nice to have information rather than a response mocking my perceived ignorance. Until I saw your post above I did not know what it meant. I have resisted clicking on authority control when I saw it in the past because I associated it with enforcing obedience and was afraid of tangling with edit filters for the offence of clicking on a wrong button. Am I making sense? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think what you are saying makes sense. I am also not sure why exactly is it called "Authority Control" and personally I dislike the word authority, too and do not prefer control either. It might or might not have something to do with authorship. - Emilija Knezevic (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: After casting a coldcold eye on this. -- Djm-leighpark(a)talk 01:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC) The "cold eye" actually is a part of poem on W.B. Yeats' grave in North Sligo ... with that taken to cold that makes a nonsense probably best described in a typical south Sligo profanity and I apologise for any confusion caused. The key point is Andy Mabbett's proposal makes fantastic sense in my opinion and I'd support its implementation ASAP please -- (formerly Djm-leighpark) DeirgeDel tac 19:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Global ban for PlanespotterA320/RespectCE edit

Per the Global bans policy, I'm informing the project of this request for comment: m:Requests for comment/Global ban for PlanespotterA320 (2) about banning a member from your community. Thank you.--Lemonaka (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemonaka: Global bans are a dime a dozen. Just curious why you picked User: PlanespotterA320 in particular. Who/what is RespectCE?
Thanks in advance. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ottawahitech, RespectCE is a sockpuppet of PlanespotterA320. Thanks, --Ferien (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ottawahitech, RespectCE is a sock of PlanespotterA320, and one of the reasons for global ban. Regards. Lemonaka (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Global ban for for risto hot sir? edit

Thanks @Ferien, @Lemonaka I did not know that an RFC is required before locking globally. I believe both of you only started getting active here at ENWQ after the big dust up in 2020 (updated Ottawahitech (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)) regarding User: Babe Kebabe User:Babe kebab (updated Ottawahitech (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)) who was accused of being a sock of User: risto hot sir. Can you speculate why there was no RFC held on META before risto was globally locked? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawahitech, there's a difference between global locks and global bans in policy, although it appears the line between them has been more blurry recently. The reasons for global locks on request are relatively uncontroversial: clear vandalism-only/spam-only accounts, or extensive sockpuppetry. Anything that is less uncontroversial than that requires a RfC global ban proposal on Meta. While I am not familiar with Risto hot sir and the circumstances surrounding their lock, this may have been one of those cases where a global lock was not appropriate and a global ban proposal would have been preferable. I remember talking to you before about ILMD and how they were globally locked inappropriately (User talk:Ilovemydoodle#Block). The same thing happened with Eaglestorm but I requested they be unlocked (this also took way too long with little to no communication from the locking steward). Tbh I have been very disappointed recently with stewards using their tools to extend an indefinite block into a global lock for no reason with little to no consultation from the community and not responding to any concerns the local community has. This is a recurring issue, with multiple stewards, even getting to the point where stewards are locking accounts for minor username problems now. But IAR to protect a couple of other local projects I guess?... :/ --Ferien (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferien: User: risto hot sir made 39,148 contributions to ENwQ before they were blocked. How can anyone consider this global lock to be uncontroversial? Ottawahitech (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps there were sockpuppetry issues? I wasn't around at that time, and that is what I've heard in the past. Personally, I never interacted with or saw the user around so I can't comment on whether they should be globally locked or not. --Ferien (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferien, risto was globally-locked here. User: Praxidicae, a global-sysop, instigated this action saying:

Risto is a disruptive editor, blocked indefinitely on several projects for a combination of things including competency issues, self-promoting, socking and lacking in the ability to collaborate.

Another global-sysop, who now uses a different userID, endorsed this global-lock and added:

I will support even a global ban as his activities crosswiki are a net negative to Wikimedia on a whole

User:Wim b, a Steward, locked risto with no explanation.
This clearly should have been handed through an RFC, not merely rubber-stamped by a Steward. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ottawahitech Hello. For appealing a global lock, you should appeal it to stewards group. If someone is global lock, they could not be global banned because you cannot execute somebody by firing squad twice. If you believe there is something wrong, please appeal to stewards directly, we cannot revert stewards action.
PlanespotterA320's lock from AmandaNP was reverted by appealing from local community trusted members, if you really think so, you can have a try. Lemonaka (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Global sysops cannot endorsed global-lock, this right was only held by WMF staff and stewards. Although, ehhh, maybe long long ago, global sysop can endorse global lock but now they cannot. I have forwarded this discussion to Vermont. Lemonaka (talk) 05:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ottawahitech, Risto hot sir engaged in a pattern of abuse on dozens of small projects, being blocked on a good number of them. He refused to stop, and created a second account to continue editing on the projects which he was blocked. That was pretty clear cross-wiki abuse with multiple accounts, and necessitated a global lock. At this point, he's created dozens of accounts to evade the blocks and is very far from being able to appeal. Vermont (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vermont: Can you please tell us which of the following items were used by user: Wim b, who is an experienced Steward as the reason to globally lock risto?:

Reasons to request a global lock

The following is a list of common reasons for global locks. As a general rule, global locks happen almost always in clear-cut situations. There is no community-approved policy governing global locks, but this list represents de facto practice.

  1. Accounts that have been used only for vandalism or abuse on multiple wikis and are actively vandalizing now or obviously are otherwise being disruptive on multiple wikis are candidates for a global lock. Please include links to block histories or other evidence of abuse on other projects, and indicate where the account is still active.Accounts whose only intent is to spam on Wikimedia wikis.
  2. Accounts whose names are offensive or abusive are also eligible for locking, and may be hidden from logs as well.
  3. Accounts that have violated other principles which are grounds for indefinite blocks on multiple individual wikis, such as making repeated legal threats, publishing child pornography, or posting private personal information about others which may endanger them
  4. Accounts that are suspected to have been compromised, as a temporary measure to maintain account security until the owner is contacted.
  5. Accounts that have been globally banned (community or Foundation).
  6. Accounts that have been created to evade a global ban (community or Foundation).
  7. Accounts whose owners are known to be deceased.
  8. Accounts belonging to former Wikimedia Foundation staff members or contractors (done by WMF staff).
Ottawahitech (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ottawahitech, this is according to #1 and #3 Lemonaka (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ottawahitech, to note, this is a list of reasons to request a lock. It is not a limited list of reasons to make locks. However, Risto was locked for cross-wiki abuse and sockpuppetry, which pretty easily falls under 1 and 3. Vermont (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When do we finally see examples of their disruptive edits, abuse and sockpuppetry? Where's the motive? - to make about 100,000 useful, unreverted contributions to damage the project!--Ila Dee Dali (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont - gone with the wind?--Ned Ali Laden (talk) 02:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meh movie. Vermont (talk) 04:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Vermont can't find examples. Is this project some kinda banana republic where evidences are not needed?--Adolf Loda (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vermont I've blocked this person, mind you lock them? Lemonaka (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of answering Vermont uses the good old/new Russian method: eliminating critics. —This unsigned comment is by Pelttarin Arvo (talkcontribs) .
I don't think this is constructive, Pelttarin. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Need consensus from members of this community for connecting pages to wikidata edit

I have asked User:Mike Peel, who operaes a Wikidata (WD) BOT which currently adds new ENWP new articles to WD if we can have a similar service to add new ENWQ articles to WD. The answer I got was yes, conditonal on achieving consensus here. So, can we get support for this:

  • ‘’Support Ottawahitech (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: With tentative concern to what the algorithm used is to avoid duplication and linking to the wrong wikidata item issues. My understanding is the enWP bot only works on curated pages (but that assumption is based on educated guess based on some observations). With most new wikiquote articles coming in (Q) that haave English wikipedia article (A), and {{Wikipedia}} template with no parameters so that the names (A) and (Q) are the same and the Wikidata item (I) associated with (A) is not already linked to another enWQ article (Q2) then sitelinking (I) to (Q) is almost always safe. The farther one gets away from that the more the risk of making an inappropriate link. Equally its possible to create a wikimedia list item/list of quotes for and Wikiquote article but they may then requite merge on Wikidata. But other nnWQ languages wikis may be using this form of bot already (eg Sweden?). The evidence of what I've been about in the field is available via my contributions on Wikidata. -- Djm-leighpark(a)talk 16:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Djm-leighpark: The setup would be a Wikidata game with potential matches (found through Wikidata search), like [13], which the bot would fill in daily. Then unmatched pages would have new items created for them. For Wikipedia, the bot also matches up articles about humans using birth/death dates etc., but I don't think that makes sense here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Mike Peel: Thanks for that. By the way the link you are supplying is currently reporting to me: "The distributed game: This game has produced an error. Maybe talk to Mike Peel about that? New Wikipedia article and category matches Match new Wikipedia articles and categories with Wikidata items, and add the sitelink to Wikidata. Pi bot is thinking about creating new items for these articles, but first it wants your help to match them to existing items. If the match is right, please add the link to Wikidata using "Match". If it is clearly wrong, select "No". If you are not sure, press "Skip". Bug reports and feedback should be sent to User:Mike_Peel. Entry type :. It is remotely possible my indef block on the enWP may be a contributor to that error message. An an aside I've been sitelinking new stuff as it comes through at the moment; mainly to keep the UnconnectedPages/main length stable and not get away (Approx 10 on it relate to newer articles in a deletion process and about 50 historic limbo'd in deletion processes, but I don't anticipate circumstances leading me to doing that for much longer, and it was only an RL event that leaves me active here at the moment). A few final questions: Does this game require manual intervention or is it automatic? And would it have handled Special:Diff/1832129143 linking (w:Gonzalez v. Google LLC and Reynaldo Gonzalez v. Google) ? And am I correct in saying English Wikipedia articles are not sitelinked until currated, unless done so manually, which is do a degree consistent someone manually sitelinking at this enWP AfD. -- Djm-leighpark(a)talk 09:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Djm-leighpark: I saw the error as soon as I'd posted the link here ... sorry about that, it's now fixed (had to update it from python2 to python3). I forgot to mention that it should avoid pages marked for deletion (by avoiding specific templates - would have to double-check that list for this wiki). The game automatically gets new tiles, but requires manual yes/no decisions. The script just runs a search on Wikidata, you can test specific cases just by using search yourself. At the moment the code does create new items after 14 days, regardless of matches, but I plan to change that soon so it requires decisions through the game first. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mike Peel: You game player you! Yes looks better albeit I'm not played it but it looks playable. This gameplay stuff is all right its all right, and when it wrong then its very wrong! (Quoting: Farmer A. in South Sligo with "intensive famring" replaced by AI/SANS/Caching/Bitcoin etc). Some techniques for viewing articles in the deletion process are embedded here if it helps: [14] (it misses mergeto's with is a TBD) but primary documentation would be better for you. I'm a gui-avoiding Luddite at heart yearning for an 80-column card punch and paper tape to cut my fingers on. -- Djm-leighpark(a)talk 10:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It works really well on simplewiki, and I think it'd work really well here as well. --Ferien (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Mike Peel. I'm still currently working actively manually ensuring new articles are linked to Wikidata items as they come providing they are not deletion process candidates, but my doing so may reduce the number of cases your BOT will have to work on. If it would be helpful at any time for me to stop doing this to allow cases for your BOT to process please don't hesitate to let me know. In the absence of such a request I'm reluctant to back off doing this especially as that list remains long partially due to failure to process the deletion lists in a timely manner for pre-2023 articles (If anything survives a VfD I'll create a wikidata item for it but some cases can be more complex to create a non-trivial wikidata item for). -- Djm-leighpark(a)talk 04:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Djm-leighpark: Keep it up, and thanks for the work! If we move forward with this, we can figure out a transition, e.g., through the suggested Game. But until there's consensus here, I don't want to start setting things up. (& please keep pinging me, since I'm not often on this wiki, but I get cross-wiki notifications.) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mike Peel: Okay. People have been actively creating new articles today and I have 33 to deal with by towards day-end. Luckily I(well my alt Deirge) has a program "Lollypop2" that can deal with a feed of simple cases via Quickstatements and this sorted 31 of 33, with Marad Massacre and Robert de Nobili needing to be dealt with manually as Lollypop2 does deal with {{Wikipedia}} pointing to an enWP redirect. By by the time I used it 4 more new articles appeared and I dealt with those manually, Lollypop2 only becomes efficient for batches of over 10. -- Djm-leighpark(a)talk 00:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest there is a consensus for MP bot edit

  • @Mike Peel: Activity on this seems to have ground to a halt but per this close suggestion there appears to be consensus for this bot. In the interim I've generally been connecting new articles to wikidata items manually as the come in. But Paddy's day seen over 40 new articles created and I used my program and quickstatements to do the sitelinking (Due to being half asleep and a pesky token these got run in by by abandoned account Djm-leighpark rather than DeirgeDel). Given its been suggested that an admin here reviews by conduct on the English Wikipedia and on Wikiquote and and suggests they might examine the possibilities of me being subject to a global ban - I don't think that admin is likely to do that but I am mulling the totalilty of things and will likely withdraw from sitelinking either due to being banned or from disenchantment. for that reason I think it would be great if you were to consider implementing your bot as soon as reasonably possible. Hope this helps. thankyou. -- (formerly Djm-leighpark) DeirgeDel tac 22:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    NB: I happened to be attending a online meetup where Mike also was last week and he said he hoped to look at this in a couple of weeks time. -- DeirgeDel tac 04:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Report on Voter Feedback from Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement Guidelines Ratification edit

Hello all,

The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) project team has completed the analysis of the feedback accompanying the ratification vote on the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines.

Following the completion of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines Draft in 2022, the guidelines were voted on by the Wikimedian community. Voters cast votes from 137 communities, with the top 9 communities being: English, German, French, Russian, Polish, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Italian Wikipedias, and Meta-wiki.

Those voting had the opportunity to provide comments on the contents of the Draft document. 658 participants left comments. 77% of the comments are written in English. Voters wrote comments in 24 languages with the largest numbers in English (508), German (34), Japanese (28), French (25), and Russian (12).

A report will be sent to the Revision Drafting Committee who will refine the enforcement guidelines based on the community feedback received from the recently concluded vote. A public version of the report is published on Meta-wiki here. The report is available in translated versions on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Again, we thank all who participated in the vote and discussions. We invite everyone to contribute during the next community discussions. More information about the Universal Code of Conduct and Enforcement Guidelines can be found on Meta-wiki.

On behalf of the Universal Code of Conduct project team

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 12:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming community review of the Movement Charter ratification methodology edit

Hello everyone,

The Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) will propose a ratification methodology for the future Movement Charter on April 10, 2023. The proposed ratification methodology is a result of learnings from previous ratification processes.

The MCDC will organize a consultation period with the Wikimedia Movement to hear feedback on the proposed ratification methodology from April 10 to 28, 2023. People will be invited to share their feedback on the questions mainly via the Meta Talk page discussion, on the Movement Strategy Forum, and during the community conversation hours. The MCDC welcomes your input on some open questions.

Join the community conversation hours

The MCDC invites everyone interested in sharing their feedback on the proposed methodology to join the community conversation hours:

When signing up, please leave a comment if you need language support. Please note that language interpretation will be provided if there are at least 3 people interested in a given language.

Thank you,

On behalf of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elections Committee: Call for New Members edit

Hello everyone,

The Wikimedia Foundation elections committee (Elections Committee) is, from today until April 24, seeking an additional 2–4 members to help facilitate the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustee (Board) selection process.

The 2024 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election is being planned. New members are invited to join the Elections Committee. The Elections Committee oversees the Board of Trustees community seat selection process. Join the committee and contribute your valuable skills and ideas to the Trustee selection process.

There are eight community- and affiliate-selected seats on the Wikimedia Foundation Board. The wider Wikimedia community votes for community members to occupy these seats. In 2024, the Elections Committee will oversee this selection process for the community- and affiliate-selected seats with expiring terms. This process will be supported by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Elections Committee members sign up for three-year terms and will be asked to sign a confidentiality agreement. Members can expect to contribute 2–5 hours per week before the selection process and 5–8 hours per week during the selection process.

As an Elections Committee member, you will be responsible for:

  • Attending online meetings between now and the next election (mid-2024)
  • Attending onboarding and online training in May–June 2023
  • Working with the Committee to fulfill its other responsibilities

New members should have the following qualities:

  • Fluency in English
  • Responsiveness to email collaboration
  • Knowledge of the movement and movement governance

If you would like to volunteer for this role, please submit your candidacy by April 24, 2023 23:59 AoE (Anywhere on Earth) on this Meta-Wiki page.

You can read the full announcement here. Thank you in advance for your interest! If you are not interested but know someone who might be, share this message with them. Please let me know if you have questions.

On behalf of the Elections Committee,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your wiki will be in read-only soon edit

MediaWiki message delivery 00:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking volunteers for the next step in the Universal Code of Conduct process edit


As follow-up to the message about the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines by Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Vice Chair, Shani Evenstein Sigalov, I am reaching out about the next steps. I want to bring your attention to the next stage of the Universal Code of Conduct process, which is forming a building committee for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). I invite community members with experience and deep interest in community health and governance to nominate themselves to be part of the U4C building committee, which needs people who are:

  • Community members in good standing
  • Knowledgeable about movement community processes, such as, but not limited to, policy drafting, participatory decision making, and application of existing rules and policies on Wikimedia projects
  • Aware and appreciative of the diversity of the movement, such as, but not limited to, languages spoken, identity, geography, and project type
  • Committed to participate for the entire U4C Building Committee period from mid-May - December 2023
  • Comfortable with engaging in difficult, but productive conversations
  • Confidently able to communicate in English

The Building Committee shall consist of volunteer community members, affiliate board or staff, and Wikimedia Foundation staff.

The Universal Code of Conduct has been a process strengthened by the skills and knowledge of the community and I look forward to what the U4C Building Committee creates. If you are interested in joining the Building Committee, please either sign up on the Meta-Wiki page, or contact ucocproject by May 12, 2023. Read more on Meta-Wiki.

Best regards,

Xeno (WMF) 19:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Call for early input on the proposed Movement Charter ratification methodology edit

Hello all,

The Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) is collecting early input from the Wikimedia movement on the proposed methodology for the ratification of the Movement Charter from April 10 to 28, 2023. Ratification of the Movement Charter is planned to take place in early 2024 according to the timeline.

There are six questions that the MCDC requests your input on. Please share your feedback by:

Conversation hours

The MCDC also invites everyone interested in sharing their feedback on the proposed methodology to join the community conversation hours:

The language of conversation hours is English. Please comment if you need language support. Please note that language interpretation will be provided if at least 3 people expressed interest to participate in the following languages: Arabic, Mandarin Chinese, French, German, Indonesian, Japanese, Polish, Portuguese (Brazilian), Russian and Spanish.

On behalf of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking on the links the servers seem down less than 2.5 hours before the first Community conversation hour #1. .... not great. -- DeirgeDel tac 07:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
so iam not playing with the are not thare. 15:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

End of the Movement Charter ratification methodology community review edit


The Movement Charter Drafting Committee has concluded its first community review of the methodology draft, which will be used to ratify the Movement Charter in 2024.

This community review included feedback collection on Meta, on the Movement Strategy forum as well as two conversation hours with communities and one conversation with the Committees of the Wikimedia projects. MCDC greatly appreciates everyone's input. The recording of the ratification methodology presentation is here and documentation can be accessed here. The timeline of the next steps of the methodology is provided here.

The WMF support team will produce a report on the community input in May. MCDC will incorporate the feedback and share an updated version of the ratification methodology in August 2023. The MCDC will continue to outreach to stakeholders regarding the updated methodology in late 2023.

Thank you for your participation!

On behalf of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Significant VFD discussions edit

At present there are 4 VFD discussions that between them have elements of inclusivity, censorship, harm, notability, quality and verification, bias, and fansite hijacking. Some relevant policies/guidelines/background include Wikiquote:Wikiquote, Wikiquote:What Wikiquote is not, Wikiquote:Quotability and WQ:QLP. Decisions may impact how other articles with similar characteristics are either kept, edited or deleted. I therefore invite the community to consider participating in the following VfDs: DeirgeDel tac 02:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DeirgeDel tac 02:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Making an addition to the list thats become a tricky handling. I've just recused and one admin has recused.

DeirgeDel tac 08:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving too agressive. edit

I personally feel the archiving on this page great but perhaps just a little too aggressive. I think I'd prefer to see old(35d) and minthreadsleft = 4. But thats just a personal viewpoint. Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel tac 02:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferien @Saroj Uprety @Koavf Pinging active sysops. I accept this proposal. Lemonaka (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine to me: this is a pretty small project compared to Wikipedia or Wiktionary, so topics can be open for a while longer. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I would agree (and I'm going to say that even though you've already done it). It was way too quick to archive. On simplewiki (which I believe is comparable to this project in terms of size) minthreadsleft is set to 5. I think 4-5 is a good minimum level. --Ferien (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DeirgeDel Done. Lemonaka (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Selection of the U4C Building Committee edit

The next stage in the Universal Code of Conduct process is establishing a Building Committee to create the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). The Building Committee has been selected. Read about the members and the work ahead on Meta-wiki.

-- UCoC Project Team, 04:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikiquote opportunity in May and June: graduation speeches by notable people edit

I found a bunch of colorful Michelle Yeoh quotes in the current Harvard Magazine. Lots of university magazines publish quotes from graduation speakers around this time of year. There's a list here. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who's running these ads? edit

Today I searched the query "arguments against atheism" (nothing bad, I promise!) up on DuckDuckGo when I found something peculiar - an ad, for Wikiquote! Here's a recreation of (most of) what I saw (links are authentic):

I do not believe the Wikimedia Foundation would literally run ads, so it probably is someone else. Does anyone know about or has heard about this? Is this part of some campaign by a Wikiquote editor? Or some other person? (Sorry if this isn't the correct place to put this) OutsideNormality (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It's in wikimarkup due to the spam filter OutsideNormality (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely unlikey to be Wikiquote or WMF, a domain name forgery is more likely in my opinion. Its likely DuckDuckGo is the place to ask/report. One possibility is the Domain Name System was forged by not implementing DNSSEC But it could be more simply than that. This was probably a question that was better asked on the central metawiki site somewhere. Thankyou -- DeirgeDel tac 04:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Transgender article lead section possible issue edit

For my sins I currently sort of share triaging and informally curating many of the new articles that are created here. If I've any concerns or disputes from with the lead section I'll usually sync. with the lead section of the English Wikipedia article. If there's no English Wikipedia article that can't happen verification and notability need to be established by citing the lead section or it might be unverified original research. The new article 2020s anti-transgender movement in the United Kingdom is giving me some problems because there are some very specific claims in the lead section and while cited (feels like a W:WP:CITEBOMB I am unsure if these are addressing all the claims in the lead section with W:WP:NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH and not being a W:WP:SYNTH. At present I've a precautionary {{NPOV}} on the article but I'd like a community view at Talk:2020s anti-transgender movement in the United Kingdom. Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel tac 20:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say I've found no one else sharing my concerns let alone any consensus to challenge it. matter closed unless anyone want to take it up. Thankyou.  Y Done -- DeirgeDel tac 22:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Delete Reasons Gadget edit

Anyone know why this gadget is not working at the moment? (Or better yet, how to fix it?) ~ UDScott (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know when it stopped working? (I've never heard of it and assume its an admin tool but a link might help ) -- DeirgeDel tac 14:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen its on the administrative section of the gadgets tab of the preferences page. -- DeirgeDel tac 14:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of leaving the contents of a deleted page as the edit summary, it blanks it automatically, allowing you to put in your own reason for the deletion. Just personal preference I guess, but I've grown used to it and like it better with it. It stopped working a couple of days ago I think, but I don't know why - and didn't see anything obvious that could have caused it. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Root cause possibly-probably my fault for challenging admins to install a new version of a {{Version control}} without insisting on backout plan in the event of a failed or exoceted installation like I'd insist for in Old Holby even if the Irishman would burst in laughter at the sight of an MS Project Plan. If that's what happened there could be a pig flying down from Coventry to have sandbox training session! -- DeirgeDel tac 15:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More seriously the source code is here as far as I can make out and it hasn't changed in a long while. Javascript not being enabled may be a cause or it *might* be an obscure skin issue. Less likely to be an Authority control dependency module. -- DeirgeDel tac 17:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@UDScott:: Did you manage to resolve this? While there were updated modules imported and installed from the English Wikipedia around the time of concern I now find it hard to imagine and link any connection with your problem. Do other admins have the same issue? Eyeball reading the code I'd say it has an error but I'm not a javascript/jQuery expert to say the least and the left of time it seems to have been in position makes me seriously doubt that analysis. If you still remain really stuck at worst case I might be able to use my alt. account Bigdelboy to conduct some experiments but I might have risk of locking myself of that account and needing an admin to let me back in. Thanks. -- DeirgeDel tac 22:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it’s still not working. I’m really not sure what could be the problem - and I lack the technical skills to troubleshoot it. It’s a nuisance, but not one that affects a lot of users. I’ll likely try to follow up on it elsewhere (the gadget was copied into WQ, so perhaps its author could help). ~ UDScott (talk) 01:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a couple of pointers I might offer:
  • This may be a case for raising a Phabricator request. -- DeirgeDel tac 03:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am aware this gadget work's with an entity called "reason"
  • You've mentioned this gadget was copied to WQ. The code I'd shown for the gadget is from mediawiki not from Wikiquote. Are you aware of the location of the code on Wikiquote? Be aware if this in an admin-only visible area you should not post it here for security reasons.
  • There is perhaps a possibility it is configuration problem with MediaWiki or a skin, possibly from an update users (and even sysops) might not normally see. The only relevant change you could possibly make that I can think of is to try an alternative skin. Writing that I have just thought of another trick. Try de-selecting the gadget and saving; then Rebooting your client device device; then re-enabling the gadget and seeing if that makes any difference.
  • I've scanned the deletion log and I'm not seeing any evidence there
  • Unfortunately "Not working" is not a massively helpful description. A better description might be for example: For page XXXX I selected More options from my top menu bar and selected "Delete Reasons Gadget" but nothing happened. Previously YYYY happened. To get round the problem I did ZZZZ. (Your description might be completely different).
It's probably the point to raise a Phab. but it would be great if another admin/sysop could verify your issue.
Hope any of this may help. -- DeirgeDel tac 03:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The gadget is working for me. Saroj Uprety (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriateness of image used for Wikiquote:Quote of the day/June 13, 2023 edit

I find the image of the illustration of the gymnast for File:Marvelous Angel in The Sky.jpg problematic, at least for me, albeit perhaps less so as I try to perfect my draft. Usually I pretty well ignore the quote of the day and newest quotes although sometimes I pass through the Wikiquote main page on my way to sitelinking unconnected pages in mainspace or checking my watchlist. The first problem I have, identifying as a male, is that I cannot keep my eyes off the woman's backside and am completely missing the quote. Now some people may say that that is my issue and the rest of the world including all the women and LGBT/LGBT+ have not complained about this so perhaps I am alone have this view. Also I am not art qualified to have authoritative view on the matter whatsoever. And I am somewhat mostly unique in dashing off Wikimedia Commons to check the licensing situation there before attempting to read the quote here. For background an image like this is quite often a copyvio but per C:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Circusdivas that has already been investigated. Also from that discussion I infer that the image was likely once deleted but likely restored due to its presence at necessity. Are people also aware that due to it presentation at quote of the day that image may likely never be able to be deleted under current Wikiquote guidelines. I personally believe its necessity on necessity should have been discussed and if unnecessary could have been removed enabling deletion per logic at the commons deletion request. Now I doubt if anyone on Wikiquote would understand that argument let alone agree with it and I caution anyone to try to follow it. Having detailed my imperfect analysis, some of which to a degree is to be taken as a sense of humour I will summarise simple questions/points which still remain complex: -- DeirgeDel tac 22:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Kalki:: I believe you were responsible for this quote of the day. You generally do a fantastic job in area I may say. Did you consult on using this image or consider that it might be controversial? -- DeirgeDel tac 22:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This image is an illustration of an event that may or may not have happened. As such it might be viewed as imperfect. And would a image of an actual gymnast mage illustration be more appropriate to illustrate was actually was performed by a Gymnast. (As write this having got my eyes off the backside and actually reading the quote "We may find illustrations ...." which may or may not blow this point out of the window). -- DeirgeDel tac 22:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The key question is do women in particular but anyone in general find problems with this image being inappropriate for main page on English Wikiquote and also possibly an image mainly to appeal to males? -- DeirgeDel tac 22:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any views from all genders welcome and people of course are free to identify or not identify there gender as they choose ? -- DeirgeDel tac 22:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citation tool(s) edit

On other wikis/skins and especially seemingly integrated into the visual editor there are some useful tools for changing bare URLs into a citation. As I consider myself relatively adept at using {{cite}} I don't feel I have a massive need for it myself and usually don't bother with it. However when I seen a new user using a bare URL here I was going to say "use the citation tool" ... but couldn't find it! Looking at W:Help:Citation tools these is some good information there. I really ought to do more research before going further but there might by a simple answer I've missed and someone knows. I've tried switching to the vector skin but apart from annoying myself counldn't find anything Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel tac 12:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any and I'm certain that I haven't used any. —Justin (koavf)TCM 12:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Establishment of wikiquote ever even beginning to go farther as edit

Has there been any effort to really even decide to use even go to try to do look more like? Langtag (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you reword your question? —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandown edit

Sports 22:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Announcing the new Elections Committee members edit

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

Hello there,

We are glad to announce the new members and advisors of the Elections Committee. The Elections Committee assists with the design and implementation of the process to select Community- and Affiliate-Selected trustees for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. After an open nomination process, the strongest candidates spoke with the Board and four candidates were asked to join the Elections Committee. Four other candidates were asked to participate as advisors.

Thank you to all the community members who submitted their names for consideration. We look forward to working with the Elections Committee in the near future.

On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees,

RamzyM (WMF) 18:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a campaign running? edit

@Anthere:: I've seen slight surge in articles about Africa? and/or gender in the past few days (overall probably a good thing for Wikiquote balance but article quality and substance may be issues) ... is there are campaign running and who are the organisers / moderators ? -- Thanks -- (formerly Djm-leighpark) DeirgeDel tac 10:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

odd. I am not aware of any wikiquote campaign running in Africa at the moment. We just finished Africa Environment Climate (but most of it was on local language wikipedias). There is currently Wiki4HumanRights. And Wiki Loves Earth. It might be that one of the Wiki4HumanRights groups decided to focus a session on Wikiquote ? But at first sight, it does not seem to be the case [15]. Then there is the Africa Day campaign (does not seem super gender related to me...). And Afrocuration... Anthere (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my... Found something !!! I quote WikiQuote Training !! As part of the Africa Day Campaign 2023, a series of online training sessions are being held. Join us during our next session as we train you on how to contribute to WikiQuotes. Join the Africa Day Campaign training to be equipped with skills on how to contribute on WikiQuote. Date: Wednesday 7th June, 2023. Time : 16:00 hrs UTC. More info : -- Anthere (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Anthere:: I can't see that particular link but I do see m:Africa Day Campaign 2023/List of articles where a shedload of Wikiquote suggestions have been placed! To put it simply I am feeling a little overwhelmed trying to triage and clean up a wave of new articles being created ... at a time when I am quite overwhelmed anyway. -- DeirgeDel tac 09:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you... Sorry, I am not involved in that campaign. I’ll try to come help clean up Anthere (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@@Anthere:: From a sitelinking to Wikidata I've sort of got back on top of it. There's been a glut of misspelling of articles and I resorted to doing moves using redirects which I've speedied which probably pisses them off. As the're not being deleted they appear on the list of unconnected articles which is a pain for me and pisses me off. Stuff has come through without links to the English Wikpedia articie and its additional work getting that set up. I've done the basic Living person category when necessary which is essential from a QLP point of view. I suspect the quotability quality of many articles is pretty poor. I've placed some advice on the talk pages of the two most problematic creators but it was a little after the horse had bolted. The worst case I've just fixes also involved a suplicate Wikidata item that had to be merged and which identified the subject as both male and female! I'm dong this as the time I'm trying to deal with some bulk stuff and cross wiki issues. I'm not a happy bunny. Thanks for offering to help. Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel tac 22:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed... I see some of the articles... and this is... painful. I saw the announcement on Telegram for the zoom training session by Eugene Masiku and wanted to join. But I was not available at that time. I invite him to look at this conversation.
Situation such as User talk:Jessephu where the user is completely unresponsive is a major issue. And Djm has been very patient. Anthere (talk) 10:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question for you Djm. I see you posted a « welcome » on those new editors talk page. Such as here. Is there one, or several official templates to use to welcome new editors ? I do not see any... Wikiquote:Template messages. Mind if I create something ? Anthere (talk)
@Anthere:: See Category:User welcome templates. Some of these may have options I can't remember. I wish it wouldn't say happy editing as all too often I'm sending work off to a deletion process soon after giving the message. One key reason for leaving it is to ensure a newbie is pointed at places to get help. You're welcome to create a new one. -- DeirgeDel tac 13:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DeirgeDel Eugene Masiku here. Anthere and I just had a conversation on Telegram regarding the issue at hand. I have assured her I will relay the information back to the community participating in the campaign to be particular on how they contribute on WikiQuote to avoid such mistakes. —This unsigned comment is by Kaffzz (talkcontribs) 11:01, 9 June 2023.

23 June 2023 edit

@Kaffzz, Anthere:: I think there's been a what feels like a micro-tsunami of new articles many centered African Women, which is great. Unfortunately some individuals are producing consistently poor articles needing cleanup to be acceptable for mainspace. Some individuals have made tremendous improvements in their practice (I'm not perfect myself) but others seem to be insistent like there running a production line of poor quality with multiple defects. My feeling is better training tools and instructions on how to produce good articles are required, and also for campaign organisers to keep track of their trainees. I had assumed "Africa Day" had finished, I know there was a WMF WikiEd basho at Belgrade but I'm not quite sure where this is all coming from at the moment. thankyou. -- DeirgeDel tac 11:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know not... and agreed on the need for both more training and more coaching/tracking... Anthere (talk)

30 Jun 2023: Some people creating these articles have made really great improvements in their work ... other new people have appeared and the onslaught of articles needing work seems ongrowing. One user, since blocked, has been particularly troublesome with a lot of articles needing sending to a deletion process. I've also begun switching from attempting to mentor to just dealing with problems and not spending time trying to help individuals as I'd like (I have enough time-pulls in my RL). If only I had enough time (and ability) to teach people to fish I wouldn't have to keep feeding them leftover morsels! -- DeirgeDel tac 10:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023 - a lot of items in deletion processes edit

It feels like there's been a surge of new articles over the past number of weeks, many by new or infrequent contributors, which of course in many ways is a good thing. However there has been a significant workload because many have been non-conformant with for example Wikiquote:Guide to layout and it can be difficult for people to use the "input box" Help:Starting a new page framework structures (if they find it!). Not to mention the becoming efficient at adding the correct categories. To be fair I think I've generally been impressed with several new users becoming more adept at creating better quality articles. Unfortunately there has been problems, many with one or to contributors, where quotes have been incorrectly sourced and mis-attributed to a person of a similar name or simply not to be found in the indicated source. The has resulted in a large number of articles, particularly related to subject from the African continent, being placed at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion or PRODed into Category:All articles proposed for deletion. Where the issue is of the form no verified quotes these can be saved' by addition of a quotable verified quote. There's also issues with simply not linking to an English Wikipedia article of the same subject - thats not mandatory but all sorts of notability issues typically arise if this is not the case. What is of particular concern to me is that I have had a case of WMF campaign organiser suggesting a Wikiquote article for a subject that does not pass notability and I have raised a VFD for. This is concerning as it is very discouraging for a contributor following the campaign suggestion to have the article immediately challenged at Wikiquote. Not good. If I only had time, and I don't, I love to analyse the frequent mistakes people are making when creating articles here and feed that back into help/guidelines here and also back to those running campaigns. -- DeirgeDel tac 22:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missing. @User:Kalki: Do you need help? ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done by someone else. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missing. Probably due to the time zone difference. @Kalki I would suggest creating several QOTDs in advance to avoid this problem (let me know if you need help with that). You'd still be able to change them later if necessary. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fix so we don't have a redlink, so kind of  Y Done, pending a real quote of the day.
Justin (koavf)TCM 00:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Worldcat identities and Authority control. edit

In a nutshell Worldcat has switched from using identities to entities and has left the {{worldcat subject}}, {{worldcat id}} and {{worldcat}} templates non-functional. Only {{worldcat id}} and I/(we?) are possibly looking at an update to {{worldcat}} to fix it. -- DeirgeDel tac 23:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Authority control edit

I can't find but I think there was talk of using an updated version of {{Authority control}} so identities could be picked up from wikidata than as hard coded parameters, albeit some may not like that. In all events if {{Authority control}} was upgraded to cope with Worldcat entities that might make any updates to the Worldcat templates totally unnecessary. {{Authority control}} and associated module(s) are beyond the scope what enWikiquote could sustainably managed and e.g. the English Wikipedia version would need to be copied and regularly refreshed. -- DeirgeDel tac 23:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed to import w:en:Template:Authority control and related modules/templates until such time as universal templates are introduced. This is a perfect use case for Wikidata and beyond our scope and ability to maintain. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf:: From your statement it looks like {{Authority control}} is the way to go and basically to remove the Worldcat* templates off the see completely. Per w:en:Template:Authority control documentation it seems like the current version already supports d:p:P10832 so that ought to be good for us. I looked at the discussion at Template talk:Authority control#WorldCat and while technically they seem on top of the template change there seems less of a roadmap of plans to get Wikidata items with P7859 replaced with P10832 items - but I may be missing something. If I read it correctly they are interested in the hundreds of thousands P7859 cases they have. With a Wikiquote hat on I am interested in the 90+ cases where {{Worldcat id}} is in use, and I suspect in most(all?) cases the Worldcat id is hardcoded as a template parameter. I have a python program, "lollipop2", that could be the basis of a program to extract those World id if values if necessary. But there may be better and quicker methods of doing that and it may not be necessary anyway as I do not have a Worldcat id to Worldcat entity map function identified to me. The sub goal is to get P10832 populated for though 90+ cases, and the other sub goal is to get {{authority control}} on those articles. The order that is done doesn't really matter but it might be perhaps better from some AWB viewpoints to leave {{Worldcat id}} in place until last in the process but I'd suggest leaving that to the person doing the implementation. There is a list of Wikiquote affected articles currently at Template talk:Worldcat#Articles affected by Template:Worldcat id. One interesting use case I'm looking at is the current versions of H. G. Wells here on enWikiquote and also on wikidata. Might be better praying to Mother Teresa though rather than CIR and BATTLEGROUNDing war of the worlds. Obviously because on by indef block on enWP I cant communicate there and discussions on :Simple, :Commons, & UTRS means I feel thats likely to continue for the rest of my life. Key point: Best if someone get Authority control imported to get that box ticked. -- DeirgeDel tac 08:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty reluctant to import templates because they always have so many dependencies, but it seems like the only option here. I'll leave this open for a bit to see if anyone else has a magic solution. If I don't get to it in the next two weeks and I forget, please do ping me. (And as an aside, I know nothing about any drama with you on en.wp, so it in no way prejudices my perspective on your edits here. I hope whatever that is is resolved soon or is at least in a good state now.) —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf:: Everythings now set to received the new {{authority control}} which relevant articles having the old worldcat template removed and replaced with authority control and associated wikidata items have P10832 set. If you need test cases to check then tables at User:DeirgeDel/xpop2 are probably useful. If you don't have time we could always asked global sysops. If you need help checking stuff I'll try to help if I can. -- DeirgeDel tac 22:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great. So what is the action you need from me? —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf:: I'd be delighted if you'd import the latest {{Authority control}} template from the English Wikipedia (which picks up items from Wikidata) and install it here with any dependencies and resolving any problems. Thanks -- DeirgeDel tac 01:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It keeps on failing. What is your Plan B? —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Plan B would be for me to do it my but under my current rules of engagement restrictions I'd have to act lone wolf. On top of that I don't have the time and bits of it would likely push the boundaries of any coding skills I have in that area and I'm possibly locked in P7859/P10832 battles and thats different api's/codesets. Plan C would be to raise a request centrally for someone with right skillset to do it - in practice you might need to do that. To the degree I've got similar issues with dome buggettes with the Cite Q template on :Simple. Are you OK with Plan 'C'? If you need me to try plan B without going lone wolf I need your 100% support to breaking my rules of engagement. Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel tac 05:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind requesting someone help import, but I don't know who would do it. Otherwise, I can keep on trying to manually import all of the dependencies, which is a pain. This is why I don't like this whole system. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: Its possible the chief maintainers/developers on the English Wikipedia might help. I (as Bigdelboy) have painful experiences of recursively Transwiki'ing templates. In this case there might be modules involved and there's alway's risk stuff may be written with Wiki dependent code. May be worth asking, tracking or reverse engineering this seemingly good dude's work. B(lone wolf), Plan B (Fully supported and breaching my rules of engagement), Plan C or whatever you suggest as Plan D. The fallback will be me on Plan B (Lone wolf) not a plan Z (give up). Your choice (I know I'm throwing you a curveball, sorry). -- DeirgeDel tac 13:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This matter is now beg discussed at Template talk:Authority control#Recent edits due to issues that have arisen and I'd suggest further comments are placed there. -- DeirgeDel tac 16:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Authority control installation stall edit

Discussions at Template talk:Authority control#Recent edits have presented at least two possible candidate options for sourcing a revised version of {{Authorit control}} with pros and cons to each and I would appreciate additional help in resolving a possible impasse. Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel tac 11:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not expected to address this myself for a few months. -- DeirgeDel tac 14:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P10832 population task edit

I'm kicking off a Wikidata P10832 population tasks for the Wikidata items associated with the 90 or articles using {{Worldcat id}}. See also d:Property talk:P10832#Method of determining P10832 value from P7859 value.. Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel tac 11:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My target on this is a csv file or spreadsheet or whatever suitable for quickstatement input that updates P10832 for our 90+ items of consideration ideally with a reference also. The fallback is plain old Wikidata interactive input. There's a thingy tool using google sheets to quickstatments that can could alternatively help and there's a youtube for that somewhere might help. -- DeirgeDel tac 11:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am praying the theologian Saint Mother Teresa is a good non-QLP use case example: -- DeirgeDel tac 11:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mike Peel, Pigsonthewing:: Mike, Andy: I think I am seeing the potential for a tool for mapping P7859 (Worldcat ID) to P10832 (Worldcat entity) values; at least in some cases. I wouldn't expect to be the first to notice this and wonder if you are aware of a project or tool to do this in Wikidata. Thanks. -- (formerly Djm-leighpark) DeirgeDel tac 11:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P10832 population task plan F edit

Obviously going through from Plan A to Plan Z (which is give up) and also plan M (simply enter P10832's manually, there's only 90). I'm currently at plan F which I believe to be feasible. I'm well aware an alt. plan may come from the blindslide which completely obsoletes plan F. I've a (non P.D.) program, I call it lollipop2, which can quickstatements to do sitelinks for (some) unnconnected pages at scale. I usually do manual sitelinking but lollipop2 can be useful when the number of Unconnected pages in mainspace get over about a dozen as it did last week. Anyway lollipop 2 has a good deal of working code that I believe is adaptable and extendable to help; so I've forked a program called xpop2 which I've started to adapted. Crucially xpop2 (currently) lacks ability to get any existing value of P10832 (or any property) from the wikidata item butI have confidence that's an easy extension . The key point is it would be a black box with a list of (the 90 Wikiquote) articles as input and would produce a CSV with the following fields to for filter for QS input: -- DeirgeDel tac 11:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Articles using {{Worldcat id}} as of 23 May 2023
Field Mandatory Source Coding cost Notes
Wikiquote article name yes Flat file input list None
Wikidata item id yes Sitelink from Wikiquote article Minimal
Existing P10832 value yes Wikidata item property Some Essentially to avoid update of existing value
P7859 value from wikidata no Wikidata item property Minimal Useful. Reuse of code for getting P10832
P7859 value from Worldcat Template no Worldcat param on WQ article. Low Interesting and possibly useful if not on Wikidata.
P10832 value from Worldcat api no Wikidata item property Some-to-large Does not always yield required result.
P10832 field for manual input yes(ish) Null field Trivial Placeholder for manual entry later
Some early results from a really dodgy and klugey xpop2 are at User:DeirgeDel/xpop2. Unfortunately no progress (certainly as yet) with the really useful P10832 value from Worldcat api. -- DeirgeDel tac 00:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually now good news as seem able to generate P10832 for most of the Wikiquote use cases! -- DeirgeDel tac 03:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This have come up and I want this off my to-do list so have boldly completed populating P10832 by xpop2 (+ about 6 manual) for 87 articles/wikidata items and leaving the book triology. Strictly speaking at some point need to remove the {{Worldcat id}} templates and add an {{Authority control}} template whan or about when that arrives (an AWB job).  Y Done (details are here) -- DeirgeDel tac 22:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Worldcat templates have all been deleted and I've used by alt Bigdelboy to use AWB to remove most of the templates from articles, albiet my re could have been a tad better and I had to mop up about 12/15 manually. Everything now rests on the arrival of the updated {{Authority control}}. -- DeirgeDel tac 22:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HI. I am brand-new to Wikiquotes, but work in the climate action realm via a nonprofit called Climate Steps, and am involved in WikiProject Climate Change. I talk more about our work in the latest new Talk section below. re: Climate Action. The key thing I am wondering about, seeing the above and kindof sortof thinking about what you are doing, is "Is there a quotes database coming soon from WikiQuotes (or Wikidata) to underlay the system?" I understand from what I have read that the quotes are embedded in the pages, and that the articles are the Wikidata items. But maybe you mean above that you are harvesting the quotes from the pages as well and making them individual? I have 8 years experience in informatics, but on the science side, not the terminology/tech side. Is there a chance WQ will someday be via a quotes db and/or have an upload tool (to help @Loupgrru answer his question to me). So, at CSteps, we have created a Quotables database in Airtable, and it's just so much easier to tag the quotes so they show up on different pages for our pages, and I can imagine yours. For instance, wee are bringing in quotes that fall under different themes (the key one Climate Action), people, and more. A quick yes or no works! Thanks! AnnetteCSteps (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How does one start a campaign? edit

I'm curious about these campaigns, like #SheSaid and Africa Day Campaign 2023. Wikiquote:SheSaid has six pages, did someone have to ask someone else for permission to create any of these? Body autonomy is a broad enough theme that it would encompass multiple topics and types of activists, while still being limited to pages applying to one's personage and not their possessions. What process would I need to go through in order to create a page or six for Wikiquote:#MyBody without being tagged for deletion for having no corresponding Wikipedia article? CensoredScribe (talk) 17:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest see m:Campaigns. -- DeirgeDel tac 02:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I see the campaigns must all have windows of time that they run during, it would help to know which months already have campaigns scheduled as it would be problematic having two campaigns running at the same time in terms of competing for the advertising space at the top of the page. I had assumed that the months of December and January would already have campaigns set during them dedicated to improving coverage of the various Christian denominations, given the large sequence of religious holidays in the form of Christmastide; the Eastern Orthodox Church in particular is an area Wikiquote could easily improve it's coverage of with all the associated people and topics that already have corresponding Wikipedia pages. CensoredScribe (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Action as it's own Theme page edit

HI all, re: Climate Action

Already someone pinged during my lunch break, between my inserting our first two quotes and publishing the page to the time my colleagues could start editing this afternoon/weekend to add quotes (as noted in the summary was coming), to suggest that this page be merged with Global Warming. I had wanted to write after lunch anyway to give some background on what we are doing. @Loupgrru and I are with Climate Steps, a nonprofit 501(c)(3);, focused on effective climate actions regular people can take, globally. We received a Rapid Grant earlier this year from WMF to pool together our Wikipedia's, CSteps, and Earth Hero (a climate action app's) resources about climate action - to create synergy among three organizations all doing fact-based research on climate - and to make climate action information more prominent in Wikipedia, the most read fact-based resource in the world. So this grant brings together WP's, CS's, and EH's references and quotes about climate action with yours and to provide a central db (on CSteps) and page locations (WP) to find them. More about the grant is here. Our goal is not just to put the notable and useful quotes on a Climate Action theme page, but to put the quotes also on existing notables pages (we won't have time to create new notables pages.), and to link the two pages.

We are not necessarily set in having a separate page right at this moment for climate action, but I do highly recommend that it be considered now or in the near future, for the following reasons:

  1. The Global Warming page is already chocked full of quotes, with pages and pages, and it is very difficult to discover climate-action-related quotes within it.
  2. There is a strong need by regular people to find means of taking action; as experienced by large numbers of climate scientists now (Katharine Hayhoe, Paul Hawken, Mary Annaise Heglar, myself, and more.)
  3. I am a environmental/now climate scientist, and global warming, climate change, and climate action are going to become the most read topics in the near future. (Don't worry, I won't put that "bias" in WQs!). I think creating the Thematic page now allows for growth, especially as we hope to continue to be involved once we finish this pilot work funded by WMF.
  4. We are providing at least 123 new, unique quotes to Wikiquotes specifically related to climate action, i.e., action regular people can take - not climate policy. And we have noted at least 15 from notables' pages that can also be placed under Climate Action, beyond just the Climate Activists category, and
  5. It is good for actually creating action to have people be able to focus on solutions, and steps they can take, so having that window via its own thematic page is useful.
  6. The Categories terms can be used to group all of these pages.

So whaddya think? Can we go ahead and fill this in a bit more so you can see what we're thinking and then discuss? We definitely are new to Wikiquotes, so we want to work with you to help highlight climate action the best way possible! We are actually behind where we wanted to be in pursuing this part of the grant, due to needed family care for myself and for my two contractors, and I've been meaning to let you know this was coming! But we also wanted to present a framework first to start the discussion. We look forward to working with y'all on this - especially any folks also involved in the WikiProject Climate change(PCC).

So, fyi, we have a second grant from WikiCred to work in the PCC to create more climate action pages/details, and you can find out more about it at: A slideshow summary I gave about the project can be found at: [18] We're a bit further along with that one. There's a debate there also about increasing details on existing pages that relate to climate action, and full pages on climate action. We're doing both, in discussion with the PCC folks, and are aiming to somehow provide a home for people searching for information on climate action to land.

Sorry - I'm a wordy writer. Hope this helps, and look forward to feedback. we'll get more quotes in here this weekend (and probably Monday.) AnnetteCSteps (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and we'd love help in finding climate action quotes!! AnnetteCSteps (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m also very new to Wikiquote, and I’m not sure if I should add this here or create a new topic. For the time being, I’m adding it here, because it’s part of the project @AnnetteCSteps is describing. I’ll be happy to move it to a new topic if that’s more appropriate.
One of the quotes we’d like to add to the theme of Climate Action is from explorer Robert Swan, who said “The greatest threat to our planet is the belief that someone else will save it.” I can’t find a date for this quote. Can anyone help?
Same for Jane Goodall’s quote “You cannot get through a single day without having an impact on the world around you. What you do makes a difference, and you have to decide what kind of difference you want to make.” I need a date, can’t find one. Thanks in advance for any assistance offered. Loupgrru (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can also add it to the Talk page for Global Warming. there are a lot of questions there about unsourced quotes. AnnetteCSteps (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata links edit

We have had this discussion multiple times about having links to Wikidata or Wikipedia in our entries. Some people are still removing them. What is the current status on that question? RAN (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine to have wikidata links, but as a separate line item under External links (probably below the Wikipedia link). I believe we should still link to Wikipedia in the intro (assuming a page is available). ~ UDScott (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@UDScott: and if no Wikipedia is available and a Wikidata link is, should the name go to Wikidata. Do you find that deceptive or helpful? without a link or an infobox, how will you know who that person is that is being quoted? --RAN (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have been removing them from the intro, where Wikipedia links belong, because they are misleading. ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are not misleading at all, they link to the Wikidata entry for that person. Lack of a link is more misleading than a Wikidata link. It seems you want a Wikipedia link. See: Alexander_Hamilton, his name links to Wikipedia, people with no Wikipedia entry should link to their Wikidata entry. What do others think? --RAN (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I do agree that they are a bit misleading - if one does not look closely at the link (or click on it), they would assume that there is a Wikipedia page for the person and assume a certain level of notability. But having a Wikidata page does not mean that the person is truly notable enough to have a page here. That's what is misleading about it - especially if the link to Wikidata is in a place where traditionally a link to Wikipedia resides. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but what Ninguable is referring to are the established styles that we use for WQ pages (I could add the established templates for pages as well, which also contain links to Wikipedia). If someone wants to further the use of Wikidata (to be transparent, I in fact do not even use Wikidata really nor do I understand the value, but I also do not have any objection to adding these links), it would be better to add them in the External links section, as I recommended above. ~ UDScott (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deploying the Phonos in-line audio player to your Wiki edit


Apologies if this message is not in your language, ⧼Please help translate⧽ to your language.

This wiki will soon be able to use the inline audio player implemented by the Phonos extension. This is part of fulfilling a wishlist proposal of providing audio links that play on click.

With the inline audio player, you can add text-to-speech audio snippets to wiki pages by simply using a tag:

<phonos file="audio file" label="Listen"/>

The above tag will show the text next to a speaker icon, and clicking on it will play the audio instantly without taking you to another page. A common example where you can use this feature is in adding pronunciation to words as illustrated on the English Wiktionary below.

{{audio|en|En-uk-English.oga|Audio (UK)}}

Could become:

<phonos file="En-uk-English.oga" label="Audio (UK)"/>

The inline audio player will be available in your wiki in 2 weeks time; in the meantime, we would like you to read about the features and give us feedback or ask questions about it in this talk page.

Thank you!

UOzurumba (WMF), on behalf of the Foundation's Language team

02:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Red link on the main page again. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done by someone else. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've made redirects for the next month's worth of QotD and have made a calendar reminder to do the same each first Saturday of the month. I'm hopeful we won't have this problem again. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Justin. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why Doesn’t Wikiquote Recognize Established Wikipedia Account? edit

I logged in with my Wikipedia account, but Wikiquote treats it as a new account (red typeface) and does not link to my Wikipedia name / account. If they are sister endeavors, why is this? Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Quaerens-veritatem: The red link just means you don't have a user page here. It's the same for every local project. If you were an established editor on the German Wikipedia, but started contributing to the French Wikipedia, your signature on the French project would be red linked unless you made a local French userpage. GMGtalk 10:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GreenMeansGo ! 🙂 Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you make a profile at m:User:Quaerens-veritatem, then it will show up on 900+ WMF wikis. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review the Charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee edit

Hello all,

I am pleased to share the next step in the Universal Code of Conduct work. The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) draft charter is now ready for your review.

The Enforcement Guidelines require a Building Committee form to draft a charter that outlines procedures and details for a global committee to be called the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). Over the past few months, the U4C Building Committee worked together as a group to discuss and draft the U4C charter. The U4C Building Committee welcomes feedback about the draft charter now through 22 September 2023. After that date, the U4C Building Committee will revise the charter as needed and a community vote will open shortly afterward.

Join the conversation during the conversation hours or on Meta-wiki.


RamzyM (WMF), on behalf of the U4C Building Committee, 15:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talking Tom and Friends (TV Series) edit

Hi, on Talking Tom and Friends (TV Series), the article lists episodes beginning at 0 instead of 1, not sure what needs to be done here. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 17:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some series have an "episode 0" or the pilot is called that sometimes. It's not obvious to me that this is a problem. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Koavf, no worries, wasn't aware of that. Cheers, Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 17:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AWB access edit

Hi, am I ok to use AWB to fix typos here? I had it enabled under my old username of "Rubbish computer". Cheers, Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 15:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done I have updated your name in the list. Saroj (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks Saroj. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 18:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ZOOM (1999 TV series) edit

Hi, on ZOOM (1999 TV series), there was a PROD but it's been removed. Should it be readded? Sorry if this is a silly question, been almost completely offline for a long time. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 17:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Once a PROD tag has been removed by a user, the next step, if someone believes it should still be deleted, is to nominate it at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you UDScott. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 18:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your wiki will be in read-only soon edit

Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 09:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes edit

I have a book on people's quotes was asking if I can contribute from it 19:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but to be clear, you cannot just reproduced a book of quotations: the arrangement and selection of quotations is copyright-able and likely protected by your book. So make sure that you don't reproduce entire sections of the book and cite your sources. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"cite web" parameters are different in WikiQuote than in Wikipedia? edit

Is this intentional, or just because the "cite web" template in Wikiquote hasn't been updated recently? I moved some text over from Wikipedia for Evi Nemeth and its references didn't work until I changed e.g. archive-url to archiveurl, and archive-date to archivedate, and removed url-status=dead. Gnuish (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine that it's deliberate. I can tool around with it to make it align with en.wp more. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opportunities open for the Affiliations Committee, Ombuds commission, and the Case Review Committee edit

Hi everyone! The Affiliations Committee (AffCom), Ombuds commission (OC), and the Case Review Committee (CRC) are looking for new members. These volunteer groups provide important structural and oversight support for the community and movement. People are encouraged to nominate themselves or encourage others they feel would contribute to these groups to apply. There is more information about the roles of the groups, the skills needed, and the opportunity to apply on the Meta-wiki page.

On behalf of the Committee Support team,

Julius Streicher edit

On Julius Streicher, there is content sourced to neo-Nazi website Stormfront. That seems like a bad idea. 13:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, issue fixed with a citation to a book from a reputable publisher. Philip Cross (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete middle initial edit

I just started an entry for Carol S. Dweck, but should not have used her middle initial. Would someone please fix this for me? Thank you. I also see that 2 of the categories I carried over from her entry on Wikipedia are in red. I know this means they don't exist in WikiQuote. Should I therefore remove them? Thank you so much! TrudiJ (talk) 11:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moved page. But you have to create a category, and you really shouldn't create a new category unless you can link it up and out to others. So like..."Women from Arkansas" could link up to Category:People from Arkansas. But "Badgers from the Arctic" doesn't really have anywhere to go and is just a dead end. GMGtalk 12:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your help with this, and the explanation about category creation. TrudiJ (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review and comment on the 2024 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees selection rules package edit

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

Dear all,

Please review and comment on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees selection rules package from now until 29 October 2023. The selection rules package was based on older versions by the Elections Committee and will be used in the 2024 Board of Trustees selection. Providing your comments now will help them provide a smoother, better Board selection process. More on the Meta-wiki page.


Katie Chan
Chair of the Elections Committee

01:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Request to review contributions made by a banned user edit

Recently I have stumbled into edits made by a banned user, Leonardo Coelho and further examination reveals the user has made over 300 contributions, most of which were cherrypicked quotes that portray Jewish people negatively, and some were quotes cited from fictional and conspiracy theory books the user purpoted to be from historical figures. Despite being banned, their contributions still exists and should be reviewed to determine if they should be corrected, revised, or deleted. For example, the pages for Cassius Dio, Isaac Mayer Wise, and Albert von Mensdorff-Pouilly-Dietrichstein, the last of which I had requested to be deleted due to the only quote present was derived from a conspiracy theory book. Many thanks in advance. White Ruthenyan (talk) 09:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Go for it. Be bold. Everything on Wikimedia is a long term project. The user was blocked a year ago. So taking your time probably wont be the end of the world. Knock out a few every day over your morning coffee. GMGtalk 10:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, what do you suggest about pages of antisemitic figures with only one quote, for example, Denis Fahey, Adrien Arcand, and Clare Sheridan? All these pages have in common are a single quote connecting Jews to Communism. Should I also make request for deletion or are there other ways? I'm relatively new to wikipedia editing and unsure how to proceed with cases like these, advices would be appreciated. White Ruthenyan (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably VfD is the only option there. Being an admin is to act at the behest of the community. We're not parental figures. Also, articles on WQ are not required to be neutral. If a person is...just...a shitty person...then terrible quotes are an accurate representation of them. GMGtalk 12:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@White Ruthenyan:
As someone who is relatively new to wikipedia editing you do an excellent job of getting involved in wikiquote, so welcome. Unfortunately, merely requesting one deletion without following through in the ensuing VFD discussion, which takes only one week, does little to solve the problem you describe.
If you participate here by subtracting content rather than by adding to it, I am afraid you'll have to be involved more often. If, on the other hand, you can find quotes to add to your preferred articles, you will be more in control of the intensity of your participation, and your contributions will enrich us all.
Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflicts edit

One of the advantages of developing content on wikiquote as opposed to doing so on busier wikis, such as the English Wikipedia, is that one rarely has to deal with edit conflicts. Earlier today, I encountered such a conflict when I was trying to start a new page. Unfortunately what happened was that I lost my edit and the edit summary which took some effort to compose.

Do others here encounter edit conflicts? If you do, do you find them to be a pain? Any others thoughts to share? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have certainly encountered them before - the only advice I can offer is if this occurs, be sure to use the option to copy all of your work. Then you can try to re-edit the page after the other user's edits have taken effect. Of course, we all try to avoid such situations, but you are bound to have this happen every now and then. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to reply, @UDScott. I am sure that someone who is as active as you are on ENWQ encounters edit conflicts now and then.
As far as your advice to keep a copy of edits one makes, do you follow it yourself? I tried to do it when I was editing on busier wikis, but found out it was getting out hand. I had to spend more and more time just keeping track of my copies. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I do is that when an edit conflict occurs, there is an option at the top of the page to copy your edits, which I do. Then I refresh the page and try again to edit (by pasting my copy into the page and then cleaning up anything that needs it). I don't really keep the copy for long. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I did not notice an option to copy the pages at the top of the page when I encountered the edit conflict earlier today. Does it also give you the option of saving/copying the edit summary which I always try to make useful for others? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, not for the edit summary. When there is an edit conflict, you'll see options to select either your edits or the other user's (with little blue or red bubbles). But at the top, there is also an option to copy your entire version. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That page is a mess... most of these quotes feel too politically specific to be fit on the page. Does anybody agree? Synotia (talk) 09:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Synotia, Thanks for bringing up this subject. If I may be presumptuous and ask you a question? If there was no page here about Russia how would you go about adding this page?
I guess what I am trying to say is that it always easier to criticize. I hope you don't mind me being blunt. Ottawahitech (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming quotes that are too long edit

Some editors here have taken it upon themselves to shorten quotes contributed by others. It would be interesting to hear what rationale they use.

When I first joined here I was trying to add quotes that were as short as possible thinking that if anyone was really interested in a particular quote they could follow the ref/link and see the context. The problem, I have discovered, is that few websites, maybe with the exception of the BBC, maintain archives of their articles. The end result is that both here and also on the English Wikipedia you would be lucky to be able to follow most refs that are older than a few years.

Here's one example: Talk:Ariel Sharon#"I know I have been portrayed as a general looking for war...".

I would be curious to find out how others feel about shortening quotes contributed by others. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I recently noted, we have basic rules on quotation length which are routinely ignored. Whether or not someone else initially adds a quotation, it still needs to meet these guidelines, so someone else bringing a lengthy quotation into conformance with our rules is a good thing. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Webservice request timed out edit

I got this notice when I clicked a link on ENWQ just a moment ago. This happens to me occasionally, so I stopped to read what the small print says:

  • The tool responsible for the URL you have requested [long url] is taking too long to respond.
If you have reached this page from somewhere else...
This URI is managed by the supercount tool, maintained by Cyberpower678, Ladsgroup.
You may wish to notify the tool's maintainers (above) about the error.

Problem is when I click on Cyberpower678 and on Ladsgroup I find that they are located on another wiki (wikitech) that requires me to "create a Wikimedia developer account to edit any page on this wiki".

Any suggestions for those trying to do the right thing and provide feedback to wiki maintainers? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC) corrected Ottawahitech (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ottawahitech Which link did you click? Lemonaka (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lemonaka: I don't immediately recall. Why do you ask? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pmlineditor edit

Pmlineditor (talk · contributions)

For whom has been inactive on this project for nearly two years, we may need to notice them about possibly desysop process. Their last action on this project was [19] On Nov 14, 2021. Lemonaka (talk) 08:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Stewards will review inactive administrators periodically. (I think their threshold is two years, but the review may be infrequent.) They will provide ample notice before taking action to de-sysop anyone. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greeting edit

Hi, I am Dastel. It's a pleasur for me! Dastel (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dastel: Greetings to you too. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, Thanks for the welcome. Verifiability? Citing Sources? edit

Having arrived to this project only a few minutes ago, I am baffled by a Wikiquote:Welcome,_newcomers page that tells me what Wikiquote is not, without first telling me that it IS a source of WQ:Verifiable quotes with WQ:Citations given.

Since those would be the only worthwhile "Policies" and "Guidelines" to bother reading, why bother with that page any more than with the tedious welcome?

But against my better judgement, I wasted a minute scanning WQ:Policies and guidelines for any sign of wit or wisdom. Sadly, my suspicions were confirmed. I hate to sound dire, but the situation is unlikely improve without surgery, and the same prognosis holds for the equivalent pages on wikipedia.

According to the "Find" tool on my web browser, the page contains not a single instance of the string "verify", "verifiable", "cite", or "citation". Since I'm sure that its buried somewhere and a search of the whole project namespace would yield an article for each, will you all please link them both to somewhere near the top of the welcome and policy pages?

Until then, I intend to be WQ:Bold and WQ:Ignore the rules, and I invite all others contributors to join me in adopting that strategy, as in w:WP:Ignore all rules, except not all of them, only the ones that stop you from improving it. I don't see why that should still be controversial. I for one am grateful for the w:WP:Five pillars, and intend to uphold them. I'm not going to ignore "ALL" of the so-called policies, of course. The all-or-nothing misrepresentation, a common type of exaggeration used as a w:Straw man fallacy tends to cause these unnecessary debates, and the problem of crufty essays being written and then cited as if they are policy, itself an auto-immune disorder to the problem of policy creep. (This critique also applies to corresponding pages of our sister project, of course, which is where y'all apparently learned this bad habit)

"We also want WQ:Wikiquote to become a reliable resource", says the lede sentence, the "common goal" of the PAG page, which I share, but where is the link to WQ:Reliable? And a "free compendium of quotations" is what I too had in mind. Whether or not it is or becomes the "world's largest" is totally irrelevant to me, and I think we should get over this peculiarly American obsession with size, already. But in furtherance of all these goals would be a policy of WQ:Original research needed, (a sort of antidote to the mind-numbing tendencies of the w:WP:NOR when applied over zealously to exclude quotation of WQ:Primary sources. Therefore, WQ:ORN back at you. Although a Quotes project is obviously not a place for w:WP:AEIS, and therefore WQ:NAEIS also appies (No Analysis, Evaluation, Interpretation, or Synthesis), it is most definitely and fundamentally a place for WQ:Original Research in reading and quoting WQ:Primary Sources, especially those from our other sister project Wikisource, which can and should be additionally cited and linked whenever a quote is attributed to a WQ:Secondary source that cites a public domain primary.

Thus, a policy that favors WQ:Scholarly ethics would enable and encourage all our readers and contributors to analyze the quote in context of its primary source text, and also enable them to acquire whatever book, article, or magazine is also quoting it. Once this starts to happen consistently, it will greatly improve the quality of wikipedia. What we need there is scholarly w:Dialectic and better definitions by means of w:Diaresis. And original researchers should be encouraged to contribute on Wikiversity, as I began to do rather than insulted as incompetent and bullied into giving up. Or worse, banned from editing because of alleged "incompetence".

The thought experiment of my inaugural edit is about to complete when I hit enter, and we'll all find out together how many of these links will be red. Since I probably won't bother to waste any more time by clicking through the blue ones, I invite you all to join in improving those linked policy articles, along with the two I've here criticized, by first clicking through one of the red ones. Feel free to WQ:Cite this mini-WQ:Essay on any policy or guidelines you might be bold to write or rewrite, or on discussion pages thereunto appertaining. I probably won't bother, but will rather continue my far more important work of mining valuable information from WQ:Reliable sources, along with my colleague w:WP:WikiDwarf tribe (see prev version), along with defectors and rebel clans from among the w:WP:WikiElf population who are fed up with the current regime. Beware ye knights and navy, for w:Here be dragons.

I'm not interested in regulating anyone here anymore than I'm interested in listening to what you all have to say, unless you are actively engaged with me to WQ:Make them blue, or as they may someday say on wikipedia, w:WP:Make it blue. This is apparently unique coinage is often found on advice and contentious talk page and village pump discusssions surrounding large scale WQ:Content disputes or questions on the hebrew wikipedia, so I'm going to propose a dedicated article for it there, if there isn't one already. w:he:וק:הכחילו אותו (Content disputes are something I don't anticipate becoming a problem on Wikiquote, thus probably no need for an article dedicated to that, but you never know.) The best way I know of to handle such an event is not to delete, but rather to add - to add as much as possible from all sides of an conflict, hence the necessity of such a guideline. Deletionists should be willing to move w:WP:Disputed content to a subpage, before doubling down, once they are w:WP:Obverted. Thus together we will cooperate and w:WP:Bold-refine.

Wiktionary cites a poem by s:he:משה גיורא אלימלך as the source for the definition of wikt:he:הכחיל, although its referring to the sky after a storm and a ships weighing anchor at sea.

This provides an interesting contrast to absurd proof often cited on Wikipedia that the w:WP:Sky is blue in the context over debates on its w:WP:Verifiability policy, when everyone who has ever editing at night knows that it is not. Not right now, at least, in my location. I don't know about you, and I don't take your word as proof. Yes, the w:WP:Sky was blue for us both, and yes the w:WP:Sky will be blue again, as we both know, and this is such a well known w:WP:Fact of nature that it need not be cited. I'm sure we could all stipulate to that, but we need a better essay to explain it to newcomers, along with a new or better essay on w:WP:Self-evident truths and matters that are w:WP:Trivially deduced.

Interestingly enough, the quoted poem by w:he:משה גיורא אלימלך makes the very same point (in the third person plural future conjugation, of the verb "to make blue", itself the hifil binyan, the causative construction, of the root that means blue), by predicating of "the clouds" that "the skies" (which are always plural in hebrew, and quite wisely so), will "make them blue". And some volunteer could do that now by translating his article from the hebrew to english with this red link (which due to technical shortcomings of Help:Interwiki linking, incorrectly appears blue along with some of the others linked here from wikipedia): w:Moshe Giora Elimelech.

I wish that we could be like the skies, and do the same for the clouds of bias and night of omission, and the storms of uninformed discussion and w:WP:Deletion war that make well-waged w:WP:Edit wars sometimes a necessity, the hurricanes of user banning and blocking debates, and the winter fog of confused policies and pointy essays, all of which so often darken the day of wikipedia.

Insofar as it is, unfortunately, the limit of many peoples knowledge or scholarly research, the metaphor is apt, and it will not be not unfair to say that we are its skies. As we all should know, w:WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. On the contrary, and fortunately for us, WQ:Wikiquote is a reliable source, or should be. At least to the question of what people once said. As for those sources themselves, of course w:WP:Caveat emptor: WQ:Let the buyer beware. Who first said that? I hope it will be easy to find out.

And that, colleagues, is why we are here. Not for ourselves as "Editors", but rather for ourselves as "Readers". Any "encyclopedia" editor who is not first and last a reader, but who is willing to delete and fight against constructive contributors, is not much more than a w:WP:Tendentious ignoramus, and it is WQ:Not a personal attack to critique words and rebuke bad behavior in this way. All wikipedians should willing to w:WP:Do the research when called upon to do so in a discussion, or when offered an uncited quote from an anonymous or intermediate editor, and to provide the reference to a quote cited from w:WP:Source unknown, by learning how to w:WP:Search wikiquote before tolerated to regularly use the undo link in version histories.

That should be the basis of our WQ:Scholarly ethic: WQ:Readers first, writer/contributors second, editors last. Jaredscribe (talk) 04:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaredscribe: I did not read your complete post above, but I do agree with your sentiments regarding the Welcome message.
When I joined the ENWQ I received a welcome message that started like this:
  • Hello, Ottawahitech, and welcome to the English Wikiquote, a free compendium of quotations written collaboratively by people just like you!
Ottawahitech (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WALLOFTEXT, the previous one tried to argue like that is Ilovemydoodle (talk · contributions). If you want to reform this project, please do it step by step instead of requesting like a DDOS attack. Lemonaka (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am flagged by the spam filter, again edit

I tried to restore a quote removed from Colombia in 2018, but I get the following message:

  • The text you wanted to publish was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to a forbidden external site. The following text is what triggered our spam filter:

Just wondering where is the documentation that says is a forbidden external site? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC) Corrected wq-link Ottawahitech (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ottawahitech I've checked your abuse log, no recent log has been found, can you specify the page you edit? Lemonaka (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry @Lemonaka, I guess I was too much in a hurry and not thinking:
  • I misspelled the page I was trying to edit
  • It was the spam filter not the abuse filter this time
However my question still stands: where is the documentation that says is a forbidden external site?
Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The site is listed on the Global Blacklist. Saroj (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe a site on Global Blacklist should be added for specific use, you can add them by using <nowiki></nowiki> Lemonaka (talk) 09:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump page (discussion of primary & secondary sources at ENWQ) edit

Donald Trump, is one of the most controversial ex-presidents of the United States (my personal opinion based on following media reports over the last couple of years). As it stands now there are many who believe that Trump will win the next American election. If you don't believe this you should watch Fox News which, as I understand, is watched by a large portion of American voters.

The United States is considered to be the most powerful nation on earth, at least by many of the participants of ENWQ. Its laws govern the way websites which this community uses for decimating content to readers. If this is true, it means that the results of the next election will determine the fate of many individuals on earth, American or not (I think?).

Some contributors of English Wikiquote believe that sources for quotes should only be wq:secondary, which is the same standard as the one used at the English Wikipedia. Some believe that quotes can be directly sourced from wq:primary sources. Can we please sort this out before Trump (potentially) becomes president, which may spell the end of this community as we know it? Ottawahitech (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really clear on the relationship between these two things, but to be clear, there is currently no requirement that quotations on en.wq have to have secondary sources. I am in favor of a rule that states that we should only include quotations which are themselves quoted by reliable third parties, so that we can reduce cruft, etc. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf, RE: "I am in favor of .. include quotations ... quoted by reliable third parties, so that we can reduce cruft, etc."
Can you elaborate please? What is the relationship between "cruft" and disallowing direct source quoting? I know that English Wikipedia still has a huge problem with "cruft" even though primary sources were never allowed (I think?) Ottawahitech (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that right now, in practice, anyone can come here and put in virtually the entirety of a script of a SpongeBob episode and as long as it's broken up by enough horizontal rules, it's allowed. If we only allowed quotations from SpongeBob that are themselves quoted by third parties, that would greatly reduce all of this excessive fancruft. So to use an example that I'm more familiar with, The Simpsons has lots of quotations across lots of episodes and seasons, but some quotations like "It's a perfectly cromulent word" or "Stupid sexy Flanders" have actually been quoted elsewhere. Or, e.g. MLK or George Orwell have excessive quotations from their works but there are quotations from these men that have been quoted many times over and if we limited their entries to just those quotations, we wouldn't have these needlessly long pages made up of the more-or-less arbitrary text dumps that someone happened to add in 2009. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Justin, the problem with such a rule (and I am sure we have discussed this multiple times in the past) is that not every work is quoted by third parties, especially older material or more obscure works (even if they are the source of worthy quotes). I think it makes sense when we are talking about living people or current works, but I believe that application of such a rule would disallow many worthy quotes from being displayed here. I know you are trying to solve a problem, but IMHO this particular fix would be too extreme and in the end harm the project. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support a standard saying that we should favor quotes in secondary sources where such sources exist. A topic as well covered as Trump can tend to get bloated, and if we're pressed for real estate on an article, I don't see why we should be favoring primary over secondary sourcing. Of course this wouldn't preclude the use of primary sources where no comparable secondary sources exist. But if we're on the subject of one of the most written about people in the world, we can probably up our standards to more than quoting twitter posts. There's simply so much available in better sourcing that we couldn't possibly include even a fraction of the higher quality secondary sourcing. GMGtalk 16:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Citation indexes such as impact factor are useful for establishing both the notability of the source and number of times a particular passage has been quoted (or at least referenced), however there are plenty of popular entertainment websites with Wikipedia pages and reviews from major newspapers with Wikipedia pages that are written about pop culture, so someone could create a comprehensive citation index for episodes of SpongeBob or The Simpsons to support their inclusion. I think such an endeavor would be a better project for Fandom to attempt than for Wikiquote. Fandom is one of the fifty most popular websites in the world, and yet, the fandom wikis are far worse than we are about text dumps. Individual fan wikis often have more active users than Wikiquote, so I think that collectively even a fraction of that user base could create a comprehensive pop culture citation index. I hope you all have better things to do with your time, but it's your choice. CensoredScribe (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've never really touched pop-culture topics, and I don't completely understand why someone would want to watch the entirety of Spongebob in ten-second increments as they pause to transcribe every line.
To my mind, the issue here is more of biographical articles where someone wants to post every waking thought on social media. Especially as it pertains to living persons, we shouldn't be in the business of plucking lines from Twitter. In my experience, this gives broad leeway for users to paint their own picture — flattering or unflattering — as they see fit. In the case of Trump, we all know he is an obsessive user/consumer of social media, and many of his posts have been reprinted in secondary sources. So the standard for quotability should be whether it was actually quoted. That may play out differently according to common sense for lesser known figures. But where a figure is widely known and widely covered, it is a miscarriage of usefulness to resort to primary sources. GMGtalk 12:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of contrast, Racial views of Donald Trump includes mostly commentary from secondary sources. There's only two pages on Wikipedia for U.S. presidents' views on race, with the other being Woodrow Wilson and race, whereas several of them were slave owners and many made openly racist statements. I'm pretty sure there's enough to create a page for Racial views of Richard Nixon, if making more of these types of pages is helpful and not just a form of whitewashing biographies. Wikipedia doesn't seem to be all that interested in labeling involvement in the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade or the Trail of Tears as being that important for establishing racism in a president. Maybe it's because the news trends way better than history, or because people don't share entire textbooks on social media websites to give thumbs up or thumbs down to the way they do with tweets. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, sure...I've nothing against those being created. But you are presumably going to post things from Jefferson that were printed in secondary sources and not something he tweeted on the crapper at 3am. GMGtalk 18:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(New) Feature on Kartographer: Adding geopoints via QID edit

Since September 2022, it is possible to create geopoints using a QID. Many wiki contributors have asked for this feature, but it is not being used much. Therefore, we would like to remind you about it. More information can be found on the project page. If you have any comments, please let us know on the talk page. – Best regards, the team of Technical Wishes at Wikimedia Deutschland

Thereza Mengs (WMDE) 12:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone had a chance get more information at WMDE_Technical_Wishes/Geoinformation/Geopoints_via_QID, just curious Ottawahitech (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Creating new Wikiquote maintenance pages edit

How does one create new pages that are part of the Wikiquote maintenance category like Wikiquote:SheSaid? Do you have to go onto Meta to ask permission or can it be done here? I wanted to create a campaign called #WikiMed, for the purposes of adding and improving medical pages on Wikiquote. This would not be a cross platform campaign, it would be specific to Wikiquote as Wikipedia already has high quality medical articles, it's ours that are lacking. CensoredScribe (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CensoredScribe: I don't see why one would have to get META'S permission, but...
Creating a campaign called #WikiMed, and getting it going, may be more difficult than you think, I think? Ottawahitech (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Audio pronunciations for Proverbs edit

I'm creating audio pronunciations for Tamil proverbs. I linked some audio in Tamil proverbs. It's allowed on en.wikiquote (Please Ping Me, I'm not active on this wiki) Thank you Sriveenkat (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sriveenkat. I am impressed with anyone who knows how to create audio files. I also have-not figured out how to upload images to commons, but that is a different story for another day.
Anyway, it looks like you have successfully added pronunciation of some quotes at Tamil proverbs. I think tat is great! I hope others follow in your footsuteps, I think? Ottawahitech (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Ottawahitech These pronunciations created using w:Lingua Libre My goal to know the actual proverbs sound for the non-native speakers. Thank again for appreciation. I'm planning more to record it! See proverbs audios on c:Category:Tamil pronunciation of proverbs Sriveenkat (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Connecting new pages to wikidata? edit

A few months ago I posted here trying to obtain the community's support for a BOT which will automatically link new pages added to enwq to the appropriate page at WikiData (WD). Such a BOT is already operated by User:Mike Peel, and he told me that he can do this for us if we can get consensus. Without this BOT, individual volunteers must take care of adding new enwq pages to WD.

I don't know if we had enough support, but it does not appear that new pages are being added to WD right now. This is a shame because WD is a source of a lot of information that can help content developers produce better quote pages.

FYI here is the original post on this topic: wq:Village pump archive 62#Need consensus from members of this community for connecting pages to wikidata. Thanks in advance for any of your thoughts. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have several thousand unconnected pages, including 289 in the main namespace, so having a bot do this work--particularly for the many administrative pages--would be helpful. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know that.
The bad news is that the number of unconnected mainspace pages has increased from 289 to 370 since @Koavf had posted the message above. The good news is that, the English Wikiquote has gained at least another 81 new pages in just a few days. Ottawahitech (talk) 03:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: Looks like we still have 1383 unconnected items in the pipeline. Hopefully the WD-ENWQ-BOT will start cutting it down soon. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If User:Mike Peel still wants the bot to run on English Wikiquote, a request can be made here. Saroj (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Mike Peel,
Just wondering if the 8 support votes are enough to get you going? Ottawahitech (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with it, and I'm fine with gaining community consensus here at VP. WQ:BOTS is pretty dead. There hasn't been any activity there in almost four years. GMGtalk 13:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is because no one has requested bot flag in four years. Saroj (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please test for at least 50 edits before approve, thanks. Misfunction on wiki Data will lead to serious troubles Lemonaka (talk) 03:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks all. The bot wouldn't make any edits here, just on Wikidata, so it doesn't need formal approval here. However, I wouldn't want to start it running without community support - which it looks like there is from this discussion. :-) There are two separate parts to this. One part is checking for existing Wikidata items that might be matches for new mainspace pages here - which would be put into a Wikidata game, like [20] - except I can't figure out how to do this for non-Wikipedia projects (I think it needs a bugfix from Magnus Manske - I have it running for the back-end database, but I can't get the candidates to load properly into the Game). The second part is then to create new items for mainspace pages that don't have a possible match (or all possible matches have been declined) after a wait of 14 days - I could set this running in a couple of weeks (I'm traveling right now). I could also just get the bot to create new items for all mainspace pages, which would then require more merging on Wikidata, and avoids the Wikidata game issue. Happy to hear thoughts, and I plan to come back to this in early December to get it running. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, @Mike Peel. I did not know that the BOT you operate not only connects unconnected pages to an existing WikiData (WD) page, but can also create a new WD page if one does not exist.
    The implication is that contributors of content to the English WikiQuote (ENWQ) have to reach consensus about which of our pages should be connected to a WD page. As it stands now there are three different types of pages on ENWQ (I think?):
    • pages with an English Wikipedia (ENWP) equivalent example 1
    • pages with no ENWP equivalent but with an existing WD equivalent example 2
    • pages without an existing ENWP that also do not have a WD page example 3
    Note: pages belonging to the last two should all be listed in Category:Articles with no corresponding English Wikipedia article Ottawahitech (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC) updated Ottawahitech (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good news: the Wikidata game is live! It turned out that the problem was with loading text from Wikiquote to display it, so I've implemented a work-around that shows the first 500 characters from the page. It's not very pretty, but it works, and you can click on the title to load the page directly. What do you think? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just checked Special:UnconnectedPages on the ENWQ and I believe we currently have 1058 unconnected pages in mainspace. Can anyone confirm this? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC) bluified link Ottawahitech (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want a BOT that will automatically connect new pages to WikiData edit

FYI discussion:Why is it so hard to start pages about women? edit

FYI: Why is it so hard to start pages about women? -- have your say Ottawahitech (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the link I posted above is already a deadlink. Apparently an unannounced decision has been reached to archive this sparsely used page by the time a posting has hit the age of 15 days. This is carried out by a BOT. The BOT is set to ignore the amount of traffic on the page and only looks at the age of the posting without taking into consideration how little participation is taking place.
Does anyone reading the Village pump care about discussion of issues relating to women-related content including pages about famous women, women contributors, etc?
Just curious, Ottawahitech (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC) strike out part of my comment above Ottawahitech (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ottawahitech, I don't know what you mean by "issues relating to women-related content", pretty much every single Wikiquote page is going to be of concern to some woman, somewhere, in some way. Do you mean biography pages for famous women? Most women, like most men, aren't famous enough to have their own Wikipedia pages. More than half of university degrees go to women, many are part of a team of research scientists and credited as the authors of academic journal articles, but most of them are never going to have their own Wikipedia pages even if the article is frequently cited. Similarly, lots of women work as part of TV and film productions, and most of those productions have their own Wikipedia pages, whereas the majority of the cast and crew for them do not.
I could complain about how few editors on Wikiquote seem interested in helping to improve the pages in the abortion category, but I don't see how trying to shame everyone else here for having different priorities and bragging about how great I am is going to help me assemble a team of dedicated volunteers willing to spend enormous amounts of their time and effort for no pay. With most things in life you could try motivating other people to help you with money, but that's paid editing and against the rules here. You could try using fear to motivate people, but if I were to describe an America thirteen months from now, where forced pregnancy is legally accomplished at gunpoint, than I would probably get kicked out for sexual harassment, whether on this website, at a workplace, or on a college campus with alleged free speech protections. I'm not exactly sure how the failure of #SheSaid would result in anything that horrifying though, it's important to help amplify the voices of women, but it preventing a nightmare hellscape is an extreme exaggeration of that importance. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CensoredScribe: thanks for responding. Unfortunately I can only be in one place at one time, and the time has come for me to move on to another location. If you are truly interested, as the length of your posting above indicates, you may want to join the discussion at q:#shesaid. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflicts edit

I have had a couple of edit conflicts today. This is what it says on the last page I was trying to change

  • "Someone else has changed this page since you started editing it. The upper text area contains the page text as it currently exists. Your changes are shown in the lower text area. You will have to merge your changes into the existing text. Only the text in the upper text area will be published when you press "Publish changes"."

The problem is I do not have an upper text area and a lower text area, my page has a right-section and a left-section. How do I resolve my edit conflict and how do we fix this misleading text that others must be getting too(?) Ottawahitech (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, edit conflicts have become a major problem for me. It does not happen all the time, but when it does it really affects my willingness to participate a