Transferred request to Wikiquote:Reference desk#Weakest members. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there should be a tag at the top of pages that contain swear or cuss words to warn people of their content, in order to prevent offence to some users. Philip Stevens 13:17, 22 December 2005

Quoting myself, from Template talk:Profanities: I do not see any use for this template. Predicting what will offend people is not part of Wikiquote mandate. Mirror sites may wish to add their own tags, and their own filtering systems. Wikiquote can never be "child safe" in any case, due to the risk of vandalism, and the chance of articles not being properly classified. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

References: Wikipedia's fuck entry has no such tag, neither do four-letter word or several articles linked from it. Neither does seven dirty words. Is there any example of a wikimedia project that does use such policy? Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am also opposed to a profanities tag. If profanities were very rare, it might be useful. But if it's the normal way that people talk (in movies etc.), such a tag would just be annoying. You could use general-puspose filtering programs for your browser if you wish. iddo999 14:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I somehow doubt it would be useful even if rare. What counts as a profanity? Does "That's not what your mother said! Last night! When I had sex with her!" count? (It's a real quotation from Dinosaur Comics). Is one quotation on a page enough to merit the tag? If so, should it be marked so that if it is removed (because of various issues) the tag is removed? And why do we feel it is a good idea to deface pages in such a way, when it is almost certain that the variety of readers don't mind the profanity, and don't need the warning? ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 14:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with all of your points. When I mentioned rare cases, I was thinking about a case with some very extreme (graphic) use of profanities, which certain people might find very offensive. So what I mean is that such a tag is a bad idea, because we wouldn't want to include it in almost all cases (in fact, all cases currently in wikiquote I guess), and therefore not having this tag is better so that people won't add it in normal cases. If there's a really extreme case, which is unlikely with regard to notable/quotable stuff, it can be considered individually. iddo999 15:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this topic, which makes my recent addition of the following quote in Lyrics rather timely:

Wouldn't it be great if no one ever got offended? ~ Great Big Sea, "Consequence Free"

A global compendium of quotes in English has no real hope of divining what its audience will find offensive. I recognize the concern that parents would have about what their children read, or even adults who simply don't wish to read what they consider profanity, but it's just not practical to attempt to accomodate these ill-defined concerns. And frankly, I think the world is becoming far too easily offended. To quote the nursery rhyme, "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me." Words can only hurt those who give them the power to do so. More succinctly, to paraphrase Eleanor Roosevelt, no one can offend you without your consent. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just me - I think a profanity tag would be amazing. I know I don't want to read anything nasty!emmyemmy 05:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerly hope that is a joke. If it's not...what in the hell is your goddamn motherfucking problem, you cocksucker? ;) (Ibaranoff24 05:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Is there any way to download all of Wikiquote?

Try http://download.wikimedia.org --Kernigh 20:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there somewhere apropriate on Wikiquote to record some of the comments made with donations in the Wikimedia fundraising drives? As they are (almost?) entirely positive would this violate any NPOV of self-referential policies? Thryduulf 01:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would violate the "notability" policies, most importantly. You can record them on a subpage of your user page, though. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 20:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would think this would be the most obvious FAQ in a quotation collection, but I haven't found it. I have a particular quote in mind. I don't remember exactly how it goes, or who said it. How do I FIND this quote in here, if it is in here?

Bill Tirrill (billt@well.com)

I suspect this isn't currently in Wikiquote:FAQ because Wikiquote was developed by Wikipedians who were already quite familiar with basic wiki practices. Finding any text on a page in Wikiquote (or Wikipedia) is done by entering the text in the Search box (in the left margin) and clicking on "Search" instead of "Go" (although "Go" will usually do the same thing if Wikiquote doesn't have an article with the text as a title). However, since there are an increasing number of Internet users who find Wikiquote before they learn about wikis in general, it's a good thing to add, and I'll do that right now. Thanks for the suggestion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've been going around the wikis, putting a bit of colour into the important pages. How do you like User:Dangherous/Community Portal? It's followed the same outline as Wiktionary's comm portal, and Wikipedia's. --Dangherous 15:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[The words angry fruit salad comes to mind.] ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being from Wikipedia, I'm used to seeing stub tags at the bottom of articles. I've noticed a lot of pages have stub notices at the top, but can't find anything in the Manual of Style or other help pages to suggest whether this is a community practice. Hence, I find it necessary to ask: Where the heck should the stub tag go? At the top or at the bottom? -- Essjay · Talk 05:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of Wikiquote's policies are informally based on Wikipedia policies and practices, augmented by informal Wikiquote-specific practices in its much shorter history. This leads to customs that vary between editors. You've identified one practice that has developed two customs.

Personally, I follow the WP style of tagging at the bottom to keep the notice out of the way of the article, on the theory that a stub article is typically so short that this message will be obvious to readers, especially if one adds extra vertical space to offset the tag. (With the recent addition of categories embedded in tags, any editors wishing to find stub articles to work on don't need to see the message — they typically find their target articles through category listings.)

Others, I believe, prefer to add the tag to the top to get the attention of readers, who are more likely to expand an article they're reading, and because it is possible to have a Wikiquote article with a lot of infrastructure and few quotes, which would still be considered a stub but would be long enough for the message to fall below the first screen of the page.

Both views have good points, and I don't think we've actually established any formal policy on this (except as it may have snuck into larger policy issues). We should probably establish one practice, but we have only an incredibly tiny percentage of our editors who participate in policy issues, so many matters like this tend to take a while to lock down. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions (other than mentioning it here) on how to go about establishing a standard practice? I've been looking for a way to get more involved over here, this might be a good way to do that. Would a proposal on the MOS talk page, or on Wikiquote talk:Stub be a good starting point? -- Essjay · Talk 08:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's why I felt compelled to mention the "sneaking" into larger policy issues. I'm rather ashamed to admit that I haven't read Wikiquote:Stub, and I just now noticed it specifically recommends placing the stub tag at the top. This follows the second tagging method above, which MosheZadka, who did the hard work of establishing a Wikiquote-specific draft policy, tends to favor. As I've told him and many others before, Wikiquote's policy creation work is so understaffed and underread that most policies tend to come into being by one person doing most of the work, then asking for comments and hoping to get at least a few suggestions from a handful of folks. He's done the hard part; we just haven't done much follow-up yet (except for 121a0012 and a bit from Aphaia). I'm afraid the only useful contribution I made here was simply to agree to pointing any w:Wikipedia:Stub references to the new policy.

As you've deduced, Essjay, WQ talk:Stub is probably the best place to raise this issue. We might even call for general commentary on the draft before a formal vote in order to get folks to read the policy [embarrassed muttering]. Unfortunately, we have quite a few draft policies that need this kind of attention, so we welcome such enthusiam for policy work from our editors! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to jump in, be bold, and raise the tag placement issue on the talk page. I had read over the page, but clearly not carefully enough, as I too missed the line about where to place the tag. If there are other policies that need attention, maybe a policy revision project (does Wikiquote have WikiProjects?) is in order. I'd be happy to sign up for such! -- Essjay · Talk 10:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby nominate you, Essjay, for head of the project to start the policy revision project. You can investigate what it would take to establish something like WikiProjects here. Bear in mind that you are not likely to get more than 6 people on any single task on a project, and if you try creating more than few tasks, that number will approach mathematical zero. Seriously, I don't mean to sound discouraging, but en:Wikiquote is at an awkward stage where it's too big for cowboy administration, but too small for wiki-style mass adminstration. (After several years, we have only 6 active sysops (1 hyperactive!) and 3 semi-active ones.) I'm afraid the construct-a-policy-and-ask-for-comments model is the most effective at this point, and each policy change usually goes through 2-4 cycles of activity over 4-12 months before enough people (nearly always just sysops, but sometimes other editors too) get serious about establishing an arguably consensual policy. Of course, the more folks like yourself that start participating, the closer we'll get to a robust effort. Dig in! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One thing only Aphaia and I tend to do is to add such discussions to Wikiquote:Community portal. I've already added a link to this discussion there. Thanks! ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the generous nomination, Jeff, I think... ;-) I have taken the liberty of creating Wikiquote:WikiProject and Wikiquote:WikiProject Policy Revision off the pages/templates used on Wikipedia. I've set out the basic goals of the policy revision project as I gathered them to be (from this discussion); anyone who is interested, feel free to revise it to improve the clarity. I'll do my best to go through the existing policies (using Special:AllPages on the Wikiquote namespace) to identify which are which. It seems to me the best way to identify them would be to have a couple of categories that the policy pages could be tagged with; they would be out-of-the-way, but still provide a central location to go to when looking for policies to revise/adopt/implement. Hopefully I haven't stepped over what you have in mind; if I have, feel free to whack me back in my place with a fresh trout, as I'm used to dealing with the Wikipedia hierarchy and won't mind a bit. ;-) -- Essjay · Talk 18:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I've created a monster. However, I've put away my trout, because this monster seems likely to spur some badly needed work. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does everyone think of the format used in Antonin Scalia?

The high contrast of the light blue of the links on the pale yellow-orange of "FFFFCC" is somewhat hard on the eyes, and I think a recessed comment line looks better than a protruding one. If colors were to become used in a more general way in articles, I think a very light blue or grey would be preferable, but I feel that the addition of section codes can be very confusing to people. ~ Kalki 20:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you like the idea of using the <small> tag for source lines, like here? Do you think that just using indentation is clear enough, or in general it's a good idea to find a better way to differentiate between quotes and sources? And also, should source lines begin with the word "Source:", or not? It's a good idea to have general guidelines for all of this? iddo999 21:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't much care for it. Adding even more markup makes life harder for editors and parsers. 121a0012 03:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but shouldn't the top priority be clarity for the reader? iddo999 07:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The usual priority, I think, is readers', then editors', then sysops' convenience. But the wiki philosophy holds ease of editing as a primary goal. Although I like the look, I wouldn't be in favor of it without direct wiki markup support. (Consider that, on Wikipedia, most color use is provided through templates for messages and infoboxes, which can be tuned by a small group for use by all editors.) I'm already unhappy with the complexity we've had to introduce just to make cinematic dialog and poetry work. The constant revision of such articles just for reformatting is a significant overhead. If we could get some Foundation and developer support for markup enhancement, we might pursue this, but personally I feel too busy on basic work to look into this, and I don't like to advocate infrastructure changes I don't feel able to invest time in. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also hate the <small> for source lines. Source lines are as important as the original text -- they are what sets wikiquote above the other quotation sites. I think the mixture of fonts is waaaay too hard on the eyes. In general, I believe design should be up to designers. Note that people, with a little CSS hacking, could already achieve the smallifications of sub-bullet's marked "Source:". Thus, putting it in the wikisource is completely extraneous. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To reduce much (or even most) of some of the most tedious and contentious of the work load here, I propose that we request that the developers remove the option for new page creation by anonymous users, similar to the new policy on Wikipedia — in our case it would much reduce, or even largely eliminate the casual creation of the vanity pages that are the primary subject of deletion votes, and would even constrain some of the activity of the spam vandals. As with the Wikipedia, anons could still edit the existing pages, but by simply creating a user name with their own user pages those inclined to post their personal quotes would immediately have a place where they are welcome to do it, without the creating of article pages that would eventually be deleted. ~ Kalki 20:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC) (Support)[reply]

• I'm in favor. There's a drawback with regard to the possibility that someone would create both a vanity userpage and the vanity page that he wanted to create, or in other words, anon edits have advantages, like when they are used for fixing a typo without bothering to register an account. But overall, I think that blocking the creation of new pages by anons has more advantages (the ones Kalki mentioned) than drawbacks. iddo999 07:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I'd tend to agree; there is also the advantage that if they create a vanity page in the wrong userspace, we can move it to thier userpage with a note on their talk, instead of deleting outright, which isn't likely to make them want to come back. -- Essjay · Talk 07:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Actually, I think we can move main-namespace vanity pages to user pages now (consider the implied practice resulting in speedy deletion case #7), as part of a VfD recommendation or even in a non-VfD discussion with the article creator. (Is there such a think as a "vanity userpage"? That seems redundant redundant. ☺) I've recommended moving vanity articles to user pages several times in VfD votes, but so far, I don't think any anon has taken me up on the offer, even when they later register. (I could probably try harder to convince them, but I confess that I get a little impatient with them sometimes and tend to focus more on citing policy than helping them to establish a user identity.) Anyway, I definitely support Kalki's suggestion, not only for all the reasons cited so far, but also because I'm tired of posting "An editor using this IP address did whatever" on IP talk pages so often, to avoid confusing other users of that address. With anon page creation turned off, communication about questionable new pages would go into a proper user talk page. Plus, it encourages editors to be friendly by registering an identity, even while retaining (even enhancing) their anonymity. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. I don't think we have any pressing need for this because the vandalism level to this wiki so far has been quite low. We only get few bad pages per day and we block spammers more aggressively than some other projects. I don't oppose this change though. jni 07:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The vanity page problem may not seem to be major compared to, say, Wikipedia, but the real problem is that our active editors who work on maintenance have a pressing, inadequately served need to work on policy issues. Until we boost our regular maintenance staff to a couple dozen or so, anything that reduces the load in one area frees us to work on other areas. We don't want to unduly inconvenience editors, of course, but registering an identity on a website that you wish to post to is extremely common these days, and we don't require any personal information (even the email address is optional), so I don't think this is an obtrusive requirement. And as iddo999 pointed out, anonymous editors could still edit articles and post comments. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, for all the reasons cited above and also in the hopes that we will have fewer nonsense or barely-there pages created. ~ UDScott 20:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I bulleted this list and formatted it "like a vote" because it will make it easier to point to for the developers. If I see brion in #wikimedia, I'll point him this way. -- Essjay · Talk 11:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per the advice I received in #wikimedia, I've posted Bug 4565 on Bugzilla, which has apparently been closed because we haven't waited long enough and/or the Board has to approve this. I'll bring it up to Jimbo, Angela, & Anthere when I see them in the channel tomorrow. -- Essjay · Talk 21:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I had not intended to make any official inquiries until after allowing a week or two for responses, but I did expect that most of the admins and regular editors here would agree that it was desirable measure. ~ Kalki 22:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It usually takes a while (I don't know how long we waited to get the new user log, months minimum) to get any new features up and going, for the precise reason that the developers are incredibly busy keeping the site running and have to fit requests like these in when they had the time. I was astounded to see that it was closed so quickly; I figured that it would be February before they had the chance to look at a new bug request. (February, minimum, because I figure they already have so many to look over.) I was just trying to get us in line, with the expectation that the matter would be settled long before it would ever be responded to. (That's not a shot at the devs, I love and respect them all, just the observation that they're incredibly overworked.) -- Essjay · Talk 03:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this needs more discussion and it's too early to be voting. I don't know if the Wikiquote community itself is large enough to make this decision, especially not through a poll that hasn't been widely advertised. The effect of disabling anon page creation on the English Wikipedia need to be considered before the same thing is implemented elsewhere, and I don't know if there has been any final report on that yet. Even if it was successful there, I'm not convinced it's the best thing for Wikiquote, since there are far fewer users here, so restricting who can edit when the project is so small could have a very negative effect on its growth. Angela 14:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so far anons have mostly contributed a lot of work for what few regulars are here. Observe the size of VfD and the community's difficulty of handling that load. Such a limitation would mean people would be contactable. I would also advice looking at Category:Wikiquote no intro for the vast amounts of crap anon users manage to contribute. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crap! I better get what editing I want template:vandal in quick! 68.39.174.238 05:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any chance we could get some Audio files on here. What I was thinking of was for things in Category:Tongue twisters. This would be somewhat amusing methinks. --Wonderfool 19:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Audio files in ogg format, released under the GNU FDL or into the public domain could be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and linked to from here. ~ Rumour 19:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather new to contributing but I'd just like to know if there is a policy in place for when a stub has become a full fledged article? Such as say a set number of quotes minimum.

DFA 23:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote:Stub would be a starting place, but having just rewritten that, I know it doesn't mention the subject. My suggestion, and of course, this bears no authority, is that once an article has a decent intro and more than 10 quotes it can be de-stubbed. Others might have a different standard. A quick guide I would use is that if you have to scroll down to read it all, it isn't a stub. It may still bear expanding, but it has passed the limit for "stub." Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 14:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a complicated question. A Wikiquote article on a film or a TV show can have two pages of infrastructure without a single quote, and should therefore still be considered a stub. (This can happen with literary works, too. For example, someone can create headings for an author's major works, but include few if any quotes.) I suspect the best answer for stub articles is to consider how many quotes it contains, as Essjay suggests. I would say that articles without intros or infrastructure, but a decent number of quotes, might more usefully treated as cleanup candidates, not stubs. Just my 2¢. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I usually used a rough guideline of >10 quotations is not a stub. hequote uses 20. 3 quotations or less is almost certainly a stub. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To my fellow Family Guy afficianados - i'm currently trying to create a complete list of Stewie's insults - ANY HELP WOULD BE WONDERFUL! It's far too big a job for me to do alone. Also - if any quote is mislabeled with the wrong episode, please do not hesitate to correct it!

Thanks again! ewok37 22:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

here's the link:Stewie Griffin Insult Collection

I am looking to get an email address to contact jesse jackson, Can you help?

Sorry, we aren't affiliated with any celebrities, we only host collections of quotes by celebrities. Try a Yahoo or Google search to find his official webpage if he has one. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 02:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, I attempted to make some improvements to Abortion, which I know has a checkered history (with a failed vote for deletion.) Specifically, I broke up the "Pro-choice" section of the article, which contains many quotations that were purposefully added to slant the article towards the side of pro-choice people with doubts about the validity of abortion rights, into two sections: "umambiguously pro-choice", and "ambiguously pro-choice". User:Mr. Grace reverted all my changes and announced on the talk page that the categories had been "set based on past discussion" and not to change them without discussing them on the talk page. However, given this user's comments on the vote for deletion page, I doubt that any rational discussion is possible which would get him to stop reverting any changes which resulted in pro-choice quotations being separated out from non-pro-choice quotations. Another user on the talk page suggested that the quotations simply be alphabetized, without separation by ideology, but I suspect that if this change were made, User:Mr. Grace would revert it as well. It seems to me that immediately reverting a large change that was made in good faith, without discussing it on the talk page, is bad faith editing.

Any suggestions here? Does Wikiquote have an arbitration process like Wikipedia does? Given the history page, I suspect that rational discussion is not going to be effective in keeping this user from exercising possessiveness over the article. Catamorphism 18:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that some of the longer quotes from Henry David Thoreau contain parts of two adjacent paragraphs, with no indication of a paragraph break. Since the bullet-list format does not seem to allow for paragraph breaks, it seems to me that these longer entries should be split into separate quotes at the paragraph breaks. I can see some value in noting that certain paragraphs follow each other, but I don't think the author's original paragraph breaks should be removed or obscured, and I don't see any other way to maintain them. Has this issue ever come up before? It seems like this would be a good use for the HTML Blockquote tag, but I see elsewhere that this is discouraged. Anyone have a better idea? -Rbean 05:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend against breaking the quotes up. If they are truly quotable as a whole, they should be together. Separating them not only makes it possible for well-intentioned editors to rearrange the pieces by accident, but also interferes with the presentation of the passage, since they will look like multiple unrelated quotes. (One thing to consider is the possibility that the quote should be trimmed to its essentials. Far too often, editors feel compelled to include many paragraphs of a quote when a pithy sentence or two may convey the point.)

There are two common ways in use at Wikiquote to achieve paragraph breaks within the bullet format:

1. Indent subsequent paragraphs with a bullet-colon combination (*:). The resulting identation isn't quite lined up with the first paragraph, but all subsequent ones are aligned. The biggest drawback of this method is that it breaks second-level bulleting (**) for citing sources and adding contexts. (This is one of the causes of the odd double-bulleting seen in some articles and many talk pages.)
2. Use a <br/> tag to separate paragraphs within the continuous, multi-paragraph text. This achieves the same alignment for all paragraphs, and doesn't break the source bulleting. Its main drawback is that it isn't particularly elegant for editing purposes.

Unfortunately, there is no ideal solution with the current wiki markup. I've wanted to revisit this issue at Meta (having seen no interest in dialog/poetry/long-text formatting markup long ago), but haven't yet because I suspect it would require considerable time and effort to make a proper case. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Not sure if this is the correct place to write this, but I just translated most of Evo Morales from the Spanish wikiquote, where it is currently a front page article. I figured it lacked an English version, and is an interesting enough subject, so I might as well go ahead and translate. I write this here so that the article can maybe get a little attention. Cheers, – w:User:Andyluciano 128.151.92.148 06:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just counted ~680 pages in the Authors category. I think that's about five times what we had when I started contributing. 121a0012 05:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So awesome!!! Go us!

I recently updated the Wikipedia and Wikimedia merchandise shops and even created a new one for Wikinews. Now I want to create one for Wikiquote. Beside having the obvious, your neat logo, what else would you like on your merchandise? The logo and name would go on front, but what should go on the back of items? Wikipedia merchandise has just the logo on front and a smaller logo on the back with 'The Free Encyclopedia' written in 19 different languages along with the URL and 'Millions of articles, hundreds of languages, all free'. Wikinews merchandise has the Wikinews logo and name on front of items and 'CITIZEN JOURNALIST' and the Wikinews URL on back. I imagine that you'all would like to have some famous quotations on back, but which? What else should go on the back besides maybe a smaller version of the logo and URL? -- Maveric149 03:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mav for your offer, and has there been any thought? As far as I know, many projects among us has "quotation" page and from there we could have nice quotes; or simple "Free collection of quotations" might be neat. Thoughts? --Aphaia 11:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm delighted to find this project, as for years I've had a mental collection of fiction quotes which are very illustrative of their time and place. I'd like to add material to Wikiquote (short extracts here, whole texts at Wikisource, right?), and am not sure whether to go with Themes or Categories.

For example, I've added a quote from Walter Scott to w:Royal Mail that should perhaps go here instead. I'm guessing it should go in the article Sir Walter Scott, rather than on a theme page called mail services (or whatever), and then have a category {mail}. And I foresee stuff on transport (paragraphs about trains, ship voyages etc) which won't sit comfortably among the one-liners on the Transport theme page: I feel these too should be on the author's page with a category to link. Am I thinking correctly here? There are implications for the structure of pages (might mean themed subheads). JackyR 19:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm adrift already – I see Themes has articles in it, like a category. HELP!! JackyR 20:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally it is best to put quotations by authors on their own pages, and then put any theme-related quotes you are especially fond of onto pages for that specific theme — these can be created if necessary, but thus far, with a few notable exceptions, theme-pages have not been the most worked on here. ~ Kalki 20:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, still confused. Where do I put a theme-related quote by Walter Scott? (This eg is a couple of paragraphs from w:The Antiquary about the w:Royal Mail.) thanks, JackyR 21:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, see Sir Walter Scott for eg. JackyR 23:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'd just like to add to this categories/themes section that I would really like to see the theme "Awareness", if anyone wants to work on that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.160.0.138 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If you have one or more quotes on this theme, you are welcome to start such a page yourself. You can use the theme input box at Help:Starting a new page to get you started. It helps if you provide a short (1-3 sentence) introduction, possibly borrowed from the corresponding Wikipedia article, making clear what is meant by "awareness". (This can be a rather fuzzy term.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was curious if anyone was interested in making a Wikiquote "Quote of the Day" widget for Mac OS. It would be great! Un sogno modesto 08:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- Hi, there is a good Mac widget already out there on Quotations Book --81.133.178.125 12:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really excited about an idea I have for a page here- Famous False Predictions. I've compiled a really great list so far, using several online resources and several print. Here's the type of quotes I'm referring to:

“Radio has no future.” - LORD KELVIN, Scottish mathematician and physicist, former president of the Royal Society, 1897

“I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” - THOMAS WATSON, chairman of IBM, 1943 on seeing the first mainframe computer

I have a big categorized list of these types of quotes. What kind of page should I make here? What should the title of the page be? 68.230.184.92 02:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest the title be something like "Failed predictions", because "false" could be construed as bad-faith (of which there are plenty as well, and shouldn't be confused with the kind you've collected). "Famous" is redundant, as any such prediction that isn't notable enough to have a published source shouldn't be listed. (I'm sure we'll get plenty of those, too.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CORRECTION: I forgot that we already have Incorrect predictions, which already has both of the examples 68.230.184.92 cited. I recommend adding other quotes to that article instead. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside Thomas Watson was probably right when he said that and with the computers that were available then ;)

There are still problems with Mr. Grace reverting most edits made by other editors. Most recently, he added a quotation from Katha Pollitt that was edited in order to reflect a particular POV. I added the unedited version of the quote, and several other quotes from Pollitt. Mr. Grace reverted all the changes I made without posting the removed quotations for discussion on the talk page. I have tried to suggest to this user (who, in his entire history on Wikiquote, has never edited any articles other than Abortion and talk pages) that possessive behavior isn't constructive, but he responds by making personal attacks. Administrative intervention would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. 03:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Three unfortunate circumstances have combined to make administrative assistance on Abortion virtually impossible. First, there is a small group of one-topic editors who seem to have made it their mission on Wikiquote to bias that article to their points of view, often using very sophistic arguments that take considerable effort to parse. Second, we have only a few active sysops at this time, and only 3 at the moment who are frequent editors on general subjects. (Two of those spend a considerable amount of time deleting junk articles.) Third, most of the sysop staff spent a few months last year trying to work out compromises on this article, and failed utterly to deter the concerted bias. We simply don't have enough regular general-subject editors to spend so much time on any one article. I don't see this problem changing anytime in the foreseeable future. (How I wish it were otherwise!) I will commit to ensuring that the POV tag remains in the article until this situation changes if someone lets me know it's being removed (I don't watch it anymore because it's too depressing), and if someone violates policy specifically relating to that tag's removal, I will block them per Wikiquote:Blocking policy. Beyond that, I don't feel I can do any justice to the article without sacrificing both my objectivity and my ability to work on critically-needed general Wikiquote maintenance. I'm sorry I can't help more. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response; it's good to know that admins are aware that this is a continuing issue, even if the resources to do something about it don't exist. Catamorphism 01:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The abortion page has loads of quotes from all perspectives. Many quotes made in support of abortion - and that certainly express support for abortion - seem to backfire when you actually read them! Not sure how posting such pro-choice quotes is POV. Wikiquote is supposed to be a source of quotes - hopefully most will be thought-provoking or eye-opening. Many of the folks out there seem to want to hide what people have said in defense of abortion. That is an odd perspective. Keep adding quotes. Catamofism has added plenty. Not sure what the fuss is about. She seems to want to make a lot out of the fact that I posted part of a very lengthy pro-choice quote that was critical of pro-choicers going soft on the issue (made by a more hard-line abortion supporter, Pollit) that was not excerpted as she would have done. Not sure how a short conflict - eventually resolved - about that quote or any other quote is anything but an example of dialgue between editors. The fact that I monitor this one article makes some people upset. Tough teddybears. Its my little contribution to wikiquote. If you review my edits, they may certainly indicate my personal view (as do Catamorf's own edits), but my edits do NOT aim to keep out quotes from any other perspective. That is undeniable. Please stop painting me as an ogre because I keep tabs on this one article. Its just not very nice of you and makes it seem like you have no respect for a diversity of views. Thank you. Mr. Grace

Hi all

I've worked on the Star Trek Original Series quotes article http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Original_Series for a week now and I'd like to know if it is good now. It still has the Cleanup tag, would it be okay to remove it? There might be some errors, I haven't proofread the entire thing yet, or cross-checked the original to see if I've accidently goofed up something while cut-pasting the changes. Also, this is the first time I'vve done such major modifications to any article and especially wikiquotes so I'm really eager to hear your opinions if it's good or not. "May the force..." err... "One to beam up." :)

Sincerelly, Kimmo Laine

A phenonenal job, Kimmo! I've done some supplemental cleanup (removed quote marks and some excess heading information, added categories, etc.). The article still needs a few additions, like "Cast", "See also", and "External links" sections, but this should be relatively easy to do. (I may tackle it myself a bit later.) There are also some formatting and link questions raised by your efforts, but they can be discussed on the talk page. But you did the heavy lifting. Thanks! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So here's a thing. Currently many pages use the (agreed) format:
==Sourced==
===Book title===

• blah blah
  

===Book title===

• blah blah
  

==Unsourced==

• blah blah
  

But the first header, "Sourced", is kinda redundant, since the books give the sources. And if I want to add a sub-sub-head, to give a theme, date, chapter or just structure for readability within a given title, I'm already out of header-types. See Jean-Jacques Rousseau for an eg of the problem.

I propose that, while keeping the concept that sourced material comes before unsourced, we drop the header "Sourced". (Keeping headers for "Unsourced", "Misattributed", etc is fine - these will act like book titles.) JackyR 20:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually done in some places; e.g., television shows whose episodes have been completely identified (which use "Unknown episode" for their "Attributed" sections). One reason not to do this for books is because many articles have quotes from various sources that aren't books by the quotees, or single quotes from works that make it somewhat cumbersome to create a heading for the one quote. These kinds of quotes typically go in the space immediately following the "Sourced" heading. Another problem is that many editors don't realize our emphasis on sourcing. When people add unsourced quotes to a "Sourced" section, it's relatively easy for other editors to notice the problem and move the quotes. But many book sections fail to include chapter or page numbers, so it's hard to verify them as sourced.

The Jean-Jacques Rousseau article seems to be using text formatting rather than section markup for headings below H3. There are at least two more levels (==== and =====) that can be used. Rather than create subsections for themes or chapters, it might be better to sort the quotes in the order they appear in the works and provide chapter numbers in the usual source line, or even page numbers if a particular edition is cited. This also makes it easier for editors to verify and readers to find the material in print. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Deleted accidental 2nd appearance of above § JackyR 21:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hmm, still not convinced about the "Sourced" bit, but ta for the rest. I've put in an H4 heading, and found the very useful Wikiquote:Guide to layout (which deprecates such headings...). But it's answered most of my questions. Except the one about double bullets for comments/source after a quotation.

Puhleeze don't tell me this is fixed in stone. If you do, I shall challenge you to provide a professionally designed book anywhere that uses such a style. Sorry, but it's ghastly – and confusing. The known function of a double bulleted list is to show "Here is a list, of which the single bullet above is effectively the header." To use it where this is not the meaning is confusing and uncomfortable for the reader. Also, a bullet means "And here's an item starting", when what we mean is "Here's some data trailing off the above." If what we're really trying to do is have the comments/sourcing inset from the quote itself, can I suggest using an m-dash or twiddle, or just developing an inset (like colon?). Honestly, I'm a book editor by profession, and work with complex layouts, and I would never allow such a monstrosity as this.

Sorry to be so forthright – you folk have done heroic work on this site, and I'm not knocking it. But this bit does need to be sorted. Cheers,JackyR 21:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JackyR, you raise some good points. Let me address a few by using bullets in a more approrpriate manner. ☺

• The author of the relevant section in WQ:GtL was recommending against using subheadings to organize books into genres; i.e., recommending for book titles to be at H3 level. What I meant (but didn't say) was to suggest that works that combine logical entities, like essays within a book, might reasonably use an H4 heading. We should, however, try to avoid too much nesting. There's nothing wrong with having 20 quotes from a book without subsectioning if they are in order of occurrence and especially if they have chapter or page numbers. (Nothing except the potential for copyright problems, that is.)
• The use of bullets for quotes is largely historical and derived, I believe, from the combination of the need to use simplified wiki markup and the need to make clear what's a quote and what isn't. Wikiquote has gone through several generations of editors with differing opinions about formatting (obvious when wandering through random pages), and the bulleted format has stuck with us through all these generations.
• If I had to hazard a guess about why bullets often beat out dashes, "twiddles" (tildes, I assume), and indents, I'd offer the following:
  • Characters like dashes and tildes leave the quotes on the same line as the source, context, translation, and other non-quote material. This can get quite cumbersome. Then we have the arguments over whether we should italicize or bold the quote or the context.
  • Indents are a reasonable alternative, and in some ways are preferable, but aren't as clear as bullets. The eye finds it easier to line up identical graphical dots in a column rather than a class of alphanumeric characters or even quote marks. However, indents are in use in some places, like for poetry and song lyrics, where bullets can't adequately address formatting needs.
• Virtually nothing in a Wikimedia Foundation project is set in stone — certainly not formatting. But because we have so very few folks who wish to work on policy issues, and even fewer who wish to fix articles that no longer follow current policy, inertia absolutely rules en:Wikiquote. This won't change, no matter what a few enthusiatic editors may decide, until we get a lot more regular editors. Until then, you might notice that draft policy articles like Wikiquote:Guide to layout tend to have only 1 or 2 people working on them, and only in fits and starts. They often express the opinions of a single editor because the rest of the frequent editors haven't taken the time to review, discuss, and update them. (I am as guilty of this as nearly everyone here.)

I hate to sound so discouraging, but I spent many months last year working on policy articles, and I was happy just to get some basic things like deletion practices, expanded help, and formatting guidelines for newer media (like film and TV) established. We still have quite a way to go in this project. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phew, I'm not making up it after all. "Twiddle" really does mean curly mark (per Chambers dic, anyway), while "tilda" refers to "curly mark over top of a letter". Sorry, we both know what we mean (and it's the same mark), but I thought I must have invented the former! :-) JackyR 17:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, some examples. And I now realise this has all been discussed above, but didn't seem very set on any particular solution.

• Ipsem lorum blah blahblah lorum blah blblah blahblah lorum blah blah blahblah lorum blah Ipsem lorum blah bla em lorum blah blahblah lorum blah blblah blahblah lorum blah blah blahblah lorum bla em lorum blah blahblah lorum blah blblah blahblah lorum blah blah blahblah lorum bla em lorum blah blahb
  —Jacky R, experiment, 2006, etc etc

• Ipsem lorum blah blahblah lorum blah blblah blahblah lorum blah blah blahblah lorum blah Ipsem lorum blah bla em lorum blah blahblah lorum blah blblah blahblah lorum blah blah blahblah lorum bla em lorum blah blahblah lorum blah blblah blahblah lorum blah blah blahblah lorum bla em lorum blah blahb
  ~Jacky R, experiment, 2006, etc etc

JackyR 22:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these look better than two-level bullets (though I'd add a space between the punctuation and the text). There may also be ways to adapt them to the multiple types of non-quote material (source, context, translation, etc.) without losing the visual impact. Despite what I said above, I think it's worth considering for our next pass at formatting guidelines. You should probably post suggestions at Wikiquote talk:Templates. I can't promise any quick action on this, but it's probably the best place to start. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the huge long answers, and sorry for sounding bossy... :-) JackyR 13:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm the only one, but I prefer the bullet-list style over either of these, and of the two examples above, I prefer the em-dash to the swung dash. Remember that the primary use of this style is in people pages; how is this going to look when the citation is "p. 27"? Also consider that having the citation as a separate element makes it much easier to parse out the citations later, particularly considering the likelihood of inconsistent application of any style. 121a0012 21:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not familiar enough with all the different contexts (despite the best efforts of Random article) - could you throw a few specific articles at me? I'm afraid I'm a being bit dense and don't get how "p27" is more of a problem with an m-dash than with a bullet. "Citation as a separate element" - you mean from the mark-up POV? Because in the browse view it's again as separate as with a bullet point. Btw, I've taken Jeff's advice and moved to Wikiquote talk:Templates#Source lines - with a suggestion which might reconcile all the above. Cheers, JackyR 18:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the local "Reqested moves" page, so I'll ask here. Can someone move Police Squad to Police Squad!? According to the WikipediA and the shows titlecard, the offical name has the "!" in it. Thanx 68.39.174.238 05:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC) BTW. I'm more immediately reachable on the WikipediA with the same talk page I have here.[reply]

You don't have to request a move. Any editor can move an article by using the "move" tab or link on the article page (at the top center in the default Monobook page style). But I went ahead and did the move. Thanks for calling it to our attention. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, but I'm an IP so I have to ask. Anyway thanx. 68.39.174.238 04:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some work there, also created {{vandal}}, {{indefblockeduser}} and edited {{impostor}}. All new template stuff came from existing ones on the WikipediA, which has the same license. I've been doing work on organizing the WikipediA's vandalism record pages, and decided to try here as well as on other English Wikimedia wikis. Before doing any archiving or anything else further I wanted to get some opinions on what I've done sofar incase it all sux. Thanx. 68.39.174.238 06:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC) I'll try and respond here, on my talk page, or if you really want to get my attention, on my WikipediA talk page. Thanx again![reply]

I have opened a new discussion on a major revision of Wikiquote:Speedy deletions at Wikiquote talk:Speedy deletions#Major revision to WQ:SD. The basic idea is to streamline the existing cases for Wikiquote-specific situations and introduce Wikipedia cases that were added since we last copied over their policy as a basis for ours. This change should have two important effects:

1. Many new pages that clearly don't meet Wikiquote and WikiMedia Foundation policies (e.g., obvious vanity pages, attack pages, clear copyright violations) can be nominated for speedy deletion and removed quickly.
2. Work on Wikiquote:Votes for deletion would be significantly reduced, freeing up time to work on other badly needed policy updates.

I am hoping we can move quickly on this matter, which has been festering for far too long. I encourage the community to make comments and suggestions and ask questions on the talk page cited above. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would be nice to include a page filled with memorable quotes from comic book characters. Yes, I know this asking for the impossible, as there is more than 60 years worth of it all. We could always start with the big two companies - Marvel and DC. Then from there, we focus on their major characters and the things they have said from over half a century. Wikipedia is definitely a good source to start with. Contributions would be greatly appreciated!

Actually, we already have quite a few quotes from comic books, under specific titles. (A single article would be far, far too large and unwieldy.) Check out Category:Comics, which is a subcategory of Category:Literary works listed on the Main Page. A quick check shows 82 articles currently in the main category or its main subcategories, including Marvel and DC as well as manga, comic strips, and webcomics. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I consulted the quotes of Robert Heinlein, and found what I was seeking: the author's own words for the oft-not-exactly-correctly quoted "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity". However seeing its source listed as the novel Logic of Empire made me realize that this may or may not be the author's own sentiments, but rather one of his character's.

Perhaps most characters' quotes do in fact represent the author's own sentiments, but it is a mistake to always assume so. I propose it would be wise to adopt -- where possible -- a convention on Wikiquote that distinguishes the two. For example:

"To be or not to be, that is the question..." -- the character Hamlet, in William Shakespear's play The Tragedy of Hamlet

seems more appropriate than:

"To be or not to be, that is the question..." -- William Shakespear

Comments? Worthwhile, or too much effort?

Harasty 18:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Often the character has been specified, especially in quotes from within plays, and this is usually desirable, but there is no rule that it must be done, nor any fixed format for doing so. ~ Kalki 20:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...rest your trigger on my finger...

I am aware that Wikiquote has a mailing list for users that are interested in receiving the Quote of the Day, and I was wondering whether an RSS version had been made so that a user can view the quote on a website rather than through e-mail. I apologize if it already exists, but I have been unable to find anything about it, and if it indeed exists, it would be convenient if it were made more easily accessible.

There was an experiment made by Datasage last summer, discussed at "RSS feed for QOTD" but there was little interest indicated; the RSS feed created externally never became officially endorsed, was never hosted by Wikimedia, and seems to have been abandoned. ~ Kalki 00:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania 2006, the second International Wikimedia Conference, will be held August 4-6, 2006 at Harvard Law School in Boston, Massachusetts.

Everyone is welcome to submit ideas for presentations, in 300 words or less. Please submit these before April 15, 2006.

Ideas for workshops, tutorials, and panels are due by March 31, 2006.

You can also join translation team and give a help. --Aphaia 09:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just asked about this on the talk page for MythBusters, but I figure I would ask here to get some more opinions. My question relates to what should be used for the titles of episodes.

For those unfamiliar with the show's format, it's an hour-long TV program where the hosts usually pick two or three myths or urban legends and test whether they would have occurred. These are usually unrelated to each other, so each segment is independent of each other on the show.

For the first several episodes, the episode titles (from the Discovery Channel (which airs the show in the U.S.) website) include two- or three-word summaries of all the myths. For later episodes, the titles are cut to just one of the myths (but there are still three to a show, generally). While formatting the page to comply with the template, I used the episode titles from the website; recently, an anon user (195.188.250.140) has been going through and expanding the titles to include some of the other myths in an episode.

On the one hand, having the longer titles gives more (and more appropriate) context for some of the listed quotes, which wouldn't seem to make much sense if you thought they related to the myth for which the episode is (short-)titled; on the other hand, they aren't technically the correct titles.

I don't imagine this problem comes up with very many other shows, so I don't think there should be a guideline about it, but is there any consensus on which style to use in a case like this?

Thanks. —LrdChaos 14:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should use the most canonical titles available, possibly changing only style elements to meet Wikiquote practices (e.g., standard proper noun capitalization). Wikiquote, like other WikiMedia projects, aspires to accuracy by insisting on reliable, sourced information. For MythBusters, I see that the Discovery Channel provides what it calls a fan site, but appears to be as official a site as is available. IMDb, our preferred source for general canonical title info, has a Mythbusters episode page. There are also such pages available at TV.com and EpGuides.com. All four of these sites seem to agree on the switch from full titles for earlier shows to single-myth titles for later ones. As I've had to agree on Veronica Mars, we aren't in the business of fixing the creators' inelegant choices. However, it might make sense to have subheadings for individual segments, or some other means to indicate what segment a quote is contained within. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd mention something I (and probably others) have been doing for a while now, but which has no formal statement or explanation that I know of here at Wikiquote. Many fictional works quote other works, often as part of a humorous or dramatic statement of their own. A Mystery Science Theater 3000 example:

[Crow continues his Lugosi monologue about the actors as the credits list the remaining players.]

Crow [as Bela Lugosi]: I forget who did what here. I say, "Shoot the picture! Let God sort it out."

which refers to the following Latin proverb:

• Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.
  • Translation: "Slay them all. God will know his own."
  • Variation: "Kill them all. Let God sort them out."

Of course, there's not much point in including the referencing quote in the newer work unless it has its own reason to be cited, as in the humor of the above example. But when we do add these quotes, rather than force people to wonder about such a cultural reference, internal wiki links provide us with a convenient way to link to that quote or reference without adding messy explanatory notes that can detract from the appearance of the quoted text.

We can easily provide standard links to articles like Latin proverbs, William Shakespeare, and the Bible, but the reader must then search the page for the quote, and the reference may be rephrased in a way that makes it hard to find the original. One somewhat-reasonable way to provide a direct link to a quote (or, for that matter, explanatory text in a Wikipedia article) is to mark the quote or text with a SPAN ID tag, like so:

• <span id="kill-them-all"/>Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

This HTML markup allows editors to provide direct wiki links to the text, like so:

• … I forget who did what here. I say, "[[Latin proverbs#kill-them-all|Shoot the picture! Let God sort it out.]]"

As I mentioned above, I don't believe we have any policy on the use of these links. There are advantages and disadvantages to this system, which I won't go into here unless people want to discuss them. But I wanted to describe it here to let people know how to make this work, and possibly to stimulate discussion of its use here at Wikiquote. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree with idea of tagging individual quotes. I've been wanting to do this since I found WQ, but didn't know how: thanks for the demo! I work mostly on WP, and use WQ as a repository for WP articles to draw on. It's more helpful to refer the WP reader to the specific WQ quote one is referencing, rather than a whole page of "A.N. Other". I hope these tags (anchors?) work for inter-Wiki links. Please, make this an official help article! (Linking to a specific quote?) JackyR 15:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reluctant to advocate general use of this system because it has the potential to interfere with section headings and other wiki markup, especially if not done correctly. I consider it something like bolding favorite quotes in articles, which is a WQ tradition from earlier years that doesn't convey well to a much large compendium (and much larger number of editors to argue over favorites). Wikiquote has a general need for per-quote links, but I'm not aware of any reasonable way to address this yet within the MediaWiki software, which wasn't really designed with quote compendiums in mind. But it can be helpful when cross-linking quotes between articles. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think of a use, you think of a use, he/she thinks of a use... If the software can't handle it, better not to introduce it! Perhaps we should look for a temporary method that everyone can use: eg. comment in source line to referenced quote. So the note is there for if/when the software catches up. JackyR 17:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment lines (either in a short source line, or just below it) are a common means to provide these kinds of links. They work well enough with the standard bulleted-quote format for single quotations, but are problematic with TV or film dialog because they break the flow. (It's also a problem for poems and other non-standard formatting.) I started an experiment at MST3K a while back, using the ⇒ character as a means of visually setting off the explanatory note but still allowing the eye to skip over something that clearly doesn't look like the regular dialog formatting. But I've never been happy with this kludge. It seems like comment lines with links are the most practical general solution unless and until MediaWiki gains a clean method of providing non-heading anchors. A side note: for adding explanatory notes that don't include links, the {{hnote}} "hover note" template is now available. The argument to this template is text that will pop up (in all modern browsers) when the mouse "hovers" over the footnote-like ^[N] symbol, as this sentence demonstrates. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if this isn't the place, but it looked like the best section for asking a question that's been bothering me for months.

I maintain a site that has quotes from various TV shows. A few months ago, I was doing a search for a particularly worded quote from The OC to see if anyone was copying my quotes wholesale and posting them elsewhere. And I found your site.

I in absolutely no way claim copyright infringement. That would be hypocritical on my part. My question is what Wikiquote's policy is on a contributor copying a (very long) page of quotes from another site, posting them without any of their original formatting, and giving no credit to the original source. And thank you to whomever recently added the formatting, by the way.

I don't know if it's appropriate to mention my site's name, so I won't. This is in no way an attempt to increase traffic. It's just that I spent a lot of hours compiling the quotes and maintaining my site, and to see them copied and pasted here was frustrating. If the answer is, "Get over it" that's understandable. I'll move on. It just was bothering me so much that I finally got brave enough to post something here. Thanks in advance for any answers you might give me. As someone who's never contributed anything, I can't seem to find a way to link to my username (Planetclaire). I apologize for the lack of linkability.

Last question amswered first: add four tildes (~~~~) to the end of your posting to add a linked signature (either for username or anonymous IP, depending on whether you're logged in as a Wikiquote user).

To the main question: We try to discourage editors from copying data wholesale from other sites. Usually this is a copyright violation. If someone feels they have a copyright that has been violated, they should add a {{checkcopyright}} tag to the top of the problem article and post a note on its talk page with a link to the violated web pages (or a description for non-web material).

Admittedly, it's rather trickier with quotes, because quote sites can't copyright the quotes themselves, but only their presentation. We try to get editors to verify quotes using primary sources and to explicitly list those sources, which shows that, wherever they may have found the quotes at first, they have done the work that entitles Wikiquote to claim its own added value rather than ripping off someone else's work. (Another major reason to encourage this effort is that most quote sites merely rip off each other anyway, and are consequently riddled with the vast number of errors coming from the least accurate ones. I don't mean to suggest anything about your own site, especially since you haven't identified it. But this is my experience from doing quote verifications even before I came to Wikiquote.) However, as with Wikipedia, editors will do what they will, and without an editorial board, we need concerned content creators to let us know when they feel someone is taking advantage of them.

Finally, TV shows (and films) present an additional problem for Wikiquote. At this time, our standard format doesn't make use of otherwise-standard "Sourced" and "Attributed" sections, which usually divide quotes into verifiable material (good) and mere rumor (like too many other sites), with the goal to source the "attributed" quotes and delete those that can't be sourced. For TV shows, we've been operating on a de facto assumption that, for each show, there are committed editors who have tapes or DVDs that allow them to review any quotes that are entered into the per-episode sections and either verify, correct, or delete them, periodically or as they come in. (I'm fairly sure this has never been discussed on a general level, but the current formats were developed from articles that did have editors with these resources and commitment.) This worked well as late as a year ago, but is becoming problematic as the number of TV shows explodes without a corresponding increase in such editors. My informal sense of Wikiquote's status is that some TV-show articles are being created by just the kind of editing you're talking about — ripping off other TV-quote sites wholesale, with no regard to accuracy. (IMDb is a common target, and is easy to check because most of its articles have distinctive content, styles, and types of errors.) We will probably need to revisit TV-show formatting to address this problem. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support your main idea - other parts, I need time to make a comment efficient. We should discourage all editors to copy stuffs on the WWW into this project. I am afraid it would be ineffective to add "unless your online source is under GFDL/ in PD". Most reckless editors - in my Wikipedia/-news experience - have ignored or convinced their materials were totally acceptable to the project. Unfortunately, in many cases, not.

As for TV show article problem, it seems to me strange there has been no responce, though many of our active editors are interested in. Normally, people who love something is knowledgeable for that very subject. So, I'd like to hear those people - like MosheZ.

The core part could be drafted into a document like Wikiquote:Don't copy from another website. It would reduce potential danger of copyvio on this project, which suffered French Wikiquote even to their complete shutdown. --Aphaia 06:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DISCUSSION MOVED TO Wikiquote talk:Aims. JackyR 15:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if this has already been answered: please hit me and direct me to the appropriate place...

Early discussions at Talk:Main Page/old are informative, but not comprehensive (or even easy to find). Now Wikiquote is established, could we revisit the question and write a Wikiquote:Aims page? It might help with some of the smaller issues, like the squabbling at Abortion. Currently, we all just post whatever we want: if there's no copyright problem, it's all OK. And different editors contribute for different reasons. But as pages get larger and selections have to be made, we will need guidelines - a mission statement – if only to stop individuals excluding contributions by claiming to know the One True WQ Purpose. I'm starting a summary of possible Aims of WikiQuote below. Comments, please. JackyR 16:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote currently has quotes fulfilling the following purposes (incomplete list - pls expand):

1. Momentoes of films/books/people. Quotes that stick in your mind. You read the whole page: it helps you enjoy the best bits all over again, or celebrate the person. Usually one or two lines each. Eg Casablanca. JackyR 16:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. "Important" stuff. Quotes which have a life or importance of their own, often used by people who don't know the origin. Usually one or two lines. Eg above: Latin proverbs: Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius. JackyR 16:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Appendices to Wikipedia. Extracts from primary sources which are too long to be included in a Wikipedia article. Often three or four paragraphs, but could be much longer if a work were out of copyright. (What about a whole chapter? Too long for WP, too short for Wikisource. But format v different from one-liners.) These quotes can add enormous value to WP, but may not make interesting WQ pages on their own. Eg Jean-Jacques Rousseau:On the musicians of the Ospedale della Pieta (reference material for w:Ospedale della Pieta). JackyR 16:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Almost like an article. Quotes on a theme, selected to illustrate the theme from different points of view, times in history, etc. Suggested by not adhered to at Abortion. Could just as well apply to automobiles, football, etc. But insisting on balance could create conflict with (3). JackyR 16:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Pure theme. Every quote you've ever read/heard on the topic, particularly that supports your POV. If you can find and add more than the "competing" POV, good for you. This is what actually happens at Abortion, which now has size problems, and the likely fate of any cruft-attracting subject. JackyR 16:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. A resource for scholars. Oft-repeated quotations tracked to a verifiable source, for the earliest use identified by the WQ community. Much of modern culture is very difficult to search; by capturing catchphrases and aphorisms close to their origin, future students of language and culture will have a much easier time tracking down the quotations of tomorrow.
7. A true complement to Wikipedia. Many times, the best way to understand a person or literary work is through the original text—particularly when there are few independent primary sources. Someone who reads through all the quotations in Stephen Jay Gould should leave with a much better understanding of Gould's philosophy (as opposed to his scientific work) than is possible to convey in the Wikipedia article on him, since most of the independent primary sources on the subject share the same (anti-Gould) POV. Someone who reads James Nicoll should have a better understanding of what makes him notable. 121a0012 01:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the belief that a quotation should never be removed from WQ, unless it is:

1. truly insufficiently notable,
2. spurious or defamatory,
3. substantial enough to constitute a copyright violation, or
4. clearly not related to the subject of the page.

121a0012 01:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the the idea that quotes should stay unless they meet any of those conditions. For one, "truly insufficiently notable" seems like it could be stretched to include nearly everything, particularly in pages for TV shows and movies, where people are prone to add anything and everything (for example, the Aqua Teen Hunger Force pages was, for some episodes, almost the length of the whole (15 minute) episode. I also think that, for a person (say, an author), you could pull any quote out of one of their books, and just from that, it wouldn't be "truly insufficiently notable." This isn't to say that I think we should have roving bands of editors, stripping quote after quote from each and every page; I would much rather see a well-written guideline for what should be added in the first place, that's followed by editors. The next best thing is having that same guideline, and people occassionally checking some pages for things that "don't belong" and removing them as needed.

Now, as for just what does and does not belong, there are a few clear-cut cases for each. Certainly, the most famous quotes from people should exist in WQ; quotes that don't relate to them at all don't. When it comes to the in-between cases, I would definitely like for people to consider, before adding a quote, whether it adds anything. Does it seem like something that anyone is going to look for, or be any better off for having read? Does it convey a new idea, or an old idea in a new way, or is it just another celebrity giving their opinion on some mundane issue? For adding a quote, I think that if the editor wouldn't be able to explain why that quote matters, they shouldn't add it. For removing a quote, I feel the standard should be inverted; if the editor wouldn't be able to clearly articulate why it should be removed, it should stay. Now, I don't really believe that everyone who contributes is going to follow that, and quotes are going to be added and removed for the hell of it. There is never going to be a rule that will cover all situations, because often, a quote that means nothing to one person may be a source of inspiration to another.

As for the purposes of WQ, I agree with most of the items listed above, with two exceptions. I don't think that #3 really fits with the other listed goals, and in my opinion, it generally doesn't make it easier to find information on these pages. While there are certainly ideas and quotes that aren't a few succinct sentences, reproducing whole paragraphs or pages from books and such is likely only to create large blocks of text that may often be full of text that isn't really important to the overall idea. I would rather see Wikisource start adopting paragraphs-long but not complete texts, or another project picking them up, than to see huge chunks of text reproduced all over here. The quotes here should certainly complement the facts in a Wikipedia article, but treating a page here as a bona-fide appendix seems likely to get away from the "quote" idea that is necessarily the core of this Wiki. As for #4 ("almost like an article"). Certainly quotes in a page can be arranged to show changes in time and culture, and to present opposing or varying views, but they aren't going to tell the whole story of an issue, and I can see it being disasterous to try (because quotes can be interpreted in wildly different ways, including two or more different views, and so you could end up with editors fighting over where to put a quote based on their interpretation). I don't think that WQ should really be in the business of trying to interpret quotes, but rather to present them as they are, with suitable context to frame the quote. (Apologies for being excessively verbose; I'm prone to that sometimes.) —LrdChaos 03:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The IP 160.39.194.154 has defaced the following articles: Jerry Seinfeld Green Day George W. Bush Søren Kierkegaard Vladimir Barsky Tom Landry Jerry Seinfeld Michio Kaku Beneath a Steel Sky Douglas Adams

Thanks for the notice. This IP number has now been blocked and these edits reverted. ~ Kalki 07:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed a change to the template for Theme pages over at the template's talk page. The short version is to remove quotation marks and to put author and source information on an indented line below the quote. A little more detail, along with examples, is at the talk page. I'd like to get some feedback on it, as I don't want to make changes to a template like that without reaching some sort of consensus. —LrdChaos 17:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so earlier today I created an account, AK-17. Not ten minutes ago I finished my userpage and went off to look at Wikiquote. Then it tells me I'm not logged in, and now it says my account doesn't exist. What's going on? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.29.1.225 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but Wikiquote has no record of any user account "AK-17", or even any user starting with "AK". Of the 32 users who created new usernames in the 24 hours preceding your posting, none remotely resemble this name. I'm a bit unclear on the sequence of events described; "finished my userpage and went off to look at Wikiquote" seems to imply that you were not working with Wikiquote when you were working on your userpage. Is it possible you were working on a different wiki project? Whatever happened before, you should be able to create "AK-17" as a new user now. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add a list of Low Saxon ("Low German") proverbs, tried to follow the instructions but seem to be unable to start that page and add a link to the main index. Help please!

Sassisch 17:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sassisch, welcome to Wikiquote. Supposedly you have found WQ:FAQ#New entry or not. If this brief information and links from it aren't much a help to you, please come back here and let us know your trouble. --Aphaia 10:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... including this wording, which I found on Wikiquote:Deletion policy:

WARNING: This is a beta version of a new formal Wikiquote deletion policy. Until it is finalized, Wikiquote will continue to operate under a loose, informal version of the Wikipedia deletion policy.

I think that it is clear to me that the first Wikiquotians were Wikipedians. They made several links to Wikipedia project pages, because they were familiar with them. Then, we start having users such as myself User:Kernigh who want to learn how to contribute to Wikiquote, but lack familiarity with Wikipedia.

Thus this is a hardship for me. Instead of reading the Wikiquote deletion policy, I have to read the Wikipedia deletion policy, then be familiar enough with the policy to derive a "loose, informal version" of it. You might as well use the deletion policy of Wiktionary or MeatballWiki; it would still be just as difficult for me. Thus I get the impression that processes like Wikiquote:Votes for deletion is only for Wikipedians. (Technically I am a Wikipedian, Wikipedia:User:Kernigh, but I have less experience there than I do here. However, in the past I have participated in deletion polls at Wikibooks, Wikisource, and MetaWikipedia.) --Kernigh 03:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a lot of time at the first of the year replacing links to Wikipedia policies with actual pages here on Wikiquote, even if it was only a copy of the Wikipeida page made to fit Wikiquote (if we're linking there, having a copy here shouldn't be too much of an issue). I eventually gave up on it, because it didn't seem to me there was a lot of point; if people are interested, I'm certainly willing to breathe some life back into Wikiquote:WikiProject Policy Revision. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely a problem we have at Wikiquote, but editors like Essjay who have both the time and interest in doing this are incredibly scarce. Wikipedia policy is frequently not quite applicable to Wikiquote's needs, but worse, it is quite ponderous and can take literally months to study properly. We have been making do with a very small set of formal policy pages, a lot of informal practices, and relying on experienced Wikiquotians to advise editors when they have problems. This state will probably continue until we get 20 or so frequent editors who are willing to work on these issues. Right now we seem to have fewer than 10 frequent editors covering the entire site, much fewer working regularly on policy. I'm hoping things will steadily improve. I really appreciate Essjay's efforts to date and hope he can continue his work, but ultimately it requires more community participation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]