Wikiquote:Village pump

Community portal Welcome

Reference desk Request an article

Village pump Archives

Administrators' noticeboard Report vandalism • Votes for deletion

Wikiquote discussion pages (edit) see also: requests
Village pump comment | history | archive General policy discussions and proposals, requests for permissions and major announcements.	Reference desk comment | history | archive Questions and discussions about specific quotes.

Archives

Welcome, newcomers and baffled oldtimers! This is the place if you (a) have a question about Wikiquote and how it works or (b) a suggestion for improving Wikiquote. Just click the link above "create a new topic", and then you can place your submission at the bottom of the list, and someone will attempt to answer it for you. (If you have a question about who said what, go to the reference desk instead.)

Before asking a question, check if it's answered by the Wikiquote:FAQ or other pages linked from Wikiquote:Help. Latest news on the project would be available at Wikiquote:Community portal and Wikiquote:Announcements.

Before answering a newcomer's question abruptly, consider rereading Please do not bite the newcomers.

Questions and answers will not remain on this page indefinitely (otherwise it would very soon become too long to be editable). After a period of time with no further activity, information will be moved to other relevant sections of Wikiquote, (such as the FAQ pages) or placed in one of the village pump archives if it is of general interest, or deleted. Please consider dating and titling your discussions so as to facilitate this.

---

Proverbs

We had a discussion previously about unsourced proverbs and tongue twisters (see this discussion) - I believe the discussion was heading toward the deletion of all unsourced varieties of these pages. What is the current feeling? I for one do not see the need to keep any of these pages since it is nearly impossible to verify the "quotes" on such pages. ~ UDScott 21:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I will say that we don't need to source them to their originator, just to some reliable source that indicates that they are indeed a proverb of the culture asserted. If those can't be found, delete. BD2412 T 16:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I tagged as many as I could find with {{unreferenced}} or {{refimprove}} at the time of the previous discussion. There have been several edits to these articles in the intervening seven or eight months but, despite the hint, I have not noticed any sources contributed to the non-English pages. I think it would be appropriate to VFD the completely unsourced pages at this time, but that would not be the end of the cleanup.

I intend, very occasionally and very incrementally, to work on improving the English article. As more progress is made, I expect to propose some revisions to guidelines for proverb pages because, if we ever do amass a large body of well sourced ones, they will need to be reorganized and something will need to be done about misguided "explanations" of their meanings. ~ Ningauble 18:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced proverbs are bad enough. However American proverbs has another problem: unsourced explanations of the proverbs' meanings. While we can usually assume that unsourced quotations came from someplace, these explanations were presumably created by editors. Unless someone can suggest a good reason for keeping them, I'll start stripping out the added material.   Will Beback  talk  11:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If it is difficult to find sources then I think we should keep the unsourced explanations. I see little use in proverbs without explanation for people like myself who are not native speakers. And in how many cases will there be disputes or incorrect explanations? I think very few. I think we should only demand sourcing for disputed explanations. Andries 12:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

How do we know, then, whether the explanation is accurate, or just something someone made up? BD2412 T 15:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

English proverbs

Notwithstanding the occasional addition of a source, as happened today, the English proverbs page continues to accrue unsourced additions at a much faster pace than sources are provided. I am thinking about taking some strong actions, short of actually expunging all of the unsourced items:

1. Would the community entertain a motion to put this article under probation, stipulating that all new additions without citations will be reverted?
2. One single purpose account, Amitranjanamit, has added numerous items in recent months that appear to be obscure variants at best, or original user inventions at worst. I reverted a few that seemed particularly inappropriate and messaged the user, but the pattern continues. Looking for instances of some recent additions I found zero Google hits, but I do not want to waste a lot of time researching them case by case. Would anyone object to reverting all of this user's contributions, wholesale?

I am afraid this page will continue to deteriorate if something is not done to arrest the growth of non-notable or made-up content. Other suggestions would be appreciated. ~ Ningauble 20:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• I completely agree. Proverbs are supposedly widespread sayings, so should be very easy to source. Unsourced should be deleted. Perhaps we can put a time-sensitive tag on them and give the a week, but I wouldn't allow any more than that. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Having received only one response, let me put it this way: If nobody objects I am going to revert all of user Amitranjanamit's contributions to the article because they appear to be mostly made up stuff. The user has been advised. ~ Ningauble 16:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No objection...in fact I fully endorse doing so. ~ UDScott 17:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Images on Main Page

A comment by Jc-S0CO about today's main page (since retracted) and comments in the above thread prompt me to raise an issue about images associated with the Quote of the Day that are displayed on the Wikiquote Main Page. This issue is distinct from their concerns about ideas expressed by the selection of images, and concerns the amount of imagery included on the Main Page.

Until a couple years ago, it was customary to display a single illustration adjacent to the quote of the day. It later became common to include two images and, more recently, there have been increasing numbers of images comprising photomontages that sometimes, as today (this one), completely dominate the page. Whatever the merit of these compositions, Wikiquote's Main Page is not the appropriate place for them. The Main Page is the principle landing page for visitors to the site. The inclusion of an image adding visual interest to the page is a good thing, but too much is not.

→ In order to avoid distracting from and detracting from the purpose of the main landing page, which is to introduce visitors to the site, I propose that illustration of the quote of the day be limited to one image, not larger than a conventional thumbnail. ~ Ningauble 15:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, but for the less tech savvy among us how large is a conventional thumbnail roughly. But I am just not sure if you mean something like 32x32 pixels which is kind of how I think of an icon/thumbnail but is perhaps a little small for the task at hand. Could you link to a past page that works well, that we we have a visual to go by. Thenub314 15:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

By "conventional thumbnail" I meant the size the software uses by default when you use the "thumb" file attribute without specifying a size. The default is 220px in the longer dimension (changed from 180px about a year ago[1]). The exact size does not matter to me, as long as it is in this ballpark. ~ Ningauble 17:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Samples from two years ago this month feature single images of modest size, often as small as 99px. Samples from one year ago this month employ multiple images, as many as ten at once. The montage prepared for this coming Thursday[2] uses no less than fifteen images, including several arranged in the form of an original doodle. ~ Ningauble 15:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, fifteen that is quite a bit. I do think one should suffice as general principle. This idea has my full support. Thenub314 17:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out many of these "15 images" were very minor and had relatively trivial or no effect in increasing the visual area of the graphics. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 19:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I, Kalki, who have long done the actual work of selecting these images, as well as the quote of the day, from among those highest ranked of those available, of course oppose this effort to constrain the scope or dimensions of thought provoking images that can be used with the quotes. Other than one objection I believe made by Ninguable previous to this, there have been very few complaints about these selections over the years. One was made last month in regard to an amusing play on words and the Ides of March and the March of ideas — and a presentation of a vast array of symbols of ideas evoking the statement of that quote, and there were two complaints of the extensive array of images used in the Good Friday montage, one initially complaining about the presumed anti-religious tenor of tableau, which was rapidly retracted, and the other about the presumed pro-religious tenor of them, which I believe balance out and well indicate the proper ambiguity of how the quotes and associated images images can be interpreted, in relation to the profound comment on art by Nabokov, and the profound comments on the arts of Life, made by Jesus.

This current discussion was begun ignoring the very specific and contradictory nature of those two complaints about the presentation of concepts and ideas, and using it to extend complaint to the suppression of the use of more than one thought provoking image at all.

The month in which I started using TWO images as the standard format was August 2009, and I immediately considered it far superior aesthetically to the one image layout, and the next month, September 2009 was thus the first month which fully used the format the entire month. It began with the powerfully important declaration:

Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants thereof. Lev. XXV X Inscription on the ~ Liberty Bell ~

The first large-format montage used was for Wikiquote:Quote of the day/October 25, 2009 for the very large quote of a famous speech from Shakespeare's Henry V, on heroism and resolve upon St Crispin's day, which used images related to that battle and other historical battles which occurred on that day:

This day is call'd — the feast of Crispian: He that outlives this day, and comes safe home, Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd, And rouse him at the name of Crispian. He that outlives this day, and sees old age, Will yearly on the vigil feast his friends, And say, "To-morrow is Saint Crispian;" Then will he strip his sleeve, and show his scars, And say, "These wounds I had on Crispin's day." Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot, But he'll remember, with advantages, What feats he did that day. Then shall our names, Familiar in his mouth as household words, — Harry the King, Bedford, and Exeter, Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester, Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd. This story shall the good man teach his son; And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by From this day to the ending of the world, But we in it shall be remember'd, — We few, we happy few, we band of brothers. For he to-day that sheds his blood with me, Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile, This day shall gentle his condition: And gentlemen in England, now a-bed, Shall think themselves accurs'd, they were not here, And hold their manhoods cheap, whiles any speaks, That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day. King Henry V as portrayed in Henry V by ~ William Shakespeare ~

Having more than one image to use with a quote stimulates awareness of the fact that there are usually MANY complex ways to consider or relate many ideas to any statement. I have increased the use of images, in recent months, and am far more inclined to create thought provoking montages of images which in some way correspond to ideas evoked by the quotes, to the extent I have had the time to do so. I refrain from making further comments on the matter at this point, beyond saying that any proposal which would seek to impose a limit to using only one image with such a long quote or even a short one, or to needlessly restrict the options available for stimulating thought and discussion is one I find very presumptuously restrictive in ways I definitely and strongly oppose. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 19:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

While I am inclined to be a little less restrictive than suggested above (meaning that I would not be upset by having 2-3 images, or even a few more for longer quotes, rather than just one small one), I do believe the ever expanding use of images does need to be reigned in a bit. But I do not believe, as Kalki suggests above, that this is about restricting ideas or limiting the stimulation of thought. Instead it is about being practical and offering a easy entry into the site for users. When there are many images,it can be a bit confusing and difficult for users, especially those unfamiliar with the site, to navigate. That's all this is about in my humble opinion, nothing more. ~ UDScott

This current discussion was indeed begun ignoring the nature of complaints about concepts and ideas. I was prompted by those remarks to finally raise the issue of clutter because I believe such remarks demonstrate that it creates a distraction. I tried to be clear that this is not about the ideas expressed, and I said so in good faith without any ulterior motive to suppress ideas. ~ Ningauble 16:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I fully accept and am quite confident that you have in good faith done many things upon which we can sincerely and vigorously disagree as to the utility or proper motive, as have I — though much of the good intentions of some of these things can be or have been ignored, obscured or derided by the casual or intensely deliberate, and sometimes even clearly malicious accusations or claims of others. I have MANY rather Holist perspectives about most things, and fully embrace the notion that ALL things are interrelated in various ways to various degrees — and I have NEVER been one to ignore that fact to so great a degree as many people often do, and this leaves me far more willing to forgive and accept the errors which many people abide with in resentments and confusions, and to be more openly hostile to many assumptions which people casually accept and think of as merely trivial or even virtuous.
To get to a major and obviously significant point here, which relates to many others, you contend that so prominent a use of images "creates a distraction". I recognize that so extensive a tableaux of images as were used on Good Friday should be rare event, if ever repeated at all, but assert that the occasional use of a montage or 2 major image fields and relatively minor images included within the central field with the quote can be used to create visually and intellectually interesting tableaux — usually with very strong and sometimes with very subtle and harder to discern relationship to the quotes of the day.
I believe that this might inspire at least some people to become more involved here, not less, and indicate that at least some of the normal participants in the project have profound and interesting perspectives upon many matters, and are not inclined to simply echo platitudes in empty way or present very shallow arguments with little appreciation of many of the complex implications and corollaries of much that is being said or indicated in many of the quotes.
I very much love the current QOTD, by Henri Poincaré, "If all the parts of the universe are interchained in a certain measure, any one phenomenon will not be the effect of a single cause, but the resultant of causes infinitely numerous." I would have liked to have had more time to consider adding at least a few more images that came to my mind, including images of Gabrielle Giffords and other signifiers of complex relationships of many of past, present and likely future events, but had not the time or inclination to do so amidst some current disputes — but I do believe that the images selected were far superior to the VERY pared down alternative suggested by a relative newcomer here. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 19:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Lest anyone reading this discussion be misled by Kalki's remark above, I must point out that I am not any sort of newbie at Wikiquote. I have been an active participant and an administrator at Wikiquote since 2008, and there is no justification for calling for my opinion to be discounted on the basis of inexperience. I also take strong exception to the insinuation that I am too simpleminded to appreciate the quotes without the benefit of an illustrated stream-of-consciousness tableaux. These ad hominem attacks are not relevant to the merits of the question. ~ Ningauble 02:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I made the comment that "the images selected were far superior to the VERY pared down alternative suggested by a relative newcomer here" in reference to the extreme paring down to the layout done by Thenub314 (talk · contributions) at this edit — and I don't know how exactly you were moved to imply I might have intended to mislead anyone by such remarks, but forgive any mistakes in what I was referring to. I must confess I am more amused than irritated at some false assumptions in your remarks that you take "strong exception to your insinuation that I am too simpleminded to appreciate the quotes without the benefit of an illustrated stream-of-consciousness tableaux. These ad hominem attacks are not relevant to the merits of the question" — as if your observations in no way insinuate many things of no direct and immediately obvious correlation to some of the issues raised. I am very aware of rhetorical flourishes and their uses — and the importance of rational cohesion and versatility and deficiencies of it in various forms of argument. You here clearly are making the claim that I definitely am insinuating that you and others are "too simpleminded to appreciate the quotes without the benefit of an illustrated stream-of-consciousness tableaux." — I assert that I have done nothing of the sort — I do believe that MOST people can have many forms of their appreciation of truth, beauty, reason and life in general enhanced by various artistic and aesthetic presentations — and this is hardly a new or all that controversial type of assertion — people have been making it at least since the times of the ancient Greek philosophers. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 04:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps there is some ambiguity about whose proposal to pare down images was meant when responding to me under a thread I started by proposing to pare down the images. In either event, I think that the impression it makes on newcomers is highly germane to the design of the Main Page. Perhaps there is also some ambiguity about whose argument was meant in arguing against my proposal with remarks about platitudinous, shallow arguments and lack of apprehension. In any event, I can agree with the proposition that some of the normal participants in the project are not dimwits, but I fail to see how the quantity of images on the Main Page demonstrates that proposition. ~ Ningauble 14:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I recognize and fully concede that the March 15 and Good Friday montages were quite excessive in some regards — but I thought that excess appropriate relative to the "Beware the March of Ideas" quote in March — and I may have overcompensated a bit on Good Friday with the images of the crucifiction, because I believe this might be the first year a quote of Jesus wasn't actually used for both Good Friday or Easter — and because I thought some of the highly ranked quotes on ethics and aesthetics already suggested on the pages could be worked into relevance to a general Easter theme with the use of images. I generally gravitate to using only 2 major images normally, but I do think minor flourishes in the quote column using small images tends to enhance the appearance of the layout, and that an occasional montage works well, especially with larger quotes. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 23:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

But "works well" for what? For "stimulating thought and discussion" on a general theme, or for featuring the quote of the day on the Wikiquote Main Page? My own anecdotal experience from "real life" is that when people remark on the main page they usually talk about the pictures and almost never remember the quote of the day, or even what the quote was about. I do not believe the current practice serves the purpose of our main landing page, but rather detracts from it. This is not Wikiartgallery! ~ Ningauble 16:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I am rather pleased that your conscience is stimulated enough that you have here expressed some evident passion and serious sarcasm at the expense of my motives and aims — even though I am actually impelled by my own conscience and many of my ideas of what human aims should generally be, to contend against many of your points and expressions of what you believe many important aims should be. We both seem to have some fair and proper divergence in regard to what we believe general aims of people should generally be, prior to, and reflected in some of our disputes as to what should or should not be policy here.
From a very broad perspective designed to stimulate thought and discussion, are not the images to some extents quotations as well — and our compendium of quotes indeed a developing gallery of the very fine art of expressing and indicating thoughts and ideas in both familiar and unfamiliar words, symbols, phrases, and other composite creations which use each and all of these in various ways? There is a pragmatic poetry in even the most mundane use of language — even if it is rarely advanced so much as it could be, and NEVER perfected in all ways which might satisfy the minds of many.

I think many familiar with me would not be inclined to claim that I am strongly inclined to shrink from controversy or argument in ways that might be construed as cowardice — yet courageously and ironically, I would actually say far MORE often than not that I AM. I very often refrain from entering into arguments — or pressing them in all the ways I might, though not for reasons I would actually hold to be cowardly, when I believe that engaging in some rather trivial arguments over some relatively trivial point would be largely a waste of my own or other people's time, or even detrimental. This can be for various reasons, including my awareness that there are far more important or vitally urgent matters for me to address, or that I clearly do not have all the resources or materials available to muster up an adequate offensive strategy against certain errors, fallacies, or deliberate crimes, nor even an adequate defense from some of the most common forms of distortions, deceits and casual or vicious attacks by those promoting or defending some positions or aims contrary or opposed to my own.
I will probably be willing and able to engage in discussions on many of the matters presently under contention here much more thoroughly in the weeks to come, and will take what measures I can to prepare to do so — and invite others to do the same. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 19:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Your blanket denunciation of people who have disagreed with you about various matters in the past is completely irrelevant to the present issue under discussion. Most people who are not newcomers here are well aware of those disagreements, and are aware that they have nothing to do with the quantity of images on the Main Page. These ad hominem or ad misericordiam arguments about people who have not even commented in this discussion are not even remotely relevant to the merits of the question. ~ Ningauble 02:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I am appalled at the distortions quite evident in the accusation that I make "blanket denunciation of people" — I make a blanket denunciation of some forms of presumption and behavior, and there are many forms of such I have hardly begun to touch upon. You state my "blanket denunciation of people who have disagreed with you about various matters in the past is completely irrelevant to the present issue under discussion" — as if I was attacking individuals by attacking some forms of attitude and behavior, and as if I was not making the very generally relative points that there are many ways to make many points — and many ways to inhibit, impede, denigrate and diminish the ranges of discussion and observation available to people — I generally hold such impulses to be among the most deplorable, NOT among the most admirable tendencies of people's behavior and attitudes. I could fully and emphatically agree that when people label a person in certain ways they inhibit fair examination of many things — but when forms of behavior and practices are excluded from some forms of praise or denunciation — or are implied to be merely denunciations of people — then there is clearly an engagement in some forms of confusions of issues, perceptions and actualities in regard to many significant things. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 04:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I am reminded of the old joke about a child who was told to apologize for calling his sister ugly, and said to her "I'm sorry you're ugly." Criticizing the attitudes and behaviors of those who promote positions contrary to your own is precisely what is meant by argumentum ad hominem. Unless the alleged deliberate crimes and vicious attacks have a specific relevance to the question of how many images are most appropriate for the Main Page, it is a confusion of issues to raise it here and I suggest you use a separate thread to seek redress for your grievances. ~ Ningauble 14:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I just found out that one set of the images in the montage for the QOTD for 29^th April 2011 regarding the scheduled launch of the Endeavour has become less relevant in some regards — as the launch of that shuttle was delayed until at least Monday because of complex and necessary considerations — and yet it retains worth and value for the stimulation of thought in relation to the QOTD, because there were complex reasons presentable as to why it was properly delayed to the disappointment of millions, as well as complex reasons why the marriage of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge occurred to the delight of millions. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 19:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I determined to try to stay away from this conversation, but the wiki-addict in me doesn't want to let it go. I personally feel there needs to be some balance. Being a mathematician I think of things as follows. The average veiwer will only spend a few moments looking at the page, as the number of images increase you decrease the amount of time that they will spend thinking about any one thing. As the number of objects tends to infinity, the amount of information conveyed about anything tends to 0. I personally feel that we have past the point where people are spending any significant time looking at the quote itself or the images are surrounding them. I never meant to suggest an official policy, just a well understood rule of thumb. I do maintain the layout is very well done, but it is simply too busy.

To see if I could find any evidence to support this I pulled aside a college who never saw the site and showed him todays main page and asked for his impression. He immediately asked if this was a page about the royal wedding. After a few seconds I explained it was a site about quotable quotes. It took another several seconds for him to notice there was a quote in the middle of the images. He then spent several seconds wondering what the images had to do with each other before reading the quote. Without any context he thought the image in the lower left might be a television show. He had a difficult time making out the Poincaré disc at the given resolution, and never noticed the monad at the bottom. Once I pointed out the site also contained quotes, missattributions, of many famous people by clicking on Poincaré's name he spent several minutes exploring the site. Commented that he knew a few quotes misattributed to Karl Marx missing from our page (if we are lucky maybe he will decide to add them). But the main point is that he a very hard time figuring what the site was about. And he is by no way just being thick, if you aren't already familiar with the site then the number of images distracts from reading any of the text about being an online compendium and' distracts from reading the quote. Until peoples initial reactions are simply "This is a religious site" as was the case a few days ago or "This is a site about the wedding" as was the case today. (Captions on the images may not hurt either if is not immediately obvious what the images are.) Thenub314 22:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Throughout my time here I have, for various apparently defensive, offensive or ambiguous reasons, let slip a few things about myself, but ultimately I sought to remain relatively mysterious in many ways and present few definite credentials whatsoever, beyond that of being a person whose actions and assertions are ambiguous and cleverly idiotic enough to provide strong evidence to the discerning of someone apparently interested in stimulating greater awareness and appreciation of MANY perspectives and MANY forms of truth, not simply a few narrow fields of vision.
I am yet definitely someone who knows enough of mathematical and rational imperatives to assert that a sampling of the complex observational skills and focus of one college [or rather a college student or professor, I am assuming] — can hardly be taken as definitive in any way, beyond that of indicating characteristics of the one entity sampled, and the aims and ranges of perception of the person or persons doing the sampling. To the extent I have had the time and oppurtunity, I have generally enjoyed engaging in debates throughout my life, and face to face, I believe that most of my adversaries have enjoyed them with me, as usually there are advances made in important aspects of understanding by all involved. Still I have sometimes grown weary of the necessity of continuing to engage in them because of sloppy reasoning and a lack of appreciation for both rational and irrational factors — as well as Holist and Synergetic principles and aspects of Reality which are often beyond the immediate observation or imagination of most human individuals — no matter how advanced their training in particular fields of calculation or assessment. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 01:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thenub314's anecdote is entirely consistent with my own anecdotal experience described above, which involves a half-dozen people rather than just one. Holism is not well served by overemphasizing any one feature. ~ Ningauble 03:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Certainly "Holism is not well served by overemphasizing any one feature" of any one aspect of the whole of Reality — nor even a few — but to emphasize a few is far better than emphasizing of one, or seeking to rigidly and adamantly inhibiting the emphasis of any — or any more than one — and Holism is certainly not the only form of thought and interest I seek to stimulate by well chosen images within a few layouts or montages, and have been doing to some extent for many years with very few actual complaints — those 3 made about the admittedly extensive and perhaps excessive layouts of March 15 and Good Friday being very rare occurences — in response to very rare extremes. I certainly have no plans to extend the imagery related to small quotes to that extent again, even in relation to similarly historically significant events or ideas.
Any forms of rational debate or dispute is not well served by anyone insisting that someone has no right to criticize the attitudes, dispositions or behavior of those who are criticizing theirs — which to some extent inherently implies that only submission to some charges is acceptable. People have every proper right to freely exchange criticism and praise of certain ranges of ideas and behavior — and to state their beliefs that such are evident or not evident in certain actions or expressions. I certainly do NOT in any way seek to inhibit anyone's right criticize me or anything they find faulty in what I do or say — but neither do I seek to be confined to mere politely demure responses to some accusations and charges, in ways that only encourage many of the most bold or craven of people to many forms of assaults on general rights and true respect for the human dignity involved in expressing themselves freely and frankly. Everyone is quite free to think me a profoundly stupid idiot, to the degree they are inclined to — and to call me that, if they are so inclined — I find it far more appalling to imply anyone to be little more than a malicious deceiver or even a villain — no matter how refined the language or words or phrases which might be used. I want to make as plain as possible : that is something I have NO desire or intent to do. I do contend that to the extent it has been done to anyone, for what ever reasons, there should be no great surprise that there should be recurring mentions and objections to the fact, so long as they believe injustices abide.
I confessed that I have generally enjoyed face to face debates with people — because a general geniality can be clearly maintained even among harshest disputes on issues — but genuine emotion is not deplored or denigrated, nor are intensive attacks on some forms of attitude or opinion mistaken or misconstrued as improper attacks upon the rights or dignity of people as might be inclined to embrace them. My experience with written debates online have often been far less pleasant and far more burdensome, because I cannot easily gauge the levels of understanding or appreciation of some expressions in those to whom I speak — which is one reason I have generally sought to avoid many of these — but there are some disputes one cannot honorably decline to entirely refrain from. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 04:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I quite fail to see how my remark under which the above post is positioned could be considered an accusation of villainy; and I think it is quite an exaggeration to characterize my remarks elsewhere in this thread as such. Digressions from the disagreement over whether the Wikiquote Main Page is the appropriate place for displaying photomontages, and ambiguous or nonspecific remarks about people who disagree with you, are not villainous. They are just distracting. ~ Ningauble 14:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

PS: I am going to be away from the computer the rest of the day, so don't worry about distracting me. I can't speak for anyone else, but then my proposal does not seem to have attracted much interest anyway. ~ Ningauble 14:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────┘
Well for what it is worth I have tried my hand for a simpler design at May 5th. Perhaps having a specific example of something upcoming will help bring some focus to the discussion. Thenub314 16:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This is probably beating a dead horse, but I have recently been viewing wiki's via a mobile device. Today's main page was especially difficult to read. At most there seemed to be two words on a line. Just food for thought, modern computer screens are getting wider to accommodate movies, but phones tend to have very narrow displays, so anyone working on a main page should resize the their browser window a few different ways to get a sense of how it is going to look on different displays. Thenub314 02:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with the comments by Thenub314 (talk · contributions), above. -- Cirt (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Today's developments at Talk:Main Page and OTRS reinforce my opinion that Kalki's artistic and symbolic expression's on the Main Page are indeed a distraction that detracts from the main page. Today's example struck a particularly strong note, but for the past several months these well-meaning efforts to share personal insights on the Main Page strike me as giving the appearance of graffiti that has no place here.

A compendium of quotations is inherently a non-innovative reference work, it is not really the right place for these original compositions. A far better use of space on the main page would be to display citations for the quotes being exhibited there. ~ Ningauble 22:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I was also a bit uncomfortable with all of the Swastikas but was hesitant to say so, as I didn't want to offend anyone whose religion actively uses the symbols. Of course as should be clear from my previous comments I agree with simplifying the visual display. Also Ningauble's suggestion of displaying the citation might help new user's see that we care about verifiability. I have simplified the ones I can, I couldn't edit the ones already locked. Could someone else do that? Thenub314 00:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, my changes have been reverted, perhaps with the exception of one of them a few days out. I have no interest in an edit war I will leave it alone. But perhaps we could come to some consensus here. It doesn't make sense to continue on blindly, several editors have commented that we should move to more simplistic designs. We have OTRS complaints about the main page! Changes are in order. Thenub314 02:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Crucified swastika.svg It is hopelessness even more than pain that crushes the soul. So the decision-making of daily life involves not, as in normal affairs, shifting from one annoying situation to another less annoying — or from discomfort to relative comfort, or from boredom to activity — but moving from pain to pain. One does not abandon, even briefly, one's bed of nails, but is attached to it wherever one goes. 卐 卍 ~ William Styron ~ 卐 卍

The above quote and image montage is the one that was used for the Wikiquote:Quote of the day/June 11, 2011 page this year — before some post-facto efforts at censorship occured, which have currently replaced it with a quote and set of images used last year. I am WELL aware that some might object to ANY use of the swastika , no matter WHAT the context — so acquainted are they with its use by genocidal fascist bigots in the early twentieth century that they are inclined to ignore, disregard or seek to suppress awareness and appreciation of the thousands of years such symbols have been used by people of quite different dispositions and intentions, specifically the wide uses by ancient and modern pagan, Jain, Hindu, Buddhist, and Falun Gong traditions as well as a few others. The images are related to many of the issues Styron's comment and general works raise. I am considering what further points to make in regard to this issue, as I go about doing many other things, but believe the images should definitely be restored as originally posted, and things proceed in honest and fair disputes in regard to related issues — including the revival of interest in suppression of the use of thought provoking images and symbols with the quotes of the day. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 02:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I for one disagree that we should restore the above montage. We have gotten several complaints now. First about the site being too christian, now about the above swastikas. Instead of adding any sort of meaning to the main page, which I am guessing is the intention, we are only serve to annoy distract the readers. And in these cases upset them. These extreme layouts ultimately harm the WQ. Thenub314 03:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

There are people of sincere belief, but shallow or limited perceptions who are very inclined to complain quite readily about many things, especially if they themselves suffer from some forms of deep seated prejudices and have animositiies to particular people or groups which they can gratify with various excuses — which is certainly one of the impulses which drive varous forms of facism. The images were actually presented as a means of furthering awareness of some of the profoundly pathetic and tragic aspects of human history and emotions which Styron chose to address in his writings. ~ 03:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I am reminded of a few statements of E. B. White in considering some of the comments made in relation to the images used with this quote:

Security, for me, took a tumble not when I read that there were Communists in Hollywood but when I read your editorial in praise of loyalty testing and thought control.

It is easier for a man to be loyal to his club than to his planet; the bylaws are shorter, and he is personally acquainted with the other members.

As long as there is one upright man, as long as there is one compassionate woman, the contagion may spread and the scene is not desolate. Hope is the one thing left to us in a bad time.

I am a member of a party of one, and I live in an age of fear.

I find it alarming that people are so ready to indulge in acts of censorship and suppression of dialogue on major topics rather than actually discuss matters. The images chosen were actually chosen on the eighth, and I am not surprised that the intentions with which they were used were misunderstood by some — but I am somewhat surprised that some people are so willing to insist there should be no further efforts to understand them or the importance of recognizing many forms of ambiguity in human expressions and efforts — and to simply seek to suppress imagery and symbolism which is not immediately understandable or obvioius to all people. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 03:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

To continue this conversation, today's main page exhibits one of the problems with ornate designs. The page contains, as is typical lately, a new 'image' cleverly built out of tables and an old image. In the case when I viewed the page in a somewhat smaller window then I might normally that various parts of the table were wrapped in a weird way. Causing one cross below the Psi and one above nest to it. This is not a big issue, but as a few of us would like to encourage simpler Main page display's one could place to start would be to stick to images that consist of a single unit. And not include synthesized pieces. Thenub314 22:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(PS, I am as much responsible for this difficulty as anyone else, as I collaborated on the design of the page in question.Thenub314 22:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC))

I'm a newcomer, but I've been on Wikipedia for a while. I strongly agree with Ningauble et al. and disagree with Kalki.

First of all, I think that to disagree with the assertion that the images distract the eye or clutter the frontpage is ridiculous. It is absolutely self-evident that they do. Furthermore, the number of images is very important, even if they don't take up that much space. This is basic graphic design: more detail means more distraction for the eye. Try comparing a Japanese magazine with a few pages of sheet music. That Kalki isn't aware of this is one indication that Kalki should not be given this responsibility. The general composition of the images is almost always poor, seeming almost random. I object to the swastika composition purely because it is ugly.

No, images are not quotes. Quotes are quotes. Images clearly fail to be quotes because they are not verbal media. I was frankly shocked about the use of images on the site, which goes far beyond simple illustration. On this point, we come to the crux of my objection. I will write this in bold, as Kalki is wont to do: The image of the day should be a chance to choose a completed work of art (quotation) by someone who is not you. By combining interpretive imagery with quotation, you are using the mainpage as a canvas for your own thoughts and beliefs.

I have read almost all of the discussion, but some of Kalki's posts were a little too tedious to get through. Frankly, I would be offended if I were talking to Kalki. You are constantly acting as if you are enlightening the others. Stop that. By doing that, you are making a statement about the relative validity of everyone's opinions. You also talk of "imagery and symbolism which is not immediately understandable or obvioius to all people". I can't imagine that the purpose of the site would be that individuals could take a quote and attempt to influence how it is interpreted by others. Your writing makes frequent reference to yourself, how you think and what your beliefs are. The arrogance is further emphasised by suggesting that the montage used on Good Friday "should be rare event, if ever repeated at all" - in other words, that Christian holidays are especially worthy events. As a non-Christian (and most people are), this seems strange.

In case it's not clear, I support 1 small image, or possibly 2 as a compromise. 3 is certainly too many. I'm sorry, Kalki, if I seem too harsh on you, but I believe it to be much more reasonable to be honest about my standpoint than to go on (and on and on) about how brilliant I am to accept everyone's viewpoint, while flatly disregarding what they say. Vanhedrarn 03:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I happened to visit the main page today (I rarely go there), and I noticed that today's quote of the day is framed by eight images occupying five times as much screen space as the quote itself (more if one includes whitespace framing elements within the montage). This strikes me as far too much. The montage is so large that it completely fills the window size I normally use, and even if one uses a larger window it dominates the page, pushing everything else but the masthead "below the fold".

Although only a few regular contributors have commented in this thread, the only one who has supported using large photomontages is the one who does so. I encourage Kalki to consider the opinions of others that, as UDScott puts it, this needs to be reigned in a bit. ~ Ningauble 15:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to echo/agree with the comment above. Thenub314 05:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Unlisted names

I have made a new run of names missing from the List of people by name at Wikiquote:Unlisted names. There are fewer than 500 this time, so it should be pretty quick to get through them. A handful are actually listed, but under different names than the name in the category. Those are at the bottom of the page. I should have these fully formatted to be plugged in within the next few days, but feel free to jump in and start moving missing names to the lists now. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Most of these are now fully formatted, and just need to be plugged in to the appropriate place on the lists. BD2412 T
  • Note: I have moved this from my userspace to Wikiquote:Unlisted names, to avoid the impression that this is a personal project. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing Requests for Checkuser and Bureaucrat permissions

Ongoing Requests for Checkuser and Bureaucrat permissions — Please see:

• Wikiquote:Requests for checkuser/BD2412

and

• Wikiquote:Request for bureaucrat/BD2412

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 06:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Since we have a few ongoing votes I would suggest we update the site notice to let people know. It is always difficult for a small project to meet the requirements for CU, and so letting people know there is a vote going on seems sensible. Thenub314 23:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Contemporary witnesses sections; requirements for

If there was a witness who claims to have been there when a quote was said but they didn't report having heard it until 16+ years later, does the quote belong in a "Contemporary witnesses" section?

I'm trying to add a Joseph Stalin quote that Nikita Kruschev said around 1970 that he had heard Stalin say. Stalin died in 1953. The quote can be found at this source: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,904531-4,00.html —This unsigned comment is by MathEconMajor (talk • contribs) 14:43, 31 May 2011.

• This is the first article I've seen that has a "contemporary witnesses" section. I'm not sure why it's even labeled as such. Certainly the attribution by Krushev is sufficient to include the quote on Stalin's page. BD2412 T 16:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  I suppose the heading, which I too have not seen in other articles, is intended to distinguish eyewitness (earwitness?) accounts from secondhand reports. Some citations in the section do not meet this standard. The heading itself expresses a peculiar emphasis, for it is strange to imagine actual witnesses being non-contemporary. A temporal distinction that is sometimes used, when evaluating historical and legal evidence, is "contemporaneous accounts", i.e. those that are recorded at the time of the event as contrasted with those that are recollected at a later time. This is the distinction raised in MathEconMajor's question, and my answer is that Wikiquote does not generally analyze firsthand accounts to this degree. It is sufficient to indicate the date of the source and let the reader draw their own conclusions. I have updated the citation in the Joseph Stalin article to indicate the provenance of the attribution. (Bare links are not so good.) ~ Ningauble 16:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Elections for Wikimedia Leadership-- Share Wikiquotes' views!

Wikimedia Needs You.     Help with the Elections of Wikimedia Leadership!

Voting ends at 23:59 12 June 2011 (UTC)

the election ends. has already ended. ()

The Election is Very Important...
Elected board members are the very highest leaders of Wikimedia.

• They select and supervise the Executive Director and staff
• They determine mission, goals, long-term plans and high level policies of the Wikimedia Foundation.
• They oversee a budget in excess of $10 million per year.
• They determine how resources are allocated.

Make a Voter Guide

1. Remember:	Be civil. Avoid personal attacks.
2. Write:	Talk about yourself. Talk about Wikimedia. What do you want for Wikimedia? Talk about who you support. Why? Talk about concerns. Be civil!
3. Share:	Make a link to your Voter Guide. Put it on your user page. Make a link to your Voter Guide. Put it on your user talk page. Make a link to your Voter Guide. Put it in the central location. Make links to all other Voter Guides. Put the links on your Voter Guide.
4. Recruit	Ask others to make a voter guide Ask others to talk about the election. Ask others to help promote election participation.

Help Choose: Ask the Candidates a Question • Discuss the Candidates

Help Translate: Elections Text • Questions and Answers • Promotion Text

Help Promote

• Talk to others. Talk about the election and the election's importance.
• Post notices about Election in Project Discussion areas.
• Talk to trusted editors. Ask them to Make a Voter Guide.
• Serve as an Election Promoter.

Use this box: just add {{PromoteElection}} to any page.

—This unsigned comment is by PromoteElection2011 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 6 June 2011.

FN Five-seven and FN P90

I am going back and forth over whether to nominate these articles for deletion, merger into guns or some similar, as-yet-uncreated article, or something else. Both seem to be drawn to excessively narrow topics, containing quotes from persons of borderline quotability. Not all of the quotes are positive, but some seem to have a sort of testimonial quality. This concerns me, because I fear opening the door to articles being created on things like Frosted Flakes or (to reach the level of specificity in these articles) the Motorola 68020 32-bit microprocessor, containing a handful of quotes from friendly trade journals lauding the qualities of the product. I would welcome opinions on how narrowly drawn pages should be to specific products, and if we should impose some kind of limits on the sorts of quotes that go into those pages. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree - I had similar feelings when these pages were first created. They definitely appear to be too narrow in focus. ~ UDScott 00:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and nominate them for deletion. The Guns article does not need to be filled with matter-of-fact observations and unremarkable opinions that do not display enduring quotability. A number of quotes in Category:Weapons, and especially Category:Products, are similarly unremarkable or reflect ephemeral interest. The narrower the topic, the more it invites unremarkable commentary. (I will cancel any plans I may have had for quotes from when the Motorola 6502 vs. Intel 8086 competition was a hot topic in trade publications.) ~ Ningauble 13:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I have so nominated both. I can envision circumstances where we might have a page of quotes made by highly notable people about a particular product, such as an iPad or Blackberry, or even a particular kind of gun (as in "But, being this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and would blow your head clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?'"). The nominated articles are not within that realm, however. BD2412 T 18:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Voting is about to close

It is currently 10:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC) , voting closes at 23:59 UTC, so just hours after this post. If you want to vote, please do so. Additionally, there's been an on-going discussion about a recommendation for voting to be extended to give people more time, opinions welcome. --Alecmconroy 10:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Enhancing level of quick knowledge

by adding into names of articles about real persons their occupation in brackets;without any need to read an article to get an idea about who these people were-in cases when person has a little time or need the information about occupation of certain person(s) right now; without actually reading lines in that article that are saying it.

Please consider the significance of this change and be ready to discuss it.--Pieceofpeper 18:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

We already have a system of categories to accommodate those who might be searching for quotes by the occupation of the author (see, for example, Category:Mathematicians). Please note also, we are a sister project of Wikipedia, and because Wikipedia articles often include templates linking to their Wikiquote companions, we try to make sure that our titles for pages about people are identical to the Wikipedia title for that page. If you can persuade Wikipedians to adopt the policy you propose, then we can follow suit without disrupting those interwiki links. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The practice of including editorial content within titles, which was popular as recently as the Victorian era, is not well suited to the wiki process of continuous editing. I think this also applies to Pieceofpeper's earlier suggestion to convert "List of people by name" into an annotated index. It is best to simply give the name, with no more elaboration than is strictly necessary for disambiguation. ~ Ningauble 13:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

mathematics and mathematicians

I think that "Mathematicians" should be moved to "Category:People by occupation" (from "Category:Occupations") and the "Mathematics" page be listed on the "Category:Occupations" where "Mathematicians" used to be, if for no other reason than consistency. For example, in "Category:Occupations", the listed category is "Writing", not "Writers"; "Acting", not "Actors". "Actors" are on the "Category:People by occupation" list (although "Writers" seems to be missing). Just a thought. Noodle7mooch 08:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure about the worthiness of your proposal, as I usually don't deal with the category classifications too much, but I have long thought Authors far too broad a term for the category which is usually applied to Writers, but I recognize that the use of this was what arose among some early on, and has become so pervasive as to make alterations difficult at this point. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 11:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of inconsistencies in the category system, but one of the fundamental distinctions is that Category:People, including Category:People by occupation, is for articles devoted to quotes by (and about) individual persons, whereas Category:Themes, including Category:Occupations, is for articles devoted to quotes about a general subject other than a particular person. The naming of individual categories does not make this very clear.

I agree that Category:Authors is problematic. For people who write, it would be best to categorize by more specific professions or genres. I have thought about doing this for some time, and have moved a few on occasion, but there are more than 1000 of them, so don't hold your breath. ~ Ningauble 13:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

If there are no significant objections to this idea, I am willing to gradually begin doing such conversions, and when I am working with pages classified as "Author", I could convert them to "Writer". I don't consider this a top priority, but perhaps within a few months the process could be completed. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 20:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

There would have to be some consensus established as to what the existing titles should be renamed to, if this can be agreed to. For instance, I just noticed Neil Gaiman is classified in these categories:

Comics authors

Fantasy authors

Novelists

Science fiction authors

Short story writers

Should the "authors" portions be changed to "writers" in all of these? ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 20:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand - moving from authors to writers doesn't really solve the issue - it just exchanges synonyms. I think the point is that Category:Authors should only be a category of categories and the more specific sub-categories should be used for the people pages. I'm not against using "writer" instead of "author", but I don't see the point in the work involved to make this change. ~ UDScott 21:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

As I stated before, I don't really deal with the category issues too extensively, and don't really keep track of all the issues involved, so I'm not sure what is preferable to others — I was just extending on the idea that "writers" should replace "authors" because "authors" isn't quite a synonym, and has far broader applicability. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 21:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

On the topic originally presented, mathematics poses a special difficulty. Actors act, Writers write, Mathematicians ... prove. But sadly Proving is not appropriate, mathematics just doesn't have a nice verb that I can think of (and I am by profession a mathematician!) Thenub314 22:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Mathematicians are not really special in this respect, consider Historians. Consider also that it really wouldn't matter if Shoemaking were called "Shoemakers" since there is no great need to segregate quotes about the practice from quotes about the practitioners unless the article becomes quite large and a number of quotes are pointedly about one rather than the other. If the nomenclature in our ad hoc system of categorization is a bit haphazard, it could be worse:

"These ambiguities, redundancies, and deficiencies recall those attributed by Dr. Franz Kuhn to a certain Chinese encyclopedia entitled Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge. On those remote pages it is written that animals are divided into (a) those that belong to the Emperor, (b) embalmed ones, (c) those that are trained, (d) suckling pigs, (e) mermaids, (f) fabulous ones, (g) stray dogs, (h) those that are included in this classification, (i) those that tremble as if they were mad, (j) innumerable ones, (k) those drawn with a very fine camel's hair brush, (l) others, (m) those that have just broken a flower vase, (n) those that resemble flies from a distance."

—Jorge Luis Borges, The Analytical Language of John Wilkins

~ Ningauble 17:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Template namespace initialisation script

Hello. Some years ago, developers used Template namespace initialisation script to move some pages from the MediaWiki to the Template namespace, and left some useless redirects.

Consequently, the following pages should be deleted :

1. MediaWiki:Sitesupportpage
2. MediaWiki:Qotd
3. MediaWiki:Otherwiki
4. MediaWiki:Gnunote
5. MediaWiki:All messages

Moreover, the redirects to the pages listed above should also be watched, as they may be useless for the community.

For more informations, please see this request (meta).

Thanks -- Quentinv57 18:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

They are harmless redirects, although they don't work, maybe they should be left? Rich Farmbrough

So do Special:BrokenRedirects. As far as I know, everything useless is periodicly deleted by sysops. But you can do what you want, it's up to your local community. I just wanted to warn you about those redirects and to give you this list. Regards, -- Quentinv57 16:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Assumption is the mother of all...

..disasters? A quoted in/from CSI? Misunderstanding? Where is it from and who said it and when? Rich Farmbrough

"X is the mother of all Ys" is a very common formulation. I doubt we will ever know when and where it originated. It may or may not derive from "necessity is the mother of invention," which dates from at least the 17th century. ~ Ningauble 15:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Examples range from the relatively literal: "Jerusalem was the mother of all Churches" which was widespread by the 17th century, e.g. Isaac Barrow, Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy (1680); to the purely figurative: "concord is the mother of all happinesse" in Robert Monro, Expedition with the Worthy Scots Regiment called Mac-Keys (1637) and "pride, the mother of all sinne" in John Payne Collier (noted literary forger), The Anatomie of the Abuses in Ailgna (late 1500s); and include variants on the proverbial mother of invention: "need, the mother of all inventions" in Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1651) ~ Ningauble 15:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, maybe a candidate for the earliest snowclone.

The earliest example I can find so far of "Assumption is the mother of all.. " ("screw-ups" and "fuckups" are the most common completion, but "disasters" "lies" "deception" "messups" and "cock-ups" all get a look in) is 1977. "Orville, in aviation A~" in Flight operations, Volume 66, page 44.

In 1984 (Online catalogs, online reference: converging trends : proceedings of a Library and Information Technology Association preconference institute, June 23-24, 1983, Los Angeles. Issue 2 of Library and information technology series, P.145) it is referred to as "Wethern's law" (there's a footnote for anyone with access to a hard copy). Subsequent books cal it "Wethern's Law of Suspended Judgment".

Team-based strategic planning: a complete guide to structuring, facilitating ... by C. Davis Fogg cites Angelo Donghta (meaning, probably, "Angelo Dongia") being quoted in the New York Times of 20 January 1983.

"Travis Dane" (Eric Bogosian ) or Lt. Casey Ryback (Steven Segal) (or possibly both) popularised the phrase in Under Siege 2: Dark Territory.

In 1890 the phrase "assumption is the mother of" was used slightly differently "This assumption is the mother of the mischievous adage, "Meddlesome midwifery is bad," — mischievous in what it implies rather than what it expresses, ... " Transaction Texas Medical Association, Volume 22, page 204.

Rich Farmbrough

The saying is widely ascribed to Donghia. Rich Farmbrough

Would this make "the mother of all" the mother of all snowclones? ~ Ningauble 16:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, we should have a theme page on Assumptions, that would include the history of this set of variations. BD2412 T 20:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Speech versus Written?reference Stephen Potter and Lacan

In reference to an individual facing a very awkward situation of an organised group including business stonewalling producing the written article in other words mass "Prevarication" and entrapment- - any profound advice quotes?

—This unsigned comment is by 86.153.142.187 (talk • contribs) .

The serenity prayers different possibillities.

I look at the serenity prayer as a time based philosophy. The facts as proven by some of the greatest minds are that time is relative to the observer. Be it that the observer on earth would be very different then the observer in another gravitational density. I conclude from past statemeants that Time is therfore relative to not only gravity but also the lack of gravity found in places such as space. This fact simotaneously generates a dismissive reality while creating an infinite number of facts and or important opinions that have not become fact yet. Therfore the demension of time should have never been called a demension or in other words we should never have applied the number four to time. This creates confusion and if anything belittles the progress of men and women understanding who and what they really are (collabaritive units of information be it past, present, or future).

—This unsigned comment is by 108.79.3.213 (talk • contribs) .

Is there any policy against what I am doing?

Hi. I'm adding a picture to each LDS Church President wikiquote article that doesn't already have a picture. I am using Wikimedia Commons pictures only if they exist. I am an anonymous editor, and so I want to know if I am doing anything that may violate policy. FYI, There are 16 LDS Church Presidents in the history of the LDS Church, and so I'm not sure if there is an article on all of them. I am only adding pictures to articles that exist, so I won't bother setting up pages for any of these men that haven't been included. I'm trying to get this "ultra-mini-project" done today--so that may be where my question stems from--doing it all in such a short time-frame. If you would like a wikilink to each article so that an impression of what I'm doing is more visible, let me know and I will. Thank you kindly, 67.182.237.57 22:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Nope, no problem with that. BD2412 T 23:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for responding. A few things for me to inquire about now that I've done the pictures for existing articles:

• I added Commons pictures for John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Joseph F. Smith, David O. McKay, and Thomas S. Monson. I was a little surprised that not all of the LDS Church Presidents have wikiquote articles. Those that do have articles are Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith, David O. McKay, Gordon B. Hinckley, and Thomas S. Monson.
• I may add pages for the other 7 leaders (Heber J. Grant, George Albert Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee, Spencer W. Kimball, Ezra Taft Benson, and Howard W. Hunter) in the future, but I wonder if notability would be a problem for any of them. They are all well-known by people who have membership in the LDS Church, but the reason I ask is because some didn't serve quite as long as LDS Church President as others (one was only for 9 months, although he served as an LDS Apostle for many years.) How does Wikiquote notability criteria work? Is there a help page you could direct me to if you don't personally know how these 7 others may qualify for notability?
• And one other thing: I know you don't have to sign up for wikiquote in order to create articles, but is there any trouble in creating those 7 articles within a range of 1 day to 1 week? I don't plan to afterward start indiscriminately creating random articles all over the historical/cultural spectrum nonstop simply because you or someone else (might) give me the go-ahead on the 6 or 7 LDS articles, but I may occasionally create an article here and an article there after this LDS project goes through--if it does. The newer ones would not be LDS related--probably movies, etc. If I were to start more new LDS ones later, I'd ask permission again (in a much shorter post, thankfully). Thanks and sorry this is a bit drawn out in length. 67.182.237.57 00:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You are doing fine — this is a free and free access wiki, and there is no need to seek permission for creating articles of interest to you, so long as they are within the general guidelines of being of noted or notable people and subjects — and if they aren't you will usually swiftly find out, and be provided some suggestions by other editors. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 00:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

All right. That's good to know. Thanks for the encouragement. I'll be sure to keep within the guidelines like you mentioned, and it's nice that people can let me know what constitutes notable subjects/people, etc. just in case I do happen to unintentionally wander outside of that scope. Thank you both for responding so promptly. 67.182.237.57 02:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

QotD submissions and voting

For those unfamiliar with the system, how does one go about voting on a QotD or submitting one for consideration?

For instance, if I am interested in submitting the following for QotD on July 31, where do I leave that?

"You know, the Stone was not really such a wonderful thing. As much money and life as you could want! The two things most human beings would choose above all-- the trouble is, humans do have a knack for choosing precisely those things that are worst for them." -J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

—This unsigned comment is by Sparra (talk • contribs) .

This can be added to the list of suggestions on July 31, with your ranking of preference for it, which ranges from 4 (highest ranking, for one believes certainly should be used) to 0 (a vote against a suggestion as unnacceptable) — these ranking procedures are shown in several points on the QOTD suggestion pages. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 00:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC) + tweaks

I noticed a slight error in your above suggestion, and there is no need to add the quotation marks, but it could be added in the form:

You know, the Stone was not really such a wonderful thing. As much money and life as you could want! The two things most human beings would choose above all — the trouble is, humans do have a knack of choosing precisely those things those things that are worst for them. ~ J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

Below this you should leave a ranking and a signature. I have just added another Rowling quote to that page and signed it with a ranking below the suggestion of a * 4 ~~~~

My proposal - create a new category Category:Culture

There are some categories for new category - Art, Clothing, Comedy, Education (?), Festivals, History (?), Holidays and observances, Interpersonal relationships, Language, Literature, Sports (?), Virtues. --Averaver 08:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I think "culture" is too broad and amorphous to be a useful category for theme articles. It's all culture: quotation is cultural transmission. ~ Ningauble 18:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

We can choose categories similar as in the Wikipedia - w:Category:Culture . --Averaver 03:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Please, update wikisource and wikinews templates.

Could you please, update Template:Wikisource and Template:Wikinews templates. On my Page User:Averaver these templates show real links, not titles. --Averaver 09:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

These templates are generally intended to be used in article pages. I am not sure there would be much value in modifying them to provide category and search links; but I would be willing to work on it if more people think it would be useful. ~ Ningauble 18:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Dubious image "updates"

Two recent alterations involving images of 2 paintings by Leonardo da Vinci long used on several pages were made using CommonsDelinker‎, one of which I reverted, and the other which I accepted, with some reservations; afterwards the one I rejected was itself reverted by Dcoetzee (talk · contributions) who had provided the new image at the commons.

The John the Baptist image I had originally used brought out significant but subtle details, in a way that seemed overall to be fairly balanced, but the replacement with the darker image seemed acceptable, because perhaps the somewhat symbolic cross was deliberately not made clearly prominent in Leonardo's composition, and the color balance does appear acceptable. I still probably have a slight preference for using the older version on at least some pages, but probably not enough to insist upon strongly.

In my reversion of the change of the Mona Lisa image, I noted in the edit summaries that though the alternate version has perhaps has some merit for some forms of technical analysis of the painting, that it appears now to be officially designated "the most valued image" of the Mona Lisa at the commons, among the several alternatives seemed "a bit much" especially as it won that designation with the nomination of one person and the support of another — and no one else seems to have even taken much notice of the nomination at all.

Though clearly much higher in resolution, for those who want to examine the image in detail, the claim that the new image has "more accurate colors" is rather belied by the fact that the one originally used, though certainly somewhat darker than the images presented at the website of the Louvre itself, seems about as close to the color balance presented in the images available there, as the newer image, which I believe seems a bit too yellowish, and seems to greatly exaggerate apparent discolorations at the edges, all of which detract from the relative simplicity of the slightly darker and far less massive image originally linked to. As the use of the images on the page are primarily aesthetic conjuncts to the quotes, the original image, though a mere 2,403 × 3,591 pixels and 1.42 MB in size would likely be sufficient and more readily accessible to most than the 7,479 × 11,146 and 89.94 MB version. I also hold it somewhat more aesthetically pleasing within the compositions of the pages where it is used.

More recently on the Kenneth Grahame page the first image on the left was replaced by the second, on the right —and though both seem acceptable, and I don't know which might have the more correct color balance in this case, I feel the old image fit in best with the overall composition of the page, where I believe the new one shows up darker and less clear at the standard presentation sizes. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 22:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC) + tweaks

Advanced InterWiki template

Hi. The Wikibooks has the best InterWiki horizontal template - b:Template:Associated Wikimedia. I look in the Wikiquote there is the Template:Wikimedia. But it isn't full. Is there more useful template (horizontal or vertical)? Could you please create a new template similar as the b:Template:Associated Wikimedia template? --Averaver 15:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquote in the News (3)

More about us (ain't Google great?):

Avoid being misquoted

Marv Rockford and Steve Gray, writing for the Denver Business Journal ("To get the facts right, you’ve got to give the right facts," 28 January 2011), use examples from Wikiquote's List of misquotations to encourage interviewees to stay on-message with precise, understandable quotes and to avoid unprepared, rambling remarks. According to them, "if you don’t say it in the first place, you can’t be quoted."
If only that were true – some quotes On Misquotation suggest otherwise.

Surely you jest

The Seattle Post Intelligencer reports ("That's what she said: UW researchers develop joke-telling computer program," 3 June 2011) that a couple of researchers at University of Washington used Wikiquote as a source of raw material for teaching computers to recognize double entendre jokes. Seriously, it seems that computers have a hard time understanding humor.
Could this lead to deeper intercourse with our artificial partners?

Waxing lyrical

Philadelphia Inquirer interviewer Jonathan Takiff ("Vivid pop poet Conor Oberst moves beyond the despair of youth," 10 June 2011) opened an interview of Conor Oberst by observing, "in prepping for our talk, I came upon an excellent selection of your lyrics at Wikiquote and was struck anew how well the stuff holds up as poetry." Oberst disagreed, "I don't necessarily think the words would stand up without the melody." Asked, "when writing, how much are you thinking about serving the audience that [...] seems to hang on your every word?" Oberst replied, "The biggest disservice you can do to someone who's interested in your art is to pander or cater to them and their ideas of what your music is."
This editor is left pondering the relationship between art for art's sake and cruft for fan's sake.
—
~ Reported by Ningauble 17:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the updates! Are you going to add that last quote to Conor Oberst's page? BD2412 T 20:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

  My pleasure. It did not occur to me to add it to the article because I was just chatting from a wiki-omphaloskeptic perspective. Do you think this primary source interview has quotability? ~ Ningauble 15:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I can readily see it being quoted. It just struck me like that. BD2412 T 15:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal image filter referendum

Though this is not local policy, the dates are approaching, and I wanted to make sure that this is not overlooked--as it is certainly far-reaching. (It seems like it might not have a lot of impact here, but might, and could certainly still be of interest.

The Wikimedia Foundation, at the direction of the Board of Trustees, will be holding a vote to determine whether members of the community support the creation and usage of an opt-in personal image filter, which would allow readers to voluntarily screen particular types of images strictly for their own accounts. The referendum is scheduled for 12-27 August. You can read more about it at m:Image filter referendum/en; if you are interested in weighing in, you may especially want to review M:Image filter referendum/FAQ/en. Thanks! --Mdennis (WMF) 13:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

adding explanation ('in what sense' to understand a quote fully) and On the other hand section to quotes

Do you think it would add value if some wikiquote pages have one more section: 'interpretations'? Some quotes do not need easy to understand explanations, in-depth analysis and usage examples; some need. The main question is: What conclusion to draw from the proverb?

E.g. the proverb 'One swallow does not make a summer.' -You'd better not do anything, it is in vain (I think wiki authors oppose this), or (thinking the proverb really has some truth): -If I want to make a bigger difference (a web site serving more visitors), I'd better cooperate with others (wiki community, web2, allowing the visitors to contribute with posts and valuations). (Actually it is not only a proverb, it is written by Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, book 1, ch. 7 (C. 335 BC) To be happy takes a complete lifetime; a brief period of 'happiness' does not make a man supremely blessed.)

I propose to add an On the other hand section too (links)(to understand the whole picture, also take into consideration): <> Even the longest trip starts with a step. <> A grain of dust in the machinery. <> Think globally, act locally. <> Make a difference. Do what you can, that is your responsibility. <> For want of a nail the shoe was lost For want of a shoe the horse was lost For want of a horse the rider was lost For want of a rider the battle was lost For want of a battle the kingdom was lost And all for the want of a horseshoe nail This simple rhyme is a reminder for children to think of the possible consequences of their actions. It has often been used to illustrate the chain of events that can stem from a single thoughtless action. brainz.org

Farther, symbolic analogy: Together we stand, divided we fall (lyrics in a song).

It would also bring visitors if visitors could add sayings asking for interpretations they know they do not fully understand but would like to (instead of to counter). E.g. I do not really understand what Do not object! means. It has so many meanings - I would be happy to learn them.

Could users somehow valuate the explanations so explanations could appear under the proverb in order of average rating?

American Beauty Rose quote by Rockefeller

It seems very unlikely that this was by Jr. He would have been 30 years old in 1904 and not the spokesman for the company. A contemporary cartoon shows John D. Rockefeller pruning a rose as an old man. Other sources suggest that the speaker was Sr., not Jr. This seems much more reasonable.

Semi-protection of Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Paramahamsa Nithyananda

I have semi-protected the discussion at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Paramahamsa Nithyananda to prevent the further deluge of anon "testimonials" in favor of the author. We get the point; enough is enough. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It is very rare for a VfD discussion to be semi-protected. I only recall it being done once in the last two or three years. I agree that it is appropriate in this situation. I am afraid the behavior of these devotees does not reflect well on their master's teaching. ~ Ningauble 13:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

MediaWiki 1.18 rollout

MediaWiki 1.18 is scheduled to be rolled out at en.Wikiquote on Monday, September 26, 23:00-03:00 UTC (Wikipedia Signpost, 2011-09-19). This will be a stage 2 beta (i.e. "guinea pig") release to identify bugs before it is rolled out at en.Wikipedia and other large (i.e. "important") wikis a week later on Tuesday, October 4, 23:00-03:00 UTC. It may be hoped that this trial will involve less breakage than the 1.17 release several months ago; but if you encounter any difficulties please report them so the bugmeisters can get to work. ~ Ningauble 16:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for publishing the notice, Ningauble! More details about this upgrade can be found on the MediaWiki 1.18 announcement on blog.wikimedia.org. We don't anticipate any problems, but if you do encounter any, please see the blog post for more information on how to report problems. Since this wiki will be one of the first to get the software, we're particularly interested in your experience with it. Thanks! -- mw:User:RobLa-WMF (local user page) 00:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquote scorecard

The monthly project scorecards at stats.wikimenia.org have been improved recently, as reported at the Wikipedia Signpost this week. A glance at the English Wikiquote Scorecard for August shows over 1/2 million page views per day, trending upward over the last couple years, and about 300 edits per day, with the number of editors trending downward for four years. ~ Ningauble 16:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Hoyt's New Cyclopedia Of Practical Quotations progress

So far, of the original ~900 subjects covered by Hoyt's, about 500 have been integrated into Wikiquote. Fewer than 200 remain to be merged into existing subjects; and fewer than 200 more need to be completed and moved into regular page space. As always, any help in moving this project along would be greatly appreciated! BD2412 T 04:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

By this I mean, please help if you can. It's very simple to do - just pick a page off the first list, tidy up the formatting, add those quotes to the existing page, and remove any duplicates, and merge the edit history of the project page into that of the existing page; or pick a page off the second list, tidy up the formatting, add a lede and categories, and move the whole thing to mainspace. Some of them are very short, a dozen quotes or less, and are therefore fairly easy to tackle. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Although I have not been working on this myself, I just wanted to say that your work is not unappreciated. You are doing an impressive job! ~ Ningauble 14:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I do appreciate the moral support. However, if I could get nine other Wikiquotians to commit to doing one page from this collection per week, that will be enough to finish off the whole thing in less than a year. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Wickedictionary

Recently, an editor has added quotes from the published version of Wickedictionary, which is basically a tongue-in-cheek version of Wiktionary, to articles on the subjects addressed in those quotes. As Jeff Q observed in another discussion:

“

the oft-cited source for Abbott quotes is his own Wickedictionary, produced by vanity publisher CreateSpace (now owned by Amazon.com), which is why I suspect Abbott may be behind this sudden mass addition. Last time I checked, vanity-published material is of questionable value as a source, at least in suggesting enough notoriety to justify inclusion here. (Abbott seems notable enough for his own Wikipedia article, but as an engineer, not a writer or published quipper.)

”

I am inclined to agree with this assessment, but I don't want to jump to overly harsh actions without the consensus of the community. I therefore seek consensus on the proposition:

Quotes from Wickedictionary are, as a rule, not sufficiently quoteworthy to be included in Wikiquote.

Cheers! BD2412 T 14:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree that using this as a source is not appropriate for our site. The quotes may be entertaining, but I do not consider them to be quoteworthy enough. ~ UDScott 14:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It is a very wholesome thing for people who work in technical fields to cultivate other interests, but it is not wholesome for a wannabe to practice or promote their hobby on Wikimedia sites. If perchance, at some future time, Mr. Abbott's self-published efforts become notable in the world at large, then the situation would be different. ~ Ningauble 16:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, I too am skeptical about Abbott's notability. Even wikipedia:Derek Abbott is tagged as sounding more promotional than encyclopedic, supporting the idea that the quotes here have a similar purpose. If and when we discover Abbott's quotes have been recorded in disinterested reliable sources, inclusion here would be more reasonable. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Y Resolved. Since there are no objections, and since this is also implicitly endorsed by one of our regular unnamed contributors who has just removed one of these quotes with the comment "CreateSpace is a self-publishing service" (dif), I am going ahead and removing all Wickedictionary quotes from theme pages now. ~ Ningauble 14:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Endorse the community decision and I appreciate Ningauble for his clean-up! --Aphaia 19:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record we have a mention to this website once before: on WQ:AN in 2009 by Cirt (now in Wikiquote:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/014). --Aphaia 22:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquote talk:Limits on quotations#Moving to relax

I have proposed a relaxation of our limitations on quotations from films and TV shows at Wikiquote talk:Limits on quotations#Moving to relax. Please join the discussion there. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have always believed that very strict numerical limits were improper strategies to be embraced here, and even accepting such as a thing as a tactical convenience, the ones which have developed were excessively stringent. I fully agree they should be relaxed, and encourage others to weigh in on the appropriateness of that. I probably don't have time to indicate many of my reasons today, but will probably add more comments of my own within the next week or so. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 00:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Selecting quotes for Wikiquote

How can I select quotes for Wikiquote "Quote of the day" ? --1.618 08:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Some brief guidelines are available at Wikiquote:Quote of the day. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

FN P90

Okay, what the hell!?!? NOTHING on FN P90 is quote-worthy. Not a single bit. And it's a fairly large page, nevertheless. There is no way that somebody is able to compile such a compendium of quotes is not somehow involved with the product. Something must be done. I repeat, there is NOTHING quoteworthy on that page....

Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 03:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

And NOTHING on FN Five-seven is quoteworthy!!??

Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 03:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Garbage pseudo-advertising like this should not be making its way onto Wikiquote. I don't even want to spend my time reading through the AFDs for both those articles because they're filled up with too much garbage from User:ROG5728 who clearly has a sole-purpose account to promote this.

Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 03:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Having initially nominated both of these for deletion, I sympathize with your concerns. However, we had a process and were unable to muster a consensus for deletion. That being said, if these subjects were again nominated for deletion, I would continue to vote in support of their deletion. Furthermore, I think the outcome of the VFD does not prevent them from just being merged into Guns, or into a page for whatever kind of gun they are (e.g. Handguns or Machine guns). Cheers! BD2412 T 18:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

  Alas, we have a hard time mustering a quorum these days, much less a consensus on what is and is not quoteworthy. ~ Ningauble 18:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you guys for your response; apologies for my frustrated attitude. There was an old proposed policy regarding quotability; is there any chance it could be worked on again, to get it up to standard, so that there could be a reasonable, objective (as objective as judgements of "quotes" could be, that is) standard for cleanup and quotability? Otherwise Wikiquote could continue to become rather "unruly."

Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 22:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Missing sister projects template pages

I have created at Wikiquote:Missing sister projects template pages a list of pages for which Wikipedia has links to Wikiquote through its "sister projects template", but for which Wikiquote contains no corresponding page. The existence of such a link does not necessarily indicate that Wikiquote should have a page on the topic, but these are worthy of investigation. Some of these are surprising to me, such as Elizabeth Dole, Basketball, Pennsylvania, Denmark, and Zombies. Others, such as Nanikhir High School, likely do not merit a Wikiquote page, but might be resolved with a redirect if an appropriate page exists, just so that the link on Wikipedia will lead somewhere here. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Unicef Ad?

Am I missing something or is there no actual quote on today's main page? All that there seems to be is a link to support Unicef. Does this strike anyone else as spammy? Thenub314 23:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, an external link to a fundraising promotion does seem to meet the general description of what is meant by "spam". ~ Ningauble 14:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation "Answers"

Hi. :) I just wanted to let you all know that the Wikimedia Foundation is testing a potential new communication system intended to provide a central address to which community members who need assistance from the Wikimedia Foundation or who have questions about the Foundation or its activities can reach out and find answers. This system is being unrolled on a trial basis to test its efficiency and usefulness to communities.

What happens to your question will depend on what type of question it is. Many questions are general interest, and answers to these are being posted to wmf:Answers. Generally, at least to begin with, I will be writing these answers myself, although staff members have assisted with some questions already and I don't doubt will assist with more. Some issues will not be general interest, but may require attention from specific staff members or contractors. These will be forwarded to the appropriate parties. Questions that should be answered by community may be forwarded to the volunteer response team, unless we can point you to a more appropriate point of contact.

I imagine most of you are familiar with how the Wikimedia Foundation works, but it's probably a good idea for me to note for those who are not familiar that the Wikimedia Foundation does not control content on any of its projects. They can't help with content disputes or unblock requests, and they are not the place to report general bugs or to request features (that would be Wikimedia's Bugzilla). The letters I've answered already have included primarily questions about finances and the Foundation's work. I've been asked to get feedback from staff on diverse subjects ranging from the amount of latitude permitted to a project in drafting their "Exemption Doctrine Policy" to whether or not groups seeking grants need tax exempt status first.

If you have questions for or about the Wikimedia Foundation, you can address them to answerswikimedia.org. Please review wmf:Answers/Process for specific terms and more information. --Mdennis (WMF) 19:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Agnew

I noticed that you'd deleted your page on Aggers. I'm working on making his en: Wikipedia page a Featured Article, and it'd be great if a Wikiquote page was re-established. The Wikipedia article has considerable, well-sourced information about Aggers quotes, notably the "leg over" incident - and also the "rubber" one. There's also a hilarious comment Aggers once made that Derek Pringle recalls, but that may not be notable enough to grace these pages... Anyway, help gratefully received. --Dweller 14:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC) (en: talk)

song lyrics

wouldnt it be a great idea to put song lyrics on wikiquote? or would that be a copywright issue? it just sounds like a good idea if its legal

Iamthevoxpopuli 00:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Song lyrics are quoted on the pages for their authors, or their author's bands. Full quotation of lyrics of modern songs are not permitted, as that would involve copyright issues. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 00:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

ok cool thankss 00:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Changes to Policies and Guidelines

Apologies for being a dormant user for so long, but I've made some changes to the important Policies and Guidelines article. The majority are just formatting improvements (in my mind), as with integrating some bold statements into the the text more appropriately. Every edit is done separately, with a justification on the talk page. Another change I made a few times was the discrepancy between "w:" and "non-w:" links. I made them all consistent as non-w: links, as, I believe, by having them on Wikiquote we are assenting to them as meaningful locally, to Wikiquote. However, perhaps people will disagree with me, and they should have "w:" on them (though I would hold this is rather meaningless to the new user). Either way, I hold they should be consistent. There were also some statements after links which were in different formats--I made them consistent, sentential statements, which tried to clarify what they meant, rather than being single word, etc..

Comments?

Thank you for your time and consideration, Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 23:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)