主题:Village pump

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.
All Wikiquote: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 - All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5


Welcome, newcomers and baffled oldtimers! If you have a question about Wikiquote and how it works, please 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template tools

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts about the latest community wishlist

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

Adding categories to a Wikiquote article?

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

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


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

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

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

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

Pictures in Wikiquote pages

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

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

Requested Deletion for Mobile Suit Gundam

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

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

Block Bicam3ralMind

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


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

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

Adding interviews by journalists and including context from the journalist alongside direct quotes from the interview subjects.

I was recently told in an edit summary by Peter1c for the age for Economic inequality that Wikiquote should not include paraphrasing??? Case in point:

  • "While most Americans think of the US as being a country of great economic mobility and opportunity, its economic mobility rate is now one of the worst in the developed world." he wrote. He explained that there is essentially two Americas, for the top 40% and bottom 60%. The former is faring significantly better, and those at the highest level of wealth are as far removed from everyone else as they ever have been...

(Part of this entry is a quote and part is a paraphrase. The paraphrase part does not meet WQ:Q)
I disagree, I believe that this quote, additional explanation and all, does meet WQ:Q, even if it's "smoother"/"less clunky" to quote without the additional context. Any thoughts? I would appreciate being given the official stance on this from an active administrator or two if possible. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: Admin activity review

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

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

  1. Jeffq (administrator)

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

However, if you as a community would like to create your own activity review process superseding the global one, want to make another decision about these inactive rights holders, or already have a policy that we missed, then please notify the stewards on Meta-Wiki so that we know not to proceed with the rights review on your wiki. Thanks, --علاء (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@علاء: You may wish to update the English version of this template to say "no edits and no logged actions". GMGtalk 22:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
A local policy on activity seems most appropriate. I can't speak for others, but two years is an extremely long time. A 1 year policy would make more sense and often (personal experience) has brought me back to activity as a friendly poke that if I don't contribute, I will lose my rights. Looking around, I think this friendly poke is needed for a few admins. @GreenMeansGo: Thoughts? ~riley (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Well they just noticed us earlier last year, which caused quite a purge. I wouldn't be opposed to a local standard. GMGtalk 11:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Addition to WQ:IMAGE guidance?

Freedom mobile version.png

I have seen a lot of articles where there have been a dozen or more images all stacked in the lead. Compare the image placement for the current article for France. Ten images, all stacked together in the lead. Now, pull out your phone and view the mobile version of the article for France. On mobile version, you have to scroll through all ten of these images before you get to the text in the first section. And 10 is actually a pretty low count. The article for Freedom currently has 63 images stacked in the lead, meaning the page is rendered basically entirely unusable for mobile viewers.

We've got to stop doing this. The same page for Freedom, that is entirely unnavigable for mobile users, get a sustained 66 average daily view from mobile users. GMGtalk 16:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Another problem that has arisen lately regarding the placement of images at the top of pages is that some users are placing select images at the top that appear to push a POV. Having this elevated placement on the page emphasizes these quotes over others. As a solution to this, for those pages where there has been discussion and argument about this, images have been placed in the alphabetic sections based on the author of the quote (thereby moving them further down the page based entirely on the alphabet and not on anyone's sense of what should be emphasized). This may not solve every problem, since some pages do not have these alphabetic sections, but it would also help with the issue you identified. I would invite further discussion to determine the best approach, but I agree that the problem you have raised is troubling. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I was kindof hoping we could get a good consensus on the issue, and maybe I could beg someone to make a bot to disperse images throughout an article. This probably spans most of the non-stub pages on the project if I was guessing. GMGtalk 16:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I have long noted both of the above problems on various pages, and certainly not had time to sufficiently address the issues where I had noted them, but will attempt to begin work on both problems in the weeks and months ahead. I am not sure a "dispersal" bot would be easy to construct or apply, but I will henceforth spend more of my own time further re-establishing what was once an extensive norm of 1 lead image and significant and clearly relevant quote as caption in the short intro section, or sometimes 2 where the intro area is extensive. After those 1 or 2 images in the intro area it is definitely preferable that all further images be placed in the sequences and sections in which the quotes used for their captions occur on the page, and believe this should become policy, but one not likely to be immediately clear to all new editors, as there are numerous pages where such procedures as were once norms have now long been abandoned. I am not extensively familiar with the display behaviors using mobile formatting on devices (usually switching to desktop mode on the relatively rare occasions I check in on mobile), but I believe that groupings of these beneath the section headings are not so much as problem as grouping them at the very head of the article before even the intro quite obviously is. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 18:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@Kalki: To be clear, the article for Freedom looks like this on mobile, and continues on like that for 63 images before the reader can get to the text. The problem is really the grouping of too many images in any one place anywhere, but grouping them at the top of the article in particular is especially problematic. Many readers may not even realize there is text at all. GMGtalk 18:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that is obviously an extreme problem, and I encourage other editors to set to remedying it with moving of all but one or two of images below the intro sections ASAP, and preferably into the proper sections and sequences on the pages, though I know that this can sometimes be tedious where sequential order was not maintained in the placement of images. I will probably begin attending to some of these pages myself in the coming days, and probably for some weeks ahead. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 18:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I have just reorganized the images on the Freedom page to be closer to the norms evident even on that page only months ago. That is all I have time for right now — must be leaving, but expect to be back within a few hours. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 19:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
On the subject of the previous state of the article, @Peter1c: when adding images to pages, please don't stack them at the top for the above reasons. Truth be told, there's probably a lot of people doing it, but the last thing we should want to do is make the issue worse and harder to clean up. GMGtalk 20:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo:, yes I have been adding images at the top of page above the first section heading. I didn't know about the issue of how this affected mobile view. Sorry about this. I understand concerns about mobile view and issues of neutral point of view. I will adjust my methods accordingly. Thank you for the opportunity to work with you on Wikiquote. Best regards, Peter1c (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Folklore

WLL Subtitled Logo (transparent).svg

Hello Folks,

Wiki Loves Love is back again in 2020 iteration as Wiki Loves Folklore from 1 February, 2020 - 29 February, 2020. Join us to celebrate the local cultural heritage of your region with the theme of folklore in the international photography contest at Wikimedia Commons. Images, videos and audios representing different forms of folk cultures and new forms of heritage that haven’t otherwise been documented so far are welcome submissions in Wiki Loves Folklore. Learn more about the contest at Meta-Wiki and Commons.

Kind regards,
Wiki Loves Folklore International Team
— Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk)
sent using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

step by step

I'm a new member here, could you tell me step by step guide for a beginner like me?

--PutriAmalia1991 (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@PutriAmalia1991:Wikiquote:Welcome, newcomers is a useful guide. See if this can help. If this doesn't, please leave a note on my talk page (in the following signature). Josephine W. Talk) 12:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Movement Learning and Leadership Development Project


The Wikimedia Foundation’s Community Development team is seeking to learn more about the way volunteers learn and develop into the many different roles that exist in the movement. Our goal is to build a movement informed framework that provides shared clarity and outlines accessible pathways on how to grow and develop skills within the movement. To this end, we are looking to speak with you, our community to learn about your journey as a Wikimedia volunteer. Whether you joined yesterday or have been here from the very start, we want to hear about the many ways volunteers join and contribute to our movement.

To learn more about the project, please visit the Meta page. If you are interested in participating in the project, please complete this simple Google form. Although we may not be able to speak to everyone who expresses interest, we encourage you to complete this short form if you are interested in participating!

-- LMiranda (WMF) (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Open call for Project Grants

Wikimedia logo family complete-2013.svg

Greetings! The Project Grants program is accepting proposals until Feburary 20 to fund both experimental and proven projects such as research, offline outreach (including editathon series, workshops, etc), online organizing (including contests), or providing other support for community building for Wikimedia projects.

We offer the following resources to help you plan your project and complete a grant proposal:

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


UDScott welcomed me and thank you for that also iam asking if theres any webpages that have sourced quotes on? PoolsHaza181 (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey PoolsHaza181. To my knowledge, most of the popular private quote websites don't include sources at all, and may or may not be reliable in their content. For our purposes, we can and do pull quotes from lots of things, including interviews, books, and newspapers. But one of the main differences between Wikiquote and a lot of other sites is that we do require sources. This makes things a little more difficult sometimes, but ideally it makes us a higher quality source for our readers. GMGtalk 20:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Continuing this discussion: is brainyquote reliable on quotes for sources? Thanks. (Josephine W. Talk) 08:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC))

Why aren't anchors a thing here?

I don't edit here, but I do like to link to Wikiquote on internal project discussions. Why aren't anchors regularly deployed on English WikiQuote? If I want to link to my favorite quote, I'm basically stuck linking to the whole page or nothing at all. Can someone please ping an explanation to me? MJL (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

See #Anchors. IKhitron (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Hmm.. Now I'm even more convinced that this is a problem. There could simply be a policy page that says people shouldn't replace manually placed anchors without a good reason. MJL (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Robert James Masters new article on The Art of the Chase book, a Literary Work

I tried to upload 13 MS Word pages containing original quotes from my book, the Art of the Chase

I was not linking to any website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robert James Masters (talk • contribs) 06:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Robert James Masters: May you accurately describe your problem? You can copy these pages, not upload them. Also, Hi. I wanted to ask you to sign comments in talk pages. The easiest way to sign is to add ~~~~ at the end -- it is automatically transformed to your IP address with a timestamp or, if you register, to a username and a timestamp. This makes it much easier to track discussions, and is the common practice here. Thanks. Josephine W. Talk) 06:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
User:Robert James Masters attempted to post a large excerpt (48000+ bytes) from his "book", but it was prevented by the abuse filter (both local and global filters). Why? In short: Wikiquote is not for publishing or promoting your book.

A 19 page PDF was uploaded from Microsoft® Word at Wikimedia Commons, where it has been flagged by OgreBot for review. I do not know whether it will ultimately be accepted or rejected at Commons, but this does not belong at Wikiquote. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Categories sorting templates

Hello, I was just wondering if we could insert a template tool searching the usages of a certain template (i.e. a quick tool on the template page which could insert that template onto any one page, or adding the form that will automatically put the page into a certain category for every template). May admins fix this problem? I asked before but there was no fix to this problem. Josephine W. Talk) 06:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

It is not clear to me what you are trying to do or what is actually broken. Can you clarify with a more concrete example? Is this related to the HotCat gadget? ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
What I mean is that like Babel and Speedy Deletion Templates, templates can automatically mark pages that have the template into a category. Josephine W. Talk) 00:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Sounds like you mean mw:INCLUDEONLY. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I assume that as such, there are categories sorting templates? Josephine W. Talk) 03:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Then may I ask how exactly to sort every page including template x into a category? Josephine W. Talk) 10:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional interface for edit conflicts on talk pages

Sorry, for writing this text in English. If you could help to translate it, it would be appreciated.

You might know the new interface for edit conflicts (currently a beta feature). Now, Wikimedia Germany is designing an additional interface to solve edit conflicts on talk pages. This interface is shown to you when you write on a discussion page and another person writes a discussion post in the same line and saves it before you do. With this additional editing conflict interface you can adjust the order of the comments and edit your comment. We are inviting everyone to have a look at the planned feature. Let us know what you think on our central feedback page! -- For the Technical Wishes Team: Max Klemm (WMDE) 14:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

vector.js Sub-Userpages

Are there vector.js sub-userpages since there are monobook.js sub-userpages? (Josephine W. Talk) 04:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC))

本页面最后更新于2020-03-06 05:33,点击更新本页

本站的所有资料包括但不限于文字、图片等全部转载于维基语录(wikiquote.org),遵循 维基百科:CC BY-SA 3.0协议