The text for Wikiquote logo is unorthodox and doesn't anti-alias attractively. Any way to canvas a vote to change this? Alton 02:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, we had a whole large logo contest recently, that ended up with no change to the current logo. I'm hoping in a week or two to set up a better managed, better promoted process, to find a replacement. I'm hoping that the Wikimedia Foundation will agree to endorse the process, and either way I'll be trying to attract tons of outside participation. -- Zanimum 13:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll wait for you then. Alton 02:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- We have used that logo for a long while and do not seem to have a problem with it. Furthermore, "canvas a vote to change this" is not the way to communicate that (it really isn't a vote and it makes it appear like you are sure everyone thinks the logo is bad). Actually, Brion helped us design that logo and it tooks us a while to make that one. If you would still like to discuss this, I would suggest that you discss this on our Wikiquote mailing list (wikiquote-l) (or continue discussion here, but it may be better suited on the mailing list as this is why the mailing list was created). Cbrown1023 talk 14:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think we can actually every obtain a strong copyright hold on the current logo, and thus it's almost a liability for the Foundation, to have an unenforceable brand. -- Zanimum 14:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think the logo is fine, the text I agree it's ugly. drini [es:] [commons:] 19:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Um, I love handwriting text ... I feel it rather beautiful and fitting the taste of this project. --Aphaia 02:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- It has subtle artifacts when viewed against a darker background, as it is in the top-left of the project. A cleanup, and quite possibly a change in font, is what I'm asking. Alton 06:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
What's wrong with the logo? I like it.--Poetlister 15:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- The logo is great; the text I have problems with. Alton 04:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Can somvbody tell me, whitch font is it?--Temuri 10:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Just a link to a mad proposal for archival purposes. --Nemo 11:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
www.wikiquote.org portal updateEdit
This is the policy on it.wikiquote; many Wikiquotes do not have a real NPOV policy, but a simple import from Wikipedia. We found this policy very useful to decide on difficult articles and train newbies, in some months of application. In fact, that is the result of several years of experience on Wikiquote. I think that it will be useful for you, too. --Nemo 06:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
this page is updated long back. please update this page--pakalon (talk) 08:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Why a separate project?Edit
Why not just transwiki all the Wikiquote articles to Wikipedia under titles such as "Quotations related to Barack Obama"? It's no different than having, say, list articles or comparison articles. As long as the information is reliably sourced and notable, it should be okay for inclusion on Wikipedia. We really should pare down the number of WMF wikis, preferably by merging them into Wikipedia whenever possible. Leucosticte (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Instead of merging Wikiquote into Wikipedia, I prefer launching multilingual Wikiquote to supplement language subdomains with these reasons:
- Any quotes to be translated should be better in multilingual Wikiquote as the central portal. Currently copying original quotes across language subdomains to be translated is less efficient.
- Opening multilingual Wikiquote also allows merging undersized language subdomains.
- Hopefully my idea modeled after Wikisource to have a multilingual portal and sizable language subdomains will be considered.--Jusjih (talk) 04:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- What makes a Wikiquote "undersized"? Unlike an encyclopedia or a dictionary, a dictionary of quotations can be useful even if limited in coverage.
- On translations, I suspect a multilingual Wikiquote could have troubles finding an agreement on what translations are acceptable. For instance, on some Wikiquotes only published translations are accepted (this is a bit of a problem for Wikisource).
- More generally, how would quotations be presented in a multilingual Wikisource? If they're just mixed wikitext in all languages, the articles would end up being too messy to be useful. If you just treat the quotations like data, then you fail to present them within some context and criteria and therefore the usefulness and the "right to quote" (or fair dealing) may be called into question as well. See also the arguments against Structured Wikiquote. --Nemo 20:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Merging Wikiquote into Wikipedia could create notability problems, if Barack Obama quotes are ok then what about quotes from a notable book writer - and what if the book writer was not notable? Wikiquote has different inclusion criteria and different group of people who review the edits which need different skill set. Putting both projects into one wiki would make access and permissions unnecessarily complicated. --Gryllida 23:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Nemo bis and Gryllida:: I am proposing a new site call Multilingual Wikiquote, not merging Wikiquote to Wikisource or Wikipedia. A Wiki might be "undersized" if too few administrators. Currently, if quoting "Liberté, Liberté chérie," from French national anthem La Marseillaise, translating it would need copying it into each language subdomain to have a translation, but these domains tend to have very different ways to present quotes, making bilingual side-by-side comparison frequently impossible, unlike Wikisource language subdomains. I hereby present q:zh:假幣 (fake money) using sortable table with quotes in original languages first, then followed by translations (Chinese only on Chinese Wikiquote for now). If Multilingual Wikiquote is to be opened, this table may be moved over to allow quotes originally in any languages, then translated to any verifiable languages. Existing Wikiquotes in specific languages will remain open to host quotes in their own languages. Thanks for better understanding.--Jusjih (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Sockfarm user of 200 plus sock accounts going up for adminEdit
- Brief chronology at q:User:Cirt/Kalki Restrictions.
- Requesting adminship at q:Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Kalki (4th request).
Is it appropriate to allow someone to become an admin that has a sockfarm of over 200 plus sock accounts, and has repeatedly refused to stop socking and refused to help Admins and Checkusers identify his socks? -- Cirt (talk) 06:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it is appropriate that the user who has contributed the most to Wikiquote (11+ years, 100,000+ edits) be made an admin there. Please stop canvassing. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Listen, DanielTom, may I suggest you actually have a read of WP:CAN? You're implying that Cirt is attempting to gain support in only his favour; as this is not the case, I recommend you put an end to this animosity at once. Whatever you have against Cirt is something personal (in my eyes). Please, let the man do what he does best. Cheers! (P.S.: I dread the thought of a socking admin just as much as the next guy). 2601:3:3A00:270:AC39:1D46:28B3:DCBC 08:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I understand that articles are good, no articles are bad, and the "Good" column is named as it is due to prehistorical reasons, but it is actually confusing and nonsensical. It might be better to rename the column into "Articles", as it is in the List of Wikipedias, or at least "Content pages". The current naming convention itself falls under neither "Good" nor "Bad", but just "Ugly". --Ehitaja (talk) 10:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)