Forum:CT:Quotes

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was accept these guidelines. - Sikon (Vacation) 12:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

I brought this issue up in the forum thread Quotes within articles, but it never got resolved and I frankly forgot all about it. Now that I have finally remembered, I want to propose the following additions to the "Quotations" section of the Manual of Style:

• Users should never correct the spelling, grammar, or word usage within direct quotes taken from copyrighted sources as such modifications jeopardize our Fair use claim on that material. Article quotes aught to be verbatim and any changes, edits, or exclusions should be explicitly noted by using square brackets ("[ ]"). Any errors made by the author may be noted by using "[sic]".
• Quotes that serve as introductions to article subsections should not contain internal links for the same reason that headings should not contain links: because they appear unprofessional and are generally distracting. The only exception to this rule would be in-universe words or phrases of an obscure nature (ie. blue milk).
• Redundant internal links should not be added to quotes because extra links serve no purpose beyond making the quotes appear cluttered and messy. Links should only be added to quotes if they contain that article's ONLY mention of that particular concept, but even then, it would be better to integrate the internal link into the body of the article's text.
• Piped links should be avoided as much as possible. If the context of the quote is not readily apparent, it is best to add appropriate information to the quote attribution field of the quote template rather than adding piped links to ambiguous pronouns such as "you", "he", or "they".–Sentry^Talk 07:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Votes

Support

1. Sentry^Talk 07:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
2. --Xwing328^(Talk) 19:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Riffsyphon1024 19:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
4. For. -Finlayson 22:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
5. BaronGrackle 14:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
6. RMF 15:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
7. LtNOWIS 06:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Charlii 20:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Mirlen 01:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Breathesgelatin 21:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Other

Discussion

I'm not opposed to all links in quotes, but it has gotten way out of hand. For example, consider the following quote:

I wouldn't mind if blaster was linked, but the others are just distracting and unnecessary, especially the 'kid' link. I guess I mainly dislike the extensive use of piped links in quotes – in other words, if the quote mentions something specifically (like blaster in the quote above), link it, otherwise just leave it. RMF 02:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yup, exactly. As I said in the senate hall thread, I don't necessarily want to outlaw all links within quotes. I simply want to limit them: getting rid of duplicates and piped links.–Sentry^Talk 07:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there a policy on linking the speakers or not? --Eyrezer 08:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, I don't think there is a specific policy about that. Feel free to add another bullet point above if you want to Eyrezer.–Sentry^Talk 00:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
      • What about when A speaks to B? Should we add a rule that if there is a listener, then the listener must be named (or must not be named)? Darth Kevinmhk 03:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think that it would be better to replace this sort of thing:

With this:

BUT, obviously, that expanatory statement would not be necessary if the quote was embedded in the Jedi Exile's article.–Sentry^Talk 05:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• One thing of note: I don't think most of these rule should apply to the daily quotes on the main page. Those quotes are separate from the articles and are the first thing one sees when coming to Wookieepedia; it would probably be in our best interest to link as many things within it as possible. For example, Han's quote above would give links from the main page to Jedi, lightsaber, and blaster, all within the context of a pithy statement. There is no redundancy because the quote is standing alone. -BaronGrackle 14:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ya, I should have clarified that. These rules should only apply to quotes within articles.–Sentry^Talk 00:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• • I agree. Also, in the quote above, I think Malachor should probably be linked, similar to blaster in the Han quote above – unlike linking pronouns, it's not distracting, and could be of use to someone reading the quote. RMF 15:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• I think -Master Vrook to the Jedi Exile would be fine. Maybe with less links. -Finlayson 18:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Okay, another question? This quote is from a subsection of the Kyle Katarn article:

Right. Mon Mothma is already mentioned in the article, and would thus not need emphasis. But what of "blue milk"? The final rule on this list would remove it as a subsection link, but it would make no sense to integrate anywhere in the Kyle Katarn article. -BaronGrackle 15:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Alright, I modified the proposal to cover this eventuality…–Sentry^Talk 22:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, we seem to have a consensus… I will add this to the Manual of Style tonight unless anyone has any last minute objections.–Sentry^Talk 23:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I have added the guidelines above to Manual of Style.–Sentry^Talk 06:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
      • All we need to do is to reinforce it and make edits in articles. —Mirlen 14:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.