Forum:CT:Real-world quote pages

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Real-world quote pages

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 for adopting Silly Dan's proposed policy. - Sikon 00:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

After two VFD threads, here and here, Quote:Karen Traviss was kept, with the caveat that we need to work out a real-world quotes policy.

I propose that the guidelines I put in the "keep but restrict" section could be a start for a policy on quotes from Star Wars writers, actors, and other real-world people. This policy could be applied not just to Wookieequote pages, but any quotes from real people in the main article space (like the George Lucas quotes in Palpatine, Abel G. Peña;s quote on Wookieepedia, etc.) Slightly modified, and made more general, they would be:

  • Any quotes must be fully referenced and meant for public consumption. Examples of public quotes include public blog posts or message board posts, statements in documentaries or DVD commentaries, interviews with the media, statements printed in books or articles, or statements from public speeches at conventions (though that last would be harder to source or quote accurately.)
  • They must also be given with sufficient context. This means that the quote we list would be understood the same way as it would when reading the full original context.
  • The quotes must be about either the Star Wars universe, or their creative process when contributing to Star Wars as an actor, author, filmmaker, game designer, etc.
  • Anything that's not related to Star Wars should be left out. Examples of off-topic quotes would be quotes which only discuss a person's opinion of particular fans or groups of fans, their politics, or any fan feuds they may figure in.

Comments?

(Note: Please don't nominate the Karen Traviss quote page to be deleted again. The second nomination discussion ended with 2/3rds of the editors voting to keep it in some form.)—Silly Dan (talk) 02:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • This looks great. Yeah, we should definitely get rid of all those unverifiable ones. -LtNOWIS 02:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Looks good to me. –SentryTalk 23:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Agreed. A lot of media, especially quotes [in Quotation articles], are unsourced and unreferenced. —Mirlen 14:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Bumping this topic after a month of inactivity: I just noticed that Wikia has a draft policy at Wikia:Pages about living people. It hasn't been touched since May, and it's only a draft policy, but we should keep it in mind if we're ever going to set a policy on similar topics here. —Silly Dan (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Should we put this to a vote?–SentryTalk 03:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

For adopting the above policy

  1. —Silly Dan (talk) 03:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. SentryTalk 04:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. I don't see the need for a vote given nobody disagrees, but I'm still for. - Sikon 04:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Havac 05:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Ozzel 07:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Good, it looks like they saved us some writing. Support. jSarek 20:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. LtNOWIS 02:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Waste of HTML. Totema 03:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. WhiteBoy 23:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Against

Comments

I still see some problems with this policy. Specifically, "quotes which only discuss a person's opinion of particular fans or groups of fans" could still be Star Wars-related. Especially since it's evident that some people's "opinion of particular fans or groups of fans" has a direct impact on their body of work. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(TINC) 16:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I suppose it might: but many of the sort of quotes you're talking about have appeared to me to fail the "public and verifiable" or "presented with sufficient context" criteria anyway. I'm also of the opinion that in many cases, reporting in too much detail on any of these "feuds" and "controversies" makes us look as though we're taking a side in the issue (even presenting both sides could lead partisans to claim we're taking the opposing side), and serves only to spread the flamewars around. I'd prefer to stay out of those arguments. Having said that, do the other criteria seem reasonable to you? —Silly Dan (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Everything else is fine. I wouldn't want to use unverifiable quotes for the same reason I wouldn't want to post fanon. But the definition of "public" includes everything that's a matter of public record. And Google Cache and the Internet Archive are public records. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(TINC) 02:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
      • When I said "public consumption", I didn't mean "anything publically accessible." When posting to a restricted forum, or even a friends-locked livejournal, there's some expectation of privacy, which would make me think quotes from that source don't count as a "public" quote. I'd even extend it to blog and forum posts which were public, but have since been removed from public view. It's a bad idea for someone to post something online, and then try to hide it expecting it never to be seen again, I realize, but I'd prefer to err on the side of caution here. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Truth doesn't abide by rules of caution. Facts are facts. If it's on the web, it's public. If it's public, it's quotable. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(TINC) 02:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Google Cache only maintains archives for a limited time. Linking there as a source is only a temporary solution. If it's not somewhere on the "real" internet or in the Internet Archive, it's not going to stay verifiable for long. jSarek 05:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
      • What Silly Dan said. I agree with the "meant for public consumption" stipulation. WhiteBoy 23:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)