Talk:Love


 * Index pages
 * /Archive 1
 * /Unsourced quotes
 * Tasks you can do


 * √ * Find sources for quotes which are listed here >> /Unsourced quotes <<.
 * √ * Clean up, to conform to a higher standard of article quality.

Unsourced quotes index page created
Please move unsourced quotes from page Love to page Talk:Love/Unsourced quotes. This way we'll have an index page to refer to for all unsourced quotes. And it won't clog up future discussion on this talk page. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have any more time for dealing with this attempt to make restorations of quotes to the page more difficult — those quotes are not likely to be found for further research by most people on some sub-archive — and it is STANDARD practice to place such quotes on the talk pages — NOT some further sub-pages. I MUST be leaving now, as I am already running late on a few things — I might make further comments within a few hours — if I am not blocked again for getting into an edit dispute with a person who has regularly exhibited an intolerance of opinions of opposition to his/her will being expressed or preserved or even permitted. ~ Kalki (talk &middot; contributions) 23:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point Kalki, the index page for unsourced quotes should be easy to find. Therefore, I've placed it at the top of this talk page. Also, I went ahead and bolded the link to it, to draw more attention to it. This way, it'll both be easy to find, and not clog up this talk page with history. :) Thanks again, Kalki, for the great idea! Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with this solution. The unsourced quotes are found easily enough for those of us who will be working on them, and the talk page is cleared up for other matters to be raised without getting drowned out. BD2412 T 03:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I can accept this measure as it stands, for this page, as there is a notable link on the article itself which was updated by a conscientious editor, but certainly do not wish it to become standard procedure on all other pages — though it might be used on a few of the lengthier ones — but only with a prominent link provided on the article page itself, as it is here. ~ Kalki (talk &middot; contributions) 21:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, your rationale is a sound one. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Image overuse??
This page had hundreds of images on it - including several repeat uses of the same images. Doesn't this seem a bit much? Anyone agree or disagree? I raised a similar question at Talk:Truth. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. To my mind, the purpose of pictures in these pages should be to highlight (make easier to detect) the very best (or the most quoted / best known) quotes in the article, this holding true particularly for long pages. Having walls of pictures defeats this purpose. (Not to mention the page load time issue.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I trimmed down the pictures. Anyone who wants to trimm them furhter down is encouraged to do so. --P3Y229 (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing a Unsourced Quote
I am making this section since I checked the history of this page and the Unsourced page and neither seem to have dealt with the issue of where to cite the evidence provided to prove that a quote came from a source. In any case, I will list the evidence that I consider to be decisive and I will make the change which should be reverted if there is an issue. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Robert Heinlein
Quote: "Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy condition. The immature mind often mistakes one for the other, or assumes that the greater the love, the greater the jealousy — in fact, they are almost incompatible; one emotion hardly leaves room for the other." Other details: Robert Heinlein in Stranger In A Strange Land The book is already listed on the Unsourced List. Checking the book with a search using Ctrl+F reveals that it is the thirteenth quote in the current revision in the section titled "His Scandalous Career." It notes that the quote appears in the First Edition of Stranger in a Strange Land. Using Google Books to search for the quote comes up with a match on Page 363. Clicking on the page and looking towards the bottom of the page around the seventeenth paragraph shows the quote in question. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Bible section
The Bible is composed of multiple books with different histories and different authors. Not all denominations agree on which books are part of the canon. For example: For Jews the New Testament is not part of the Bible. I don't see the justification for putting these quotations from different authors under one heading. If the page is alphabetized by author, why make an exception for books that are canonized by certain denominations? The Bible is the medium in which these books come down to us, not their author. ~ Peter1c (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Because makes easier for the reader to search Bible quotes about love if that has their own section, instead of have to search among the many quotes here. About denominations, the section can have subsections if needed. Rupert Loup 23:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Rupert Loup, thanks for explaining the reasoning. The thing is, the authors who wrote these books did not know or intend them to be collected in this collection called the Bible. This grouping came later in history, and was not agreed upon by the authors of these texts. You say we can make subheadings, but this does not do justice to denominations that do not see texts included under the Bible heading as part of their Bible. For example, there are denominations that see only the Gospel of John as part of the Biblical canon, and not the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. Others see only the Gospel of Luke as canonical. Is it just to these denominations to include books they do not consider Biblical under the Bible heading? I understand the argument about convenience for readers looking for Biblical quotes on love, but grouping all the texts in a section at the end could also be interpreted as segregating these texts out of the discourse. I propose to address this convenience issue by creating a separate page Bible quotes about love with copies of quotes you admirably collected and organized. When I proposed to organize some pages chronologically, Kalki pointed out rightly that this makes the pages harder to maintain, and it is problematic both aesthetically and administratively to have different theme pages organized according to different principles. My impression is that WQ has been settling into an agreed upon rule that theme pages are organized alphabetically. ~ Peter1c (talk) 14:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If it helps the readers I don't have objections. In my opinion, trying to make content easily accessible should be a priority in WQ. Rupert Loup 15:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Unrequited love and splitting
This page is huge, and that's understandable. However, wouldn't we do a good service if we split out some crucial subthemes? An obvious one would be unrequited love. I'd start with a quotation by Walter Scott and one by Umberto Eco, but there's plenty of course. --Nemo 23:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that is an excellent idea. BD2412 T 20:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, its size its cumbersome to navigate and edit. Rupert Loup 22:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I moved this content, 112,849 characters, to its own article because this article is becoming too large to be comfortably navigated. Its size should be kept in a reasonable length for readability. Meta has a handbook on this: Meta:Help:Page size. Rupert Loup 22:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Still it's pretty large in my opinion, 441kb, I think that it should be splitted further. Rupert Loup 22:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I created the article Love poetry and move a lot of related quotes there. Now the article has a size of 277kb. Rupert Loup 06:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

, I am in agreement with you on most issues on Wikiquote, so I am sorry we disagree on this case. This issue I have is that this article has evolved over a long period of time, with many thoughtful contributions from many editors, and you are proposing to make a drastic change without consensus from contributors. Love is one of the most frequently viewed articles on the Wikiquote site (see topviews). This article has come to its present state by much hard work by many editors. If you propose to make drastic changes to the article, please obtain consensus from the major contributors. I agree with copying quotations to make articles like Love poetry, Spiritual love, Religious views on love, etc., but I don't agree with removing quotations that are relevant and notable from the original article. Criteria for inclusion of quotations are specified at WQ:Q. The quotations you deleted from this page clearly meet these criteria. For an article like this with many contributors, you need consensus from contributors before making these drastic changes. I, for one, do not consent. ~ Peter1c (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I looked again over list of article contributors. Some major contributors include and  and others. If you can get majority consensus from major contributors, of course I will consent to changes, but as it is you do not have necessary consensus to make this major change. The article is a very successful article with more than 1,500 average views per day. Why are you so eager to fix something that is not broken? ~ Peter1c (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Nemo bis and User:BD2412 discussed the issue first so I would like to hear their opinion on this also. WQ:QaQ stated that "a page shouldn't have too many quotes", we should prioritize quality instead of quantity. If there are to many quotes about an specific subtheme, i.e. William Shakespeare quotes about love and Spiritual love, those quotes should be moved to a specific article to improve readiability. The quotes that users added in years, me included, are buried among the other many quotes difficulting their reaching. Having the article in this size hinder our hard work. Rupert Loup 23:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe I wrong, but I don't see how the view count is relevant really, Wikiquote is not a highly visited website like other Wikis.
 * Peter1c: "majority consensus from major contributors" I'm pretty sure that's not how consensus work in Wikias. "Mayority" implies a democracy and "major" implies that the opinion of some users have more weight than others. The concern that me and other editors pointed out is the size of the article, so what do you propose to solve this issue so we can work out the problem? Rupert Loup 23:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

− , you have also not responded to the concern that by moving religious quotes into a separate page, you are relegating notable quotes from sources that happen to be religiously affiliated into separate pages, enforcing a kind of apartheid/segregation of secular and religious domains, and now, by moving all poetry to a separate page, you have set up an apartheid of prose and poetry. What ends up left on the Love page will be all secular prose, and therefore will not represent the full range of notable, relevant views and approaches to the topic. Your claim that Love gets many views only because it is featured on the main page is not true. The causality is in fact the other way around. The page is featured because it is an excellent page and gets many views. Among the pages featured, it gets more views than others. I really think you are making a big mistake in pushing for drastic changes when the page is a very good page as it is. Why are you so eager to fix a page that is not broken? Your brief remarks here do not explain your reasoning (and are not grammatical, I might add). What is your motivation for making these drastic changes to a successful page? Why are you insisting on removing notable, relevant quotations? What is your response to the concern that by separating quotations in the (arguably philistine) manner you propose to do, the remaining quotations will in effect have been subjected to secular, prose, etc. restrictions, thereby making the page no longer neutral in its point of view? I really don't see why you are pushing for this. ~ Peter1c (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion religious quotes or poetry can be here but they should have the best quality. Quality over quantity to mantain a reasonable size and high quality in the article. I moved religious and poetry quotes because their quantity in respect with the others subthemes. "are not grammatical" I know, I'm not an English native speaker and I don't have any interest in improve that at the moment. Your remarks and questioning about my motives fails WQ:CIVIL. Rupert Loup 23:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Rupert Loup 23:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "thereby making the page no longer neutral in its point of view" If that is your concern then selected quotes can be added to achieve neutrality. Add those who have high quality and reduce the number of secular quotes of lesser quality to achieve balance. WQ:QaQ Rupert Loup 23:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding length of article, WQ:QaQ is written in regard to pages for a single work, for example a film, so it is not clear how it applies here. WQ:QaQ states that the suitable "number of quotes on a page for a work [is] dependent on its length." It's not clear how this criterion applies for a theme page, but if we go by the total volume of books written about love, maybe the page is a reasonable length? If you are concerned about length, I would not be opposed to removing quotes that are less notable, less relevant to topic. When I ask about your motives, it is not to question your sincere interest in improving the project (i.e., good faith), it is to try to understand why you feel strongly about these changes. No incivility is intended. I really want to understand what your concerns are so I can work with you to address them. An attempt to understand the aims and objectives of the parties is important to negotiating a mutually agreeable consensus. Regarding consensus, many editors have put in much hard work to bring the page to its present state. The fact that the page has reached this state with contributions from many editors is evidence that the present state of the page represents a consensus of editors involved in prior work on the page. Prior contributors to the page can be supposed to support the page in its present state since prior contributors worked to get the page to this state. That is why I think it is important to consult contributors before making a major change. If you decide to remove quotes of lesser notability and relevance, I suggest it would be easier if they are moved to talk page so if there is any dissent it can be discussed. I think this process can be gradual, so that there is time to think about each one. You propose to make a sudden major change to a page that has evolved over a long time. Perhaps it can evolve in a direction that represents your objectives at a pace that is not so drastic? Those are my thoughts. I apologize that you perceived my remarks as uncivil. The page represents a lot of hard work. The page represents the consensus in its present form. When you come in with a wrecking ball and make major changes like this, it is very disconcerting. ~ Peter1c (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "I would not be opposed to removing quotes" I oppose to remove quotes unless there is a good reason for it. Moving the quotes to other article is not the same than remove them. I will wait for other opinions since the size of the article will keep growing and sooner or later we will have to tackle the problem. Rupert Loup 00:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree but I'm not upset about it, sorry if I gave a false impression. Rupert Loup 01:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)