Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: no consensus. —LrdChaos (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War
Suspection of copyright infringement due to excessively massive quotes. The article is now over 170KB. I tried to trim it down, but soon quotes were added by multiple anons. Also most of quotes seem unpithy - "Yes!" "Attack!" "We are ready" .. it may be mere an excerpt. Or whole copy of videogames. Since the contributors doesn't seem to respect Wikiquote policies and convention, I think this article cannot be maintained here. See also WQ:VP. --Aphaia 13:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote closes : 14:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote extended to 14:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC), as no clear consensus yet and article actively being revised. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's see what this week holds in stock for our article. --Jan Janssens 17:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No decision yet? I'm not pushing, I just don't know how this works. :) --Jan Janssens 10:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete --Aphaia 13:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless remarkable quotes from verifiable, reliable sources are added. In its current form the entry appears to be a catalogue of comments than a listing of remarkable quotes. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 14:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you know what are you doing? This deletion is just doing wikiquotes a bit more useless. I just have to save the original page from billionquotes in case this complete list of quintessential quotes of warhammer 40k universe wil be wiped out from internets completely.
 * Delete The scale of the article raises concerns about copyvio and at least 90% of quotes are not worth having. I might change my mind if the article were reduced to a handful of the best quotes.--Cato 21:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The Thought of the Day section seems to contain remarkable quotes, and is a lot smaller than the rest of the article. Perhaps we could keep it, and delete the rest? Jan Janssens 11:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The section you mentioned is relatively smaller than the other part and somehow remarkable. But it still be too large from Wikiquote standard. For copyrighted materials, we recommend to restrict the number of quotation from an episode less than ten, and to keep each quote as short as possible, without quoting unmemorable talks. I am therefore hesitate to give you a positive response, unless I see the part in question trimmed down. --Aphaia 18:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay I cut the list of 'Thought of the Day' quotes in half, and put the rest of the article between <--> tags. Now we have an idea how it looks after cleanup. Removing content sucks, but the rules are the rules ^^. --Jan Janssens 19:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There are still questionable quotes, and too many in my impression (without context, similar to or just a palody of more notable quotes like Francis Bacon's). Also commenting out is not deleting or removing. Also, I realized a mere cleanup cannot save this article - copivio materials are easy to find from history, and you folks can use it. They are stored still now. Also I pointed out when I trimmed down this article, anons just reverted my edits  and turned it back into massive quotations again. There is no consensus not to repeat it, right? So I am disappointed with this approach. This article should be deleted. --Aphaia 19:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, I would reconsider if the article were just a handful of good quotes; surely that would not be a copyvio. It's much better now, though still a bit long.  If we have it in the right form, surely we can delete the history to prevent reversion.--Cato 21:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The commenting out in stead of removing was just a temporary measure because I don't want to play God with the article... I fully intended to remove everything once we reached a compromise. That being said, if you guys still want to delete, go ahead. I'm just a freshman in all things Wiki, and don't feel the need to oppose your decision. Small question by the way... if we can only keep a handful of quotes, won't this reduce the article to a stub? Also, revisions by anons are a bitch. I'm sure they have the best intentions but that doesn't help us now does it? :) Once more, if you feel safer deleting, please do so. --Jan Janssens 09:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is my personal preference, but I prefer stubs whose all quotes are properly cited from reliable sources to a massive page filled with unpithy unsourced quotes, like "Yes!" or "Kill, kill, kill". Page size is not a primary criterium to determine if an article is a stub, and a well constructed short article doesn't deserve to be called a stub. --Aphaia 10:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I see... thanks. Unfortunately I can't give a source for each individual quote. They all have the same source: the Warhammer 40k game, although some of the quotes are also in the Warhammer 40k codexes (or whatever the plural for codex is) --Jan Janssens 10:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. This page has definitely gone way too far in quoting everything. —LrdChaos (talk) 13:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep -- "Suspection of copyright infringement?" Where's the logic in that? Some people hypothesize that this article contains copyright infringements and instead of seeking a confirmation of their suspicions (by contacting THQ or Relic Entertainment (the makers of the game)), they honestly demand that this article must be removed because of something that has yet to be determined. No offense but the whole argument for removing this article is built on speculations and I found it strange that people here have substituted themselves with the real copyright holders., 3 September 2007.
 * No anon vote is accepted. --Aphaia 11:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I semiprotected this discussion page, after seeing almost blanking by an anon. Also the article was reverted to retrieve all removed quotes. Now I'm being convinced those anons (remind: 95% of edits on this articles are by anons) and Wikiquote norms cannot mix. --Aphaia 10:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to "lock" an article so that no further changes can be made, perhaps temporarily ? --Jan Janssens 10:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * For protection, please see WQ:PP. We often refer to Wikipedia equivalence, and it seems to me clearly oppose your proposal. --Aphaia 10:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Understood. --Jan Janssens 18:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, per nom and above discussion. ~ UDScott 13:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep In its current state, what's to object to? Quotes are organized, not too many, not inane. Subject is no less notable than the other video games we allow, and the page is [now] quite a bit better than some. --Ubiquity 14:48, 4 September 2007
 * If there is a prospective that the current version will be kept or reasonably growing but not to the status when we began this discussion, I am ready to withdraw of my vote. However after seeing no anon editor support the reducing the content, and insist it should be kept as is, that is, in 170KB+ "quotes", I feel it is not the time. --Aphaia 11:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't like to say this because it undermines my own cause, but it might be hard to keep this article nicely trimmed, I'm afraid. --Jan Janssens 06:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep .Damn this was a great idea to quote this game but freakin bastards came and deleted this ? are you so fuckin unoccupied that you have to spoil our page ?
 * No anon vote is accepted. --Aphaia 11:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment 66.158.151.144 and 64.180.216.131 (see history, reverted) share a same edit pattern - placing their comment at the top, ignoring the conventional chronogical order. The latter even tried to make a confusion even after his or her comment chronorogically sorted. Just for the record. --Aphaia 11:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Sourcing quotes is a significant challenge for electronic-game articles, due to the asynchronous nature of events in the medium, and is one which Wikiquotians have not yet addressed much. So far, there seems little community will to devote effort to articles that are usually used to document every inane utterance made within the work, sapping the interest of editors committed to producing quality, non-copyvio articles. One particular problem with copyvio is that reproducing a large portion of a part of a work, like an entire song from an album, a page from a book, or a substantial list of related ideas — like all Imperium Thoughts for the Day — can readily be interpreted as copyvio due to clauses 3 and 4 of fair use guidelines. ("Substantive" can be applied to excessive excerpting of a portion of a work because that subset can be marketed as a separable work whose commercial value would be reduced if it were reproduced by others. We avoid these highly subjective considerations by insisting on limited numbers of terse quotes whenever possible.) I applaud the effort that editors (including relative newbie Jan Janssens) have made to trim the article to something reasonable. (One note: please always use edit summaries. It's even more important to justify edits that remove significant amounts of material, even if it's to avoid copyvios.) I'd like to keep an article with this kind of solid work, but originality and quoteworthiness remain an issue. Are any of these lines or Thoughts for the Day considered catchphrases outside gaming discussion boards and other non-reliable sources? This might help make a case for keeping some of them. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Jeff, nice to meet another one of the big guys behind Wikiquote. I understand and agree with the reasoning in your post, but then again, some of my peers attribute a lack of criticism to me. I'm surprised by the strictness of this reasoning, however. Thoughts for the Day form such a small and unimportant part of the game that I can't imagine its reproduction here detracting from the value of the source. And is general quoteworthiness so important? Are the quotes from the Sopranos or the Simpsons of any value to people who don't watch the series? I mean to say that if value to the general public is a criterion, I agree that this article doesn't meet it, but it would be a strict rule. --Jan Janssens 17:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The vote will close tomorrow, so I'll go ahead and cast mine. I believe that we might be able to keep the article within wikiquote norms with effort. However, I might not be willing to babysit this article indefinitely, so keep that in mind when you make your decision. Also, I'd like to thank everybody for discussing the fate of this article in a responsible, good-hearted fashion. I very much enjoyed the course of the vote. --Jan Janssens 17:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please reply me ... when those contributors call us b****rd, f**k or whatever and you let them say so, what can I expect from you as for "keeping "wikiquote norms"? I feel simply offended and think they violate another our norm, WQ:CIVIL, even it is still in draftg status.  --Aphaia 00:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That user apologised for his language even before you berated him. And generally speaking, I ignore comments made in anger or ignorance. I preferred to inform him rather then argue with him. Have I lost your trust because I didn't crack down on that guy ? And YES I do intend to follow wiki regulations, but I'm not a policeman. I can correct articles and contributions, but not other people. That is not my place. --Jan Janssens 14:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In my personal opinion, letting people offense other people is sort of offence. Using obscene words makes it hard to keep the project the ordinary and sane people to stay here. I don't feel necessity for your implication now, but disagree on your indifference - it is support of violence and incivility which makes collaboration difficult. --Aphaia 14:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Very well. It seems we can agree to disagree on this. To each his own (philosophy, in this case) --Jan Janssens 17:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Sorry, I've been on holiday. In its present form, this article may have enough merit for retention but it's pretty borderline.--Poetlister 16:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment While I may not be able to vote, I still would like to say something. The article isn't really harming anyone, why delete it? Being a huge dawn of war fan myself, it's one of my favorite pages. If you must get rid of stuff, very well, but at least keep the dialouge sections and the Thought of the Day section. 76.84.12.144 19:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * See w:WP:NOHARM on why, in general, "it doesn't harm anyone" is not a very useful argument. Much of it applies to Wikiquote as well. In fact, it occurs to me that we could use a Wikipedia-like clause of WQ:NOT with the heading "Wikiquote is not an indiscriminate collector of quotes". ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to have the quotes again for yourself, I could upload them to my FTP. I saved the article in a txt file before reducing it. --Jan Janssens 10:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.