Wikiquote talk:Templates/People archive

Simpler top line style
I have updated some material on this page, and I have revised the recommended top lines for the pages that are devoted to specific people to more closely match the styles on the Wikipedia. Some people had begun using this simpler style, and I initially been inclined to alter their additions to the previous one, but after consideration, I think this is a much better standard to promote. The section header that had been used at the top seems to be pretty much superfluous and redundant, on most pages for people. The section header at the top does have a useful function on most pages for literary works, films, and the like, and I have not changed the recommendations for these. The pages for People that currently use the older recommendations need not to be changed, other than with the gradual editing that occurs. This has been picking up quite a bit lately, with the increased visibility of many links to Wikiquote within the Wikipedia, and I expect that it will increase even more. The simpler more Wikipedia like style is ultimately a more efficient use of screen space and easier to edit— every superfluous mark that can be eliminated is one less mark that can be flubbed up with imbalanced placement. ~ Kalki 18:13, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Can we make this template mandatory or at least strongly recommend it in the case of controversies? Andries 09:51, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm against making nearly anything mandatory, but after testing it out on a few, I do think that I would extend these recomendations strongly, even to the pages for film and perhaps most literary works as well; I think that having a section header directly under the title is simply unecessary and a waste of space. Using the Wikipedia-like style permits more detailed info to be given, and to do so in a simple manner, above any table of contents that appears. ~ Kalki 13:00, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Kalki, but suppose contributors have a condlict then we need a guideline. What is the alternative? Endless revert wars? The entry that I am referring and am worried about is Prem Rawat. Andries 13:06, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I am aware of the conflicts that have occured on that page. I do support your editing of the page into standard chronological order, as is used on every other page for people that I am aware of (where attempts at a chronogical order have been made at all), and think that the Hoffman quote should be retained. I also think the University of Virginia link should have remained, but I am not going to insist upon restoring it, if the primary adversaries in the edit conflicts can accept the current arrangements. Rather than endless edit wars, if conflicts continued unabated on any issue, there would need to be some kind of project consensus developed, and general standards imposed. I truly do think insisting that all pages conform to some particular standard from the very start is not a good idea, but I think that gradually in the months ahead those standards which are most acceptable to most people will be developed, and can then be strongly established as guidelines. I think people should feel free to experiment a bit though, and where no major conflicts between editors have developed, as they clearly have on the Prem Rawat page, I do think people should be free to at least try some innovations. ~ Kalki 13:29, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Quotes by people suggestion.
Are the bullets used to count quotes? If so it's not very helpful since the same quote may exists on a person and theme page.

Instead of  == Sourced == * English Quotation ** Source of the quote.( with a Date of source, when known) ** Optional clarifications, notes on context, etc. 

 * "Non-English quote." ** (For quotations from languages with non-roman scripts, providing some semblance of a phonetic transliteration directly below it can be helpful) ** Translation: English Translation ** Source: Chapter xx, sentence xx or Act xx, Scene xx. (Other formats can be used) ** Optional clarifications, notes on context, etc. 

 === Quotes from specific Novels/Plays/Works (Date Published or Created)=== * Book/Play1 (Wikisource - Book/Play1) * Book/Play2 (Wikisource - Book/Play2) 

 == Attributed == * Quotation ** Notes: context, clarification (where it is not clear), etc. 

I suggest:

 ==Sourced== "English quotation." &mdash; source with publications italicized, date if known, optional clarifications, notes on context, etc. 

 "Italicized Non-English quote." &mdash; source, date if known, optional clarifications, notes on context, etc. Transliteration: "The transliterated quote." &mdash; transliterated by transliterator, source, date if known, optional clarifications, notes on context, etc. Translation: "The English translation." &mdash; translated by translator, source, date if known, optional clarifications, notes on context, etc. 

 ===Quotes from specific novels/plays/works under one section header (date published or created)=== 

 ==Attributed== "English quotation." context, clarification (where it is not clear), etc.  &mdash; Jeandré, 2005-01-02t13:00z


 * The above formatting only works if you use HTML &lt;tt&gt; (as in your examples), &lt;br&gt;, or similar elements. Without them, the consecutive lines will be scooped up into a single line of text. Alternatively, you could separate each quoted line with a blank line, but then each grouping would need two or more blank lines to distinguish the groups, creating an considerable amount of whitespace. (See Blackadder for an example, except that the blank-line solution be worse, in that it would show more space between quote lines, and would therefore make the grouping separation look less distinguishable.) Wiki-wise, you need either "*" bullets or ":" indentations to prevent inappropriate text condensation. Of course, it would help if MediaWiki had a nice poetry/dialog/lyric format markup, but I've never been able to direct the attention of The Powers That Be to this glaring omission. &mdash; Jeff Q 14:38, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Oops. Let me just acknowledge that the annoying poetry/dialog/lyric problem isn't so much a problem for people quotes as long as people find the current standard bullet format okay. But finding a better format for people quotes probably involves the same issues I mention above for these other quote types. &mdash; Jeff Q 14:48, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

FAQ
The following questions and answers may serve as a general FAQ and as a suggestion box and source for those wondering why the certain formats have not been generally recommended. As the questions are resolved, the solutions will be either integrated into the template, or left as documentation as to why such a format is not recommended, or as yet remains unresolved.


 * What is the recommended format for linking to wikisource documents?

where should the Wikipedia link go?
The auto-link to Wikipedia is awesome, but where should it go on pages that don't have a Related Links section?
 * Adding a header just for this box clutters the page
 * but putting it right under the title line at the top leads people away who have just arrived at the quotation page.

For example, William Gibson, George Santayana , etc.


 * I would recommend having a normal text link to Wikipedia in the header at the top, and the more obvious template link always near the bottom, if a Wikipedia article exists, with or without other external links. ~ Kalki 20:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Me too. If there is some differences, I prefer not to put the template in a short article. --Aphaia 21:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposal: discuss format of article of people
Currently there are two types of articles of people: one follows the way recommended on this page, like

Person (xxxx - xxxx) is a somewhere somewhat, ... blah blah blah.

And another one is:

Person (xxxx - xxxx)
somewhere somewhat, blah blah blah.

My preferences are on the latter, because the name of person is very visible in this way. Some sysops seems to share those preferences. Others seems to like the former. But anyway we have two kinds of habits, and have no standards. I think it is not a good situation, particular in case the project receive more and more newcomers. So I think now we need to consider the format again and establish a clear set of rules. --Aphaia 06:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I am completely against the latter and prefer the former. Why? Three main reasons:
 * The name should be prominent, as Aphaia says. But it already is. It's the title of the page, for goodness sake. &#9786; Having a second instance is utterly redundant, although I accept the utility of the standard practice of bolding the article title in the text of the article on its first occurence, preferably in the first line of text.
 * Adding a headline just for the redundant name complicates heading strategies. We lose an entire level of heading. Also in the most commonly used skin, MonoBook, only the first two heading sizes (= and ==) are nicely underlined, and we usually avoid using the first size because its font is too obtrusively large, so using the second formatting scheme eliminates all other underlined headers or forces equating sections like "See also" and "External links" with the subject.
 * The edit summaries produced by editing the section headed by second approach are absurdly long and complex, drowning the important explanation of the edit in the noise of the section title.
 * I think the second standard is an obsolete form that should be retired because of formatting changes introduced in the years since it was "invented". &mdash; Jeff Q (talk) 09:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I am completely with Jeff. Two layers of headers having the exact same content seem silly to me. MosheZadka 07:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I also completely agree with Jeff. Another issue: if a (long) page has 'external links' section at the bottom, with a wikipedia template in there, then there're two links that redirect to wikipedia. In contrast, wikipedia articles don't have two wikiquote links. Therefore I wonder if having two wikipedia links might do more harm than good, in the sense that it might confuse random people who come across wikiquote. On the other hand, I personally think that a lot of integration between the wikimedia projects is a good thing. The other option would be to use bold text for the person's name on top, and wikipedia template at the bottom. Sams 09:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Having been directed here for standards on layout, I didn't even reallize the other layout was still encouraged. I have been changing pages over to the "Person  (xxxx - xxxx) is " whenever I see them. I dislike the older format because of too many instances of the person's name - you can see three instance of the name at the top of the article if full sentence descriptions are used. And anyway it is easier to just cut-n-paste the first lines out the Wikipedia article (with minor linking changes) to get your description then trying to reformat it to follow the other format. Rmhermen 16:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, that would be First Format support reason #4 &mdash; Wikipedia finds the name bolded in the text to be sufficient repetition (on top of the article title just above it). Wikiquote has its own needs, of course, but I don't see that a third instance of the name sandwiched between the page title and the text instance serves any special WQ purpose. &mdash; Jeff Q (talk) 22:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I prefer still the latter format, let me tell the benefits and demerits of both formats


 * Descriptive type
 * Merits
 * avoid redundancy of sections
 * allow editors to write freely introduction
 * Consistent to other topics layout (proverbs, themes ...)


 * Demerits
 * Not so visible as the Lemma-again-in-section way
 * Inconsistent to other projects, like de or ja ...
 * Description is in a hazard to be encyclopediac (too much).


 * Section type (birth and death yaer in the section too)
 * Merits
 * Lemma is visible, and mostly brief
 * Consistent to other projects' format
 * therefore some editors are familiar with it


 * Demerits
 * Sections become redundant
 * Description could be too short for some editors
 * Also repeating lemma (the topic) is annoying for some readers.

So I admit I am still inclined to the section type but it is clear both have demerits and mertis, and here on English Wikiquote (at least now) most of editors support the former, I am not stick on my ideas. But it is a very basic issue for our project, currently I wouldn't like to make a conclusion. I would like to have more participants on discussion. I would like to, like deletion policy, once after we reach a conclusion, have some days to ask opinions for some days. --Aphaia 02:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)