Community portal Welcome

Reference desk Request an article

Village pump Archives

Administrators' noticeboard Report vandalism • Votes for deletion

Wikiquote discussion pages (edit) see also: requests
Village pump comment | history | archive General policy discussions and proposals, requests for permissions and major announcements.	Reference desk comment | history | archive Questions and discussions about specific quotes.

Archives

Welcome, newcomers and baffled oldtimers! This is the place if you (a) have a question about Wikiquote and how it works or (b) a suggestion for improving Wikiquote. Just click the link above "create a new topic", and then you can place your submission at the bottom of the list, and someone will attempt to answer it for you. (If you have a question about who said what, go to the reference desk instead.)

Before asking a question, check if it's answered by the Wikiquote:FAQ or other pages linked from Wikiquote:Help. Latest news on the project would be available at Wikiquote:Community portal and Wikiquote:Announcements.

Before answering a newcomer's question abruptly, consider rereading Please do not bite the newcomers.

Questions and answers will not remain on this page indefinitely (otherwise it would very soon become too long to be editable). After a period of time with no further activity, information will be moved to other relevant sections of Wikiquote, (such as the FAQ pages) or placed in one of the village pump archives if it is of general interest, or deleted. Please consider dating and titling your discussions so as to facilitate this.

Shortcut

• WQ:VP

---

I would like to propose that English Wikiquote opt-in to global sysops. I found the last discussion on this topic at Wikiquote:Village_pump_archive_58#Removing_Wikiquote_from_Global_Sysops_opt-out_list, from around 4 years ago from now, where there seems inclination towards opting in but with a bit of opposition. At present, there are 14 administrators here which is 5 more that the cutoff for automatic global sysop opt-in.

The motivation for putting forward this proposal again was that I noticed that fighting vandalism could be more effective if global sysops are allowed to use administrator tools here. There is often vandalism hanging around for quite some time before local administrators deal with it. Even in CAT:CSD there are clear-cut vandalistic pages sometimes hanging around for hours and days which could be dealt by global sysops. Sometimes, cross-wiki vandals also arrive here and are tracked down by cross-wiki patrollers including global sysops, who would be able to conveniently manage them if enabled.

GS-work is mostly restricted to uncontroversial and routine maintainance actions such as anti-vandalism and anti-spam, so this is unlikely to interfere with local community or content matters. If needed, a local policy (for example, see those listed at m:Global_sysops#Check_local_policies) defined the scope for global sysop works can be designed. Additionally, this is an English language project which most of the global sysops are comfortable in, so that makes this wiki even more GS-friendly.

(For some record, few examples of GS-opted-in wikis despite having 10 or more sysops: English Wikibooks, English Wikivoyage, Serbian Wikipedia, Outreach Wiki and MediaWiki-wiki.)

Thanks, --Svartava (talk) 04:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

As someone who is an active admin fighting vandalism and spam on this wiki, I support the proposal. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't think any current admins will object, and I think it's a great idea. We may have 14 nominal administrators but there are fewer than 8 who do admin work here daily. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

No objection from me. We can use all the help we can get. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Closure note: done by EPIC. Thanks, --Svartava (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
• So it's done, but I think we should add a section regarding global sysops on Wikiquote:Administrators, explaining what they can do (fighting obvious vandalism/spam and blocking vandals/spammers when uncontroversial or in emergencies) and what they cannot do (the latter such as interfering with content disputes and matters). Codename Noreste (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia's effort to expand stub articles is offering money prizes, typically $100USD per category. The contest will run from 16 Jun to 13 July. HouseOfChange (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

The call for candidates for the 2025 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees selection is now open from June 17, 2025 – July 2, 2025 at 11:59 UTC [1]. The Board of Trustees oversees the Wikimedia Foundation's work, and each Trustee serves a three-year term [2]. This is a volunteer position.

This year, the Wikimedia community will vote in late August through September 2025 to fill two (2) seats on the Foundation Board. Could you – or someone you know – be a good fit to join the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees? [3]

Learn more about what it takes to stand for these leadership positions and how to submit your candidacy on this Meta-wiki page or encourage someone else to run in this year's election.

Best regards,

Abhishek Suryawanshi
Chair of the Elections Committee

On behalf of the Elections Committee and Governance Committee

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Call_for_candidates

[2] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal:Bylaws#(B)_Term.

[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Resources_for_candidates

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Over the course of a month now, this article has been expanded to the point where it is simply enormous, and the objective seems to be transcribing the entirety of the dialogue. I don't normally deal with pop culture topics, not least of which because there seems to be no shortage that would like to turn this into Wikitranscript rather than a collection of quotes.

Obviously we can't transcribe the entirety of the dialogue of a work. But the text all seems equally mundane that there isn't much of a criteria I can see for deciding what should be kept. GMG^talk 18:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I fully agree with your concern - and I've now nominated it for deletion (see Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Lego City Undercover). It's not that I don't think we should have a page for this game, but the amount of quotes on this page is really out of hand (and growing every day). IMHO, we should delete it and start over, with a page that has a much smaller set of quotes. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Dear Wikimedia Community,

The Community Affairs Committee (CAC) of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees assigned the Sister Projects Task Force (SPTF) to update and implement a procedure for assessing the lifecycle of Sister Projects – wiki projects supported by Wikimedia Foundation (WMF).

A vision of relevant, accessible, and impactful free knowledge has always guided the Wikimedia Movement. As the ecosystem of Wikimedia projects continues to evolve, it is crucial that we periodically review existing projects to ensure they still align with our goals and community capacity.

Despite their noble intent, some projects may no longer effectively serve their original purpose. Reviewing such projects is not about giving up – it's about responsible stewardship of shared resources. Volunteer time, staff support, infrastructure, and community attention are finite, and the non-technical costs tend to grow significantly as our ecosystem has entered a different age of the internet than the one we were founded in. Supporting inactive projects or projects that didn't meet our ambitions can unintentionally divert these resources from areas with more potential impact.

Moreover, maintaining projects that no longer reflect the quality and reliability of the Wikimedia name stands for, involves a reputational risk. An abandoned or less reliable project affects trust in the Wikimedia movement.

Lastly, failing to sunset or reimagine projects that are no longer working can make it much harder to start new ones. When the community feels bound to every past decision – no matter how outdated – we risk stagnation. A healthy ecosystem must allow for evolution, adaptation, and, when necessary, letting go. If we create the expectation that every project must exist indefinitely, we limit our ability to experiment and innovate.

Because of this, SPTF reviewed two requests concerning the lifecycle of the Sister Projects to work through and demonstrate the review process. We chose Wikispore as a case study for a possible new Sister Project opening and Wikinews as a case study for a review of an existing project. Preliminary findings were discussed with the CAC, and a community consultation on both proposals was recommended.

The application to consider Wikispore was submitted in 2019. SPTF decided to review this request in more depth because rather than being concentrated on a specific topic, as most of the proposals for the new Sister Projects are, Wikispore has the potential to nurture multiple start-up Sister Projects.

After careful consideration, the SPTF has decided not to recommend Wikispore as a Wikimedia Sister Project. Considering the current activity level, the current arrangement allows better flexibility and experimentation while WMF provides core infrastructural support.

We acknowledge the initiative's potential and seek community input on what would constitute a sufficient level of activity and engagement to reconsider its status in the future.

As part of the process, we shared the decision with the Wikispore community and invited one of its leaders, Pharos, to an SPTF meeting.

Currently, we especially invite feedback on measurable criteria indicating the project's readiness, such as contributor numbers, content volume, and sustained community support. This would clarify the criteria sufficient for opening a new Sister Project, including possible future Wikispore re-application. However, the numbers will always be a guide because any number can be gamed.

We chose to review Wikinews among existing Sister Projects because it is the one for which we have observed the highest level of concern in multiple ways.

Since the SPTF was convened in 2023, its members have asked for the community's opinions during conferences and community calls about Sister Projects that did not fulfil their promise in the Wikimedia movement.[1][2][3] Wikinews was the leading candidate for an evaluation because people from multiple language communities proposed it. Additionally, by most measures, it is the least active Sister Project, with the greatest drop in activity over the years.

While the Language Committee routinely opens and closes language versions of the Sister Projects in small languages, there has never been a valid proposal to close Wikipedia in major languages or any project in English. This is not true for Wikinews, where there was a proposal to close English Wikinews, which gained some traction but did not result in any action[4][5], see section 5 as well as a draft proposal to close all languages of Wikinews[6].

Initial metrics compiled by WMF staff also support the community's concerns about Wikinews.

Based on this report, SPTF recommends a community reevaluation of Wikinews. We conclude that its current structure and activity levels are the lowest among the existing sister projects. SPTF also recommends pausing the opening of new language editions while the consultation runs.

SPTF brings this analysis to a discussion and welcomes discussions of alternative outcomes, including potential restructuring efforts or integration with other Wikimedia initiatives.

Options mentioned so far (which might be applied to just low-activity languages or all languages) include but are not limited to:

• Restructure how Wikinews works and is linked to other current events efforts on the projects,
• Merge the content of Wikinews into the relevant language Wikipedias, possibly in a new namespace,
• Merge content into compatibly licensed external projects,
• Archive Wikinews projects.

Your insights and perspectives are invaluable in shaping the future of these projects. We encourage all interested community members to share their thoughts on the relevant discussion pages or through other designated feedback channels.

We'd be grateful if you want to take part in a conversation on the future of these projects and the review process. We are setting up two different project pages: Public consultation about Wikispore and Public consultation about Wikinews. Please participate between 27 June 2025 and 27 July 2025, after which we will summarize the discussion to move forward. You can write in your own language.

I will also host a community conversation 16th July Wednesday 11.00 UTC and 17th July Thursday 17.00 UTC (call links to follow shortly) and will be around at Wikimania for more discussions.

-- Victoria on behalf of the Sister Project Task Force, 20:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please be notified that there is a request for comment on Meta that you may be involved with, at m:Requests for comment/Should paid editing as a CU be allowed. You can voice your concerns regarding the topic.

Please do not reply to this message. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 12:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Reply