FANDOM

9,369 Pages

Forum: The Situation Room > Quotes


I've never personally been a huge fan of the whole "Memorable quotes" thing, but it's clear that they're very popular. Especially among the anonymous users. Since the show is so quotable, I was thinking it would be a good idea to start a whole new namespace for Quotes, like the Wookieepedia does. Let's say that any character/episode/novel/comic/etc. that has more than three "Memorable quotes" gets it's own page on the "Quote:" namespace. This will also serve to clean up some of the longer articles. Any objections? --Proudhug 05:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No objections, since it's a good example to follow. Just one proposed alteration; what if we upped the requirement to: five quotes or four larger-sized quotes stay on the character page, but six quotes or 5 larger-sized quotes get moved to the Quotes namespace. I just think the 3 cutoff is a shave too close. – Blue Rook 05:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)talkcontribs

You think that having a Quote page with only four quotes is too small? It might actually incite people to add more to it. I'm fine with either cut-off point. --Proudhug 06:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I would probably go for the cut-off point as five. --Protocol Red 02:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Quote Project Proposal Edit

Hopefully one or more of our quote addicts out there can undertake a massive clean-up Wiki 24's quote system. I know Deege515 has expressed an interest in doing some of this. I can a bit, too. Here's what needs to be done:

  • All characters and episodes with an excessive amount of quotes (see above for proposed cut-off limits) need to have them moved to the new "Quote:" namespace. Examples: Quote:Jack Bauer, Quote:Day 1 12:00am-1:00am, Quote:Cat's Claw.
  • All Quote namespace pages go in the Quotes category.
  • The quotes need to be placed in chronological order and the episode needs to be cited similar to the Quote of the Day.
  • Jack Bauer's "frequent quotes" have been removed, since all quotes now need to be cited.
  • Some frequent quotes like "Dammit" and "Son of a bitch" can get their own page, citing each appearance, speaker and context. Less frequent quotes can go on a separate "Frequent quotes" page, following the same format.

And of course, by "episode" I refer to TV episodes, novels, comics, and games alike. --Proudhug 15:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... seems the citation rule never got enforced. I still think it should be. Anyone disagree? --Proudhug 05:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it definately should be. --SignorSimon (talk/contribs/email) 09:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

So, how about this proposal. From this moment forward, we no longer accept new character page quotations unless they're cited. Additionally, we create a new PNA to be put on all the current character Quote pages which indicates that they need to have citations added in. --Proudhug 03:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I strongly advocate the use of a small PNA like Wikipedia's Cite thing, something like: [quote cite needed]. Using page-width black boxes (like our current PNAs) all over the place for this would be a migraine of a disruption. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 14:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
No no, that would be ludicrous. I was just suggesting one banner across the top of any quote pages that are missing citations (which is currently all of them, of course). Whenever a Quote page is fully cited, we remove the banner. --Proudhug 22:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, since there's been no opposition to the idea of a new policy enforcement, I declare it take effect immediately. --Proudhug 19:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I saw this coming and bugged a very nice Wikia Staff member to create a new namespace for those. Also searching is much easier now. Proudhug have you noticed this? I added it to the Current events. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 20:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I did. That's really cool. I was going to ask if there are any other namespaces we could have created. --Proudhug 20:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Other new namespaces? If you've got something in mind we can always discuss it and I can be a pest to the Staff again. I only took the initiative with this because we kind of "tried" to fudge our own new namespace by adding "Quote:" at the start of articles.
You may be interested to know Proudhug that I started that conversation with central wikia originally to discuss a different topic: a new user group that I was pondering. Before I brought it up here, I had wanted to see if it was even possible. I might as well bring it up now. The group I am thinking about is "Page mover". Because of those periodic rashes of page-move vandals, and because only a small nucleus of users ever moves pages, we would get Wikia to restrict page moves to Sysops and the members of the new group "Page movers" only, as a decisive measure. 'Crats would be able to grant and revoke Page move rights, and Page move would become a prerequisite for Rollback, something I've always envisioned could be a test period for new Sysops successfully elected by the community somewhere down the line. In this manner we would freely grant page move rights to established users who are active and who've moved pages in the past, and to new ones who've earned the trust. The Staff I spoke with essentially said that it's possible, but were hesitant since it takes time to implement and maintain on their side. But they did not outright refuse. Thoughts? Blue Rook  talk  contribs 21:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't have any other namespaces in mind, but as soon as I found out we could get other ones made, I thought we should see if we can come up with any others that would make our lives easier.
As for your Page mover idea, I'm afraid I really don't have much of an opinion either way. I wasn't aware the move vandals were that rampant a problem, so I don't entirely see the purpose or urgency of this. But, at the same time, much like with other admin powers like deletion and rollbacks, there's really no need for regular users to have the Move option. I just don't know that it's a big enough issue to go to a lot of trouble for. If restricting page moves to admins it's something that Wikia wants to implement across the board, I can agree with it, but to go to the trouble of removing the ability for users on a specific wiki seems rather pointless to me. But if this is something that you and others feel is necessary, by all means put if forward. I'm pretty much indifferent. --Proudhug 21:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if this seems stupid, but what do you mean by a namespace? --SignorSimon (talk/contribs/email) 21:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If you go to Special:AllPages, there's a drop down box which lists all of the namespaces we have. Basically, they're different areas of the site which you can search individually, organize individually and maintain individually. This page is in the "Forum" namespace, for instance. Our policies are located in the "Wiki 24" namespace. --Proudhug 21:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
In response to Proudhug's 21:18 edit: None come to my mind at the moment. But if something crops up and we decide a new namespace is best for it, the Staff/Community Team did say that adding a new namespace is "straightforward stuff" for them. So it seems that the option is always open for us.
I hear how ya feel about the user group idea. To be clear, I'm not aware of any intention of Wikia restricting page moves to admins only, this was my rumination for this wiki only. And yes, it's not a rampant problem, but I am always bothered by the fact that the Move Log demonstrates that vandals are a close second after admins (and wikia bot edits, of course) for page moves. Thanks for the input; somewhere down the line I'd like to keep this option open, just in case. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 21:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.