Entertainment
 

Forum:CT Archive/Making an official policy for "What a Quote is"

From Wookieepedia, the Star Wars wiki.

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT Archive/Making an official policy for "What a Quote is"

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. The result was policy approved, new guidelines on quotations enacted. -- Atarumaster88 (Talk page) 21:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I propose that we officially define what a quote is, and what a quote is not, as far as inserting quotes into articles. I believe that quotes should only include either spoken dialogue—that which is presented in the form of actual quotation marks in a source—or italicized print, representing someone's inward thoughts. Additionally, it should be acceptable to include prose only if that text is included in the form of a memoir or a journal. It should not be acceptable to include in a quote something that is presented in prosaic text as "Solo thought that was terrible," or "This was a bad idea, Solo thought," if it is not literally presented within quotation marks, because we simply do not know if the subject said those exact words.

A recent debate over what is acceptable quote material as prompted me to create this CT. Please see the Darth Vader's armor section under the FAN page for a run-down of this discussion. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Comments

  • As long as this doesn't have any negative consequences for the inclusion of prose/narrative lines in QOTD. KEJ 14:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I can't recall ever seeing prose included into the QoTD, nor do I think it should be allowed there. Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • As far as examples of memoirs and journals, Voren Na'al includes an excerpt from the personal memoirs of Wedge Antilles in Galaxy Guide 3: The Empire Strikes Back, while the young reader book Star Wars Journal: The Fight for Justice is Luke Skywalker's personal accounts of the events of Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    • This was a tough one, as personally I do agree with you, T&R. I asked around a bit, and have come to the conclusion that this is the type of issue that can more easily be resolved on the FAN page than on here. Opinions vary regarding whether thoughts should be included. One argument for their total omission is that we write IU, and IU no one knows what someone else is thinking verbatim. One for their inclusion is that it provides a closer perspective, and has been used to good effect before. As all sides provide rather valid points, I think that policy could probably be avoided in this case. Graestan(Talk) 20:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed that this is far from the most pressing of concerns, first of all, and that it could easily be resolved on the FAN page. I can see how there may be discrepancies as to including thoughts. What I am really trying to plug here is the strict exclusion of prose. Perhaps a revision needs to be made? Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, such a revision would satisfy me. I'm really leaning towards excluding any thoughts due to our IU perspective in writing, but I wouldn't attempt to draft that into policy. A strict exclusion of prose is quite in order, in my opinion. Graestan(Talk) 06:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Per JS's support comments, I foresaw this coming, but failed to realize there are so many IU writings. This would also make everything written by Voren Na'al (i.e. virtually all text found in the Galaxy Guide sourcebooks) fair game as well. Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmm. What about communication through the Force, and what about first-person statements, especially when they're not simply narrative but actually significant? I'd have to say both ought to be quotable. Havac 06:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what to do about the former; I get the impression that a lot of force communication is in sensations, feelings, emotions, and so forth, that get "translated" into words when put into the narrative text, but on the other hand, I'd hate to see "YOU WILL KILL LUKE SKYWALKER" taken off of the relevant pages. As for first person statements, I take it you're referring to things like I, Jedi? If so, I'd say "no" unless we've been given some kind of reason to think the statements were given in-universe (which, thanks to the quoting of I, Jedi in Jedi vs. Sith: The Essential Guide to the Force, we now have for that book). jSarek 10:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I, Jedi is indeed the most prominent example, but I was thinking especially of things like Empire Blues: The Devaronian's Story, where all the good lines about Malloc are in his first-person narration, or The Bravery of Being Out of Range, which has a handful of random narration bubbles from BoShek which don't deal so much with the action as his mental state. Effectively, I'd like to have the discretion to use things like the quotes you'd find in my articles on both those characters, though obviously things like "I walked through the door and got hit in the face with a fire extinguisher" or whatever basic narrative prose you could cite -- just the really character-revealing stuff. Havac 05:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Thanks for bringing up Empire Blues. Yeah, there's a lot of first-person narration in that story that almost feels like dialogue between Malloc and the reader, as if both were sharing a drink at the cantina. Enochf 23:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, this is interesting. I was just on the Senate Hall thread about Wookieequote pages and stating there that we should have some sort of policy on what is and what is not a quote (along with other things. What this CT proposes seems to be a digitized data-dump straight from my brain, but I'd like to know if it will be applied to said pages if it passes before it gets a vote from me; not that it'll be needed, mind. ;-)--Goodwood (Alliance Intelligence) 10:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering the comments above and below, I think this is an important way of defining a quote verses an excerpt. There is a difference between an excerpt of text and something that a character says or writes. I think this distinction is very important. Furthermore, I'm not entirely certain that all uses of excerpts would fall under fair use. Master Aban Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 18:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Voting

Vote to support the official declaration of what a quote is, and what a quote is not, in respect to their inclusion within articles.

1. A quote should only include:

a. Text that is presented within actual quotation marks, indicating spoken dialogue
b. Text that is clearly presented within the confines of someone's memoirs, journal, or diary

2. A quote is NOT:

a. Narrative prose that is not actual spoken dialogue or a character's personal memoirs, journal, or diary

Any revisions to the aforementioned policy should be discussed in the "Comments" section above. Note that this is not calling for policy regarding the QoTD.

Revision as of 2 January 2008: Removed the inclusion of internal thoughts due to heavy debate and greater reflection of true purpose. Please recast votes as you see fit. Toprawa and Ralltiir 08:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Approve

  1. Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Although I wholeheartedly agree with Greyman's comment below, I can't deny that I agree with you on what a quote should consist of. Graestan(Talk) 05:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. —Darthtyler Scuba_Diver.gif Talk 20:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Graestan's thoughts are pretty much the same as mine. Hobbes(Tiger's Lair) 22:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. I too completely agree with Greyman, but this makes sense. - JMAS 22:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support per the new revision, though in the final implementation we will want to make it clear that any in-universe written works are fair game, thus allowing quotes from in-universe catalogs, news reports, historical chronicles, government documents, personnel dossiers, and so forth. jSarek 09:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Changed my mind. Unit 8311 19:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Master Aban Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 16:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Per JSarek. The definition of a quote seems to be increasingly pushed. It's not instruction creep when a defined policy is needed. Atarumaster88 (Talk page) 15:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. —Xwing328(Talk) 17:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disapprove

I'm really getting fed up with all of these "objections on the FAN page turned into a CT" CTs. Greyman(Paratus) 19:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
When I first voted oppose, I thought this was yet another petty CT of, "I didn't get my way on the FAN page, so I'm going to force my point through a CT". However, T&R has proven that he is serious about what he believes in, and not just being petty, thus I am striking my oppose vote to this. However, I do agree with various points that other users have brought up, mainly Havac. That being said, like I explained above, my original Oppose vote was not objecting on the principle of there being a CT, but on the reasons that I believed were behind this CT, reasons which have been proven time and again whenever someone objects on the FAN page. However, I do thank T&R for clarifying his CT here, and I thank him for creating this CT with the sole reason of bettering the site, and not to simply be petty to get his way. The goal of "Bettering the Site" should always be above forcing ones beliefs and the pissing contests which have proliferated the site as of late. T&R, keep up the good work that you've been doing as of late, and always do your best to better the site regardless of the opposition you might inevitably face ;) Cheers, Greyman(Paratus) 16:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Internal thoughts shouldn't be quotes, either. If it wasn't spoken or written down, it's not a quote. jSarek 04:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. Unnecessary codification; it needs more leeway and ought to be left up to decisions on individual cases; that said, indisputable OOU third-person narrative text should never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever be used as quotes. Havac 21:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Vote for status quo anarchy. If the CT passes, I'll participate in the rule codification and push for common sense. Enochf 23:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Per Havac. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 11:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Call me a flip-flopper. But seriously, I think that these issues can be sorted out on a case-by-case basis. Graestan(Talk) 05:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:CT_Archive/Making_an_official_policy_for_%22What_a_Quote_is%22"