Wookieepedia talk:Quote of the Day/In-Universe

Voting format
Don't we need a better voting format? KEJ 21:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we do. How about each quote nominated is put under its own ==title== tag, for clarity? And what's with all the gratuituous Kyle Katarn quotes, by the way? --Thetoastman 03:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact, how about something like this? The titles system is a little weak, but I can't think of a better way. Comments? Suggestions? Violent, soul-bashing criticism? --Thetoastman 03:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, beaten to the punch by the actual page! --Thetoastman 04:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Updating
So, who's gonna update this thing regularly? We've had the same "quote of the day" for 3 days now. -- Ozzel 19:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should go with quote of the week, or pick winners now and line them up for later? -- Riffsyphon1024 04:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weekly might be the way to go, but yeah, I think a queue would be helpful either way. -- Ozzel 05:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll update it irregularly until we get a number of high-rated ones to fill the queue. - Sikon [ Talk ] 18:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Audience
I like the idea behind this page, but I think we might be missing the point on some of these quotes. The vast majority of the people who read our main page are going to be readers, just people passing by to check on something or browse. Having insider quotes like "Jaymach IS the consensus", while funny, aren't going to appeal to the majority of our readers because they won't understand it. RMF 06:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yea, I'm beginning to agree with you on that. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't even know why we have quotes from Wookieepedians. I must've been napping when you guys discussed this.  (Not that they're bad quotes: even the one I objected to was funny, even if it's peripherally related to a discussion contentious enough that putting it on the main page would just annoy people who would take it as an attack when it wasn't meant as one.) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I voted for a few, but now that I think about it, RMF is right. I think we should avoid them unless they are simply about Star Wars or the nature of Wookieepedia, something that anyone could understand. That said, if "Beep beep boop!" gets posted for a day, I won't complain. :-P -- Ozzel 03:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I voted for mine (biased? me? noooo....), but under further consideration Silly Dan is right. No need to cause more controversy. I certainly didn't mean any harm when I said it, but it could easily be misinterpreted. And RMF is right that causal passers-by probably wouldn't get many of the user ones. Maybe once we thoroughly exhaust the gazillions of potential in-universe and VIP quotes we can reconsider (whenever that may be ;)), but until that point I'll stick to non-Wookieepedian quotes, and hereby suggest that others do the same. Maybe it's worth putting a notice at the top of the Wookieepedian section - "Consider whether Wookieepedian quotes will have any meaning or value for casual passers-by before contributing to this section." GeneralTarfful 22:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the whole Wookieepedian section is getting out of hand. Lately we've been having users post quotes from their fanon characters or other silliness. Can we make a rule stating that you can't nominate your own quotes?  StarNeptune Talk to me! 02:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, that may help, but it might also just result in people having a buddy or sock nominate their quotes. While drastic, I think a simple prohibition of quotes from users may be the best policy. RMF 19:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. This wiki isn't about us.  Not that some of those quotes aren't amusing: they just aren't a good decoration for an encyclopedia.  (If people wanted to keep a collection of user quotes somewhere, that wouldn't be so bad.) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Out of Hand

 * Is it just me or is this getting a little out of hand. I think there should be a certain number of quotes allowed at one time. Or we could organize like the featured article or improvement drive. Like having a certain amount of votes in a certain amount of time before it gets booted off the nomination list.
 * I think we really need some policy for removing the articles that have been sitting there for a while without getting any votes. Kuralyov 04:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed it's out of hand. I held Han Solo's quote in the queue because three user quotes in a row (that's what was left in the queue) seemed like an overkill. - Sikon [ Talk ] 07:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Why don't we make it a rule that if a quote gets a total vote count of +10 it will be added to the queue and if it recieves a total of five negative votes, at any time, it will be removed from the page. Either that, or we need to implement a timeout system.– 22:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I like Sentry's idea. I agree. SecondSight 08:44, 21 August 2006
 * I'm writing a proposed ruleset at Forum:QOTD vote counting and timeouts. - Sikon (Vacation) 11:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I think an admin misunderstood. Some quotes were deleted today becuase they had three negative votes, not a total of -3. I think the rule is: if there are five negative votes, it gets deleted, not three. But if any quote gets to -3, no matter how many positives, it gets deleted. Say +1 and -4. (Although I admit the page was getting cluttered.) Enochf 03:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The rules have not yet been approved because the forum thread died, but in any case, everything that I removed was either a month old or had a vote count of negative three.– 05:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Eh, I'll let this drop if it's going to turn into a big argument, but if you look at the history, there were no nominated quotes with a total of -3. I've been hanging around there lately, and I would've noticed. There were just some with three-plus votes against. Enochf 12:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC) (But like I said, the page was getting cluttered, so no harm done in this case.)
 * Sikon removed 5 quotes because they were out of date. I removed the Jabba the hutt quote because it was at "-3" total. I removed the George Lucas and Chris Avellone quotes because they had three negative votes (not a vote count of "-3") AND because they were both more than a month old.– 19:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Not voting
There's something I don't get. Why do some people nominate quotes but not vote for them? I find this activity fascinating. -- Ozzel 21:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think some people are unsure if it is permitted or not.Din&#39;s Fire 997 17:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * When I started nominating quotes, I wasn't sure if I could vote for them or not. However a friend informed me that I could. Maybe a message on the 'intro' section of the quotes page would help sum this matter up and help new users. SecondSight 08:42, 21 August 2006

Queue?
Why was that deleted? Kuralyov 15:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * See Forum:QOTD maintainer needed. I replaced it with a new template-based system. - Sikon [ Talk ] 16:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Wookieepedians gone?!?
What happened to all the wookieepedian quotes? There all gone!? Has something happened where there no longer wanted?
 * Yes. See Forum:QOTDs from Wookieepedians. Perhaps something should be done to hold such quotes, but we seem to have come to a consensus that we don't want them on the front page. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 12:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Manipulation
I presume an administrator will do his best to undo the manipulation being done by Adas Xendor the last couple days. I know it's frustrating to see your favorite quotes languish, but we all get one vote, and we don't get to delete others' or add others' votes to our faves. Enochf 05:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I fixed it.– 07:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

New Way

 * How about we nominate a person, or people who collaborate, perhaps the current wookieepedian of the month, to click "Random article" and browse until they find a good quote. They will make that the quote of the day at the appropriate time and add it to an "Old Quotes of the Day" page to make sure they aren't reused.  Maybe keep this page for suggestions, but lose the voting factor.  Who cares about concensus on a one-day featured quote?  As long as it's cool/witty/funny/relevant/non-esoteric it's as good as any.  Ewok Jedi 16:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

i just realized that i haven't seen quotes of the day on the main page recenlty, what happenend?

72.230.40.84 20:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Main_Page and Forum:QOTD placement.– 20:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Validity of internal links
I notice there has been a lot of rejection of internal quotes within the quote-of-the-day nominations. However, in the original discussion for the Manual of Style quote rules, we established that the new rules against internal linking would not apply to quotes of the day: "One thing of note: I don't think most of these rule [sic] should apply to the daily quotes on the main page. Those quotes are separate from the articles and are the first thing one sees when coming to Wookieepedia; it would probably be in our best interest to link as many things within it as possible. For example, Han's quote above would give links from the main page to Jedi, lightsaber, and blaster, all within the context of a pithy statement. There is no redundancy because the quote is standing alone." "Ya, I should have clarified that. These rules should only apply to quotes within articles.""

- myself and Sentry

Has policy been changed since then? -BaronGrackle 19:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

IP votes
I forget what the latest rule was. Do IP votes count for 1, ½, or 0? -- Ozzel 22:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The rule is IP votes count for 0. Except nobody ever follows that rule, and they always count as 1, even when they're obvious sock puppets with only two votes, both of which are for QOTD. Enochf 22:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC) (I was the only one who tried to enforce the ½ thing, and it just bugged people because there's never more than one anonymous IP voter per quote anyway)
 * I suppose special mention should be made of User 67.34.186.30, who may be just an IP but is also a frequent poster and shouldn't be discounted Enochf 23:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I really don't see why it should matter. Registration is a simple and painless process. I don't think anyone should be able to reap the benefits that registered users have just because they don't feel the need to register. -- Ozzel 23:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but... c'mon, look at his userpage. It's better than mine. Feels silly to discriminate. Enochf 00:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but policy is policy. Did you vote in the recent discussion about this issue?  - breathesgelatin Talk 00:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Could someone direct me to the policy page for that rule please? :) 62.31.69.202 01:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, the shielding of the QOTD nomination forum is recent, and it was at the whim of one of the admins, apparently because of abuse by anon users. If you want to vote, I really encourage you to sign up, make an account, log in, and contribute. Enochf 02:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Split
How about we split the page into four subpages for the sake of maintainability? - Sikon 19:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Quote of the Day/Real-life
 * Quote of the Day/References in other media
 * Quote of the Day/VIP fans
 * Quote of the Day/In-universe
 * It is pretty lengthy, but then this would make it four pages for people to keep up with instead of just one. What about just two pages: in-universe and OOU? -- Ozzel 20:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. - Sikon 20:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I was going to say, how are you guys keeping up with all this? -- Riffsyphon1024 11:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * One thing that helped a lot was making sure all the new quotes were added at the bottom. Once that got straightened out (about a month and a half ago) it got easier to see at a glance what's next. Enochf 11:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There has been a split, see section below. Enochf 00:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey!!
Who deleted the HK-47 quote near the bottom?? Grand Moff Rhell 19:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC) Whoops. :-) Grand Moff Rhell 23:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * When nominating a quote, remember to add yourself to the "For" section. A quote without any votes for/agaisnt gets deleted after a couple days. FYI. Re-nominate away. We all love HK. Enochf 20:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

365 quotes of the day
I suggest we select 365 (isn't it 365?) and make an automatic link to it like it is on "What happened today". That way people can let go of this IMHO not so important feature, and go on doing something usefull. No affence. If I'm the only one with this oppinion, please let me know. Something tells me I'm not. --88.247.29.39 16:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We'll see. We'll loop to 365 in a few months. If this forum is "dead," like the Improvement Drive is these days, then perhaps. Otherwise I'd just as soon keep it going. Enochf 01:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for beeing a newby but what and where is the Improvement Drive? --Steinninn 06:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's here Wookieepedia:Improvement drive. There's a link off the main page. Enochf 10:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Nominating Quotes from Fan Films
I really wanna nominate a quote from TROOPS, but I'm not exactly sure where to place it. Little help? TIEPilot051999 14:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Other media. Enochf 15:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

SPLIT!
Because the one QOTD file has become so large, the load times have become burdensome to voters, so upon request, I have split the nominating section into two parts: one for in-universe quotes, and another for all the rest of the categories. The two sections are now Wookieepedia:Quote of the Day (In-Universe) and Wookieepedia:Quote of the Day (Other). For those of you who have links to the original QOTD page, they will now redirect to the In-Universe section. Enochf 23:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * THANK YOU!!! It took forever just for me to get to the bottom to see new quotes, and now it's much easier. TheNewDarthMalevlent ( The Sith shall rise to power!) |undefined 00:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted
My quote got deleted! It was at 8 votes, and there for months, but now it's gone! It was the Komad Fortuna one.  Darth Anxor ( Rule the Galaxy ) 23:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Revan, technically. It finally managed to get to +10, and it's been added to the queue. It was not "deleted." It will be QOTD on June 3rd. Enochf 23:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! How do I view the queue?  Darth Anxor ( Rule the Galaxy ) [[Image:Sithempire2.png|20px]] 23:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's the archive, but these days it's running about a month ahead of schedule, so it's effectively a queue, and it's linked near the top of the page. Enochf 23:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Somebody deleted my quote too!--Windu223 23:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No quotes are deleted unless: 1. They hit a total of -3 votes; 2. They accrue a total of five against votes; 3. They do not hit a total of +10 votes in a two-month period and get zapped; 4. The quote has already been a Quote of the Day as shown in the archive or is currently on the nomination list; or 5. The quote is shown to be a fake. Enochf 23:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 6. Less than 1 for vote. Jamie550 22:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

limit?
Is there a limit to the number of nominations I can make? number of votes?--DX-2052 00:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. Enochf 03:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Today's QOTD...
It should read "and other Imperial officers," not "Imperial Senators." Those were Imperial military generals and admirals, and a few ISB officers, not politicians. --Danik Kreldin 03:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

HELP!!!!!!!!
i want to nominate a quote, but i don't understand how!

Votes being deleted
I've been editing since March (admittedly somewhat sporadically) and have created a couple of articles. . . why are my votes for QotD being deleted? --Amican 19:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you follow the link provided next to each crossed-out vote, you'll see that a Consensus Track was held that requires a minimum of 50 main article edits before participating in voting activities such as QOTD, featured articles, etc. The requirement went into effect August 1st. To repeat what has been stated elsewhere, once you reach the 50 article edit requirement, all your crossed-out votes will be retroactively un-crossed and included in the vote counts. As of current date/time, you currently have 29 main article edits, so you're more than halfway there. Enochf 19:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I followed the link, but I must have skimmed over the specific requirement.--Amican 20:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

help, please
there is a quote I would like to nominate. How do I do this?

nominating
I want to nominate a quote. How would I do so? Roger Roger 21:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Conveniently enough, there's a whole page of instructions on this sort of thing. Enochf 21:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * actually, I looked, but I didn't find. I would assume you use the edit button, but there IS no edit button.
 * What skin are you using? --Imperialles 20:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The default skin. However, wear the edit button should be, it says view source.  I clicked it, and I can't type on it.
 * Ah. The issue is that you're using a brand new account&mdash;the page in question is protected against edits from anonymous and newly registered users. Give it a few days and you'll be able to nominate your quote. --Imperialles 21:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * D'accord. Thanks!

Qualifications
OK, of the current ineligible voters, many of them are a handful of edits away from qualifying. As of 11/13, about 4:30 PST, the count goes something like this: And the rest have 10 or less. The top two in the list only have to correct a few typos, and they're in. Wish they'd hurry up. ^_^ Remember, when you hit 50, there's no need to vote again: I'll simply un-cross the votes, and they'll be counted retroactively. Enochf 00:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Teeky: 48
 * Meesa yoda: 44
 * Manoof: 41
 * Amican: 35
 * Flames: 30
 * Savossk: 12