Talk:Quotation

Metadata
Perhaps we should resort to metadata instead of the subpage solution. Each quotation gets its own page, like Ich bin ein Berliner, with comments etc. On the related metadata page we then list appropriate keywords, like "Kennedy", "Berlin", "Cold war", "International affairs", etc. This would allow automatic generation of a list of quotations appropriate for a certain topic.

In the same way automatic lists of references could be generated. Make an entry for the book and a metadata page with information about context. -- Css ---

Quotation sample
Would be nice to have a quotation sample in quotations. For instance, how does the wiki community like to be quoted? Using the http://beadsland.com/weapas/#REF format it could be somethink like this:

The Wiki Community (2004, September 7). Wikipedia: Quotation [WWW document]. URL http://en.wikipedia.org

What do you think?

Not all Quotations are true or beautiful
This one is memorable because it satirises the "truth and beauty" of poetry:

The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occassionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal. -- ?
 * Well said. Rhytmic I think is a better term. Or just "unique" (try to google on sayings by only using  2-3-4-5 words from them, and see if you find them as first hits).--Seas 09:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quote books
I am working on an article about books of quotations, e.g. Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, and wonder where to put the material. Would it be better as an extension of this article or as a stand-alone, say, under Quotation books? I'd like to hear some opinions on this. PedanticallySpeaking 20:45, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Sigs
Should be a mention of their usage in online signatures. --Seas 09:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

External links on a diet
I've just pruned the list of external links to remove many of the self promotional and less useful links. The internet has thousands of sites listing quotes and we don't need a link to all of them - Wikipedia is not a link farm.

In pruning the list I considered the following factors:
 * Is the site over commercial
 * Does the site offer a search engine and is it effective
 * Uses offsite Google search - poor
 * Only returns quotes which happen to include the search word - average
 * Include hand compiled directories of relevant results - good
 * Returns results based on concept and ordered by relevance - excellent (only thinkexist.com appeared to do this)
 * Does the site have other tools to help you find the quote you half remember
 * Does the site have something different to offer - rather than being a general quotes database or just quotes on a single subject
 * Is the site easy to use and well presented

If you are considering adding an external link, please don't add a link to your own web site or any web site to which you are associated. If your site really is a good source of quotes, other people will add here - you don't have to engage in self-promotion.

Please don't add a link for a quotations website to every article on a person who happens to be represented in your quotes database. That is spam linking and is frowned upon. For more advice and guidelines see External links. -- Solipsist 05:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reference to Wikipedia Quotation Guidelines
With Wikipedia's increased interest in citations, I think it would be helpful if this page included a link somewhere to the guidelines for use of quotations within Wikipedia. I haven't been able to find such. How much text from a formally cited source is considered appropriate for Wikipedia? Is it the same as for ordinary scholarly publications, say a paragraph or two? Less? Would appreciate any help from the more informed Wikipedians out there.

alternate spelling
I've added a note about the alternate spelling "quote". Although I tend to think of it as a corruption of the original spelling, I've noticed that it's in Merriam Webster's dictionary.

Korean law and Fair use
Q) Quotation mean only text quotation?
 * In Korea (Of course South Korea), Quotation mean text, image, draw, motion image and any other all work Quotation. Quotation is not only text quotation. So, in US, Fair Use of images, it is also Quotation in Korean law. in korea, there is only Quotation, fair use? what??

As of July 2006, there are 162 countries which are parties to the Berne Convention.

Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works


 * Article 10
 * Certain Free Uses of Works:
 * 1. Quotations; 2. Illustrations for teaching; 3. Indication of source and author
 * (1) It shall be permissible to make quotations from a work which has already been lawfully made available to the public, provided that their making is compatible with fair practice, and their extent does not exceed that justified by the purpose, including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press summaries.
 * (2) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union, and for special agreements existing or to be concluded between them, to permit the utilization, to the extent justified by the purpose, of literary or artistic works by way of illustration in publications, broadcasts or sound or visual recordings for teaching, provided such utilization is compatible with fair practice.
 * (3) Where use is made of works in accordance with the preceding paragraphs of this Article, mention shall be made of the source, and of the name of the author if it appears thereon.

In korea, work means text, image, photo, draw, moving image, etc...so, Everyone can quate copyrited work.

I understand, FAIR USE concept in english wikipedia means QUOTATION. right?

I think, description in fair use tag is something wrong. in 162 contries which sign the Berne Convention, every people can quote copyrighted image to make a encyclopedia, not only can US.

Why?

To write wilipedia article, user can quote copyrited text. text quotation is OK? so, image quotation is OK. Of course, moving image quotation is also OK. Evrything is WORK, and evryone can quote WORK.


 * Evryone can quote copyrighted TEXT work only? (X)
 * Evryone can quote copyrighted ALL work. (O)

It is Berne system, It is Berne idea, I think. --  WonYong  ( Talk /  Contrib ) 12:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Misquotations
Hearing the common phrase the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing repeated once more on NPR today, I searched to find who said it, and found that nobody did. Here are links to two essays detailing the unfortunate details: "All that is necessary..." and Four Principles of Quotation. Perhaps they could be linked from the article. --Blainster 22:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Quotation is indeed not same as riffing on the same theme as the quoted work. I can’t think of a specific policy that rules out such a broadening of the accompanying article’s scope; nevertheless the crucial policy WP:IAR implicitly makes clear that our enterprise assumes some rules that may be too obvious to state, such as DBAA and UCS. If any editor wanted to pursue this colleague’s suggestion, common sense IMO dictates developing the concept in its own separate article. If the topic of confusing invocation of classic concepts with slavish verbatim repetition “has legs”, defend it on this talk page, save an encyclopedic draft at WP:Trivial misquotation, add a link, perhaps under the “See also” secn, and lobby on this talk page in favor of adding a brief section that would link to it. (It doesn’t matter to me whether  the initial section title is “Literal quotation” or “Imprecise usage”, but don’t disrupt the usefulness of the article itself in some kind of edit war.) —2601:199:C201:FD70:39ED:E94E:6D2D:A743 (talk) 06:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

copyright law
how does quotation in books etc. pertain to that? this would be good to have in the article, no? TrevorLSciAct 15:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Quote vs. Quotation
Added a couple of sentences to the introduction highlighting the differences between the noun "quotation" and the verb "quote", and how the terms are often used interchangeably, irritating as it may seem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jreckitt (talk • contribs) 19:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Use of "quote" as a noun synonymous with "quotation" to denote the words quoted is very common usage, and is listed in modern dictionaries without deprecation. I am reverting this edit to the introduction because it is better to treat language descriptively rather than prescriptively. If we include a section on the etymology of these words then it would be appropriate to discuss historical usage from a neutral point of view; but such is probably unnecessary because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Jrekkitt is correct. What's being suggested in response may be "acceptable" but is, in fact, lazy and improper usage. 50.54.232.217 (talk) 10:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There are multiple theories, or rather ideologies, about the concept of grammatical correctness. The major problem, as I learned in ‘’The Language Instinct‘’, and other marvelous works by the same author (ah! Steven Pinker) is that language rules amount to an attempt to an attempt to freeze the natural evolution of language. (Those theologians who claimed the mutual non-intelligibility of the worlds languages was a divine punishment for some sin or other are a truly entertaining aspect of trying to promote religious follies with a pack of Just So Stories.) Personally, the degree of precision, that 2 of the colleagues above are advocating, moves me to stop typing, and enjoy our coverage of Dylan’s “The Hour that the Ship Comes In. —2601:199:C201:FD70:39ED:E94E:6D2D:A743 (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Merger
Dictionary entries in the encyclopaedia infringe WP:DICTIONARY, and forking Misquotation from Quotation is unreasonable in the context of the policy. Mephistophelian (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC).

what's the direct quotation of this passage?
Spelling and grammar checkers are not yet sophisticated enough to do what a skillful writer or editor does, and they probably never will be. Spelling checkers often fail to spot misused words, and they sometimes “correct” a misspelled word by replacing it with a word the writer did not intend. Grammar checkers can be helpful, but to use them effectively, you need to understand some grammatical terminology and principles. For example, when your software suggests that you change a passive construction to an active one, you need to know what active voice and passive voice are and how each one is best used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.161.75 (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Expansion of Quotation page
Proposed changes/additions to the page:


 * 1) Expand introduction and include citation(s) (currently missing)
 * 2) Expand 'Reasons for using quotations' section
 * 3) Add two new sections related to the structure of quotations, to be sandwiched between 'Common quotation sources' and 'Misquotations': 1) Form of quotation 2) Syntax of quotation
 * 'Form of quotation' section to include info on: quotative markers, languages that quote differently from English, presentation of spoken vs written quotation. (not necessarily in this order)
 * 'Syntax of quotation' section to include info on: tree structures, quotative inversion (e.g. John said "..." vs "..." said John, direct vs indirect quotations, spoken vs written quotations), brief reference to nested quotations/quotes within quotes. (not necessarily in this order) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FUNG F (talk • contribs) 21:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Be WP:BOLD. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 07:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Reorganize page to account for inclusion of quotations in spoken language, as this page talks mostly about quotations as a literary device. This will include under Quotations in Spoken language the following subsections: Melissaling300 (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Form of quotation
 * Syntax of quotation
 * Nested quotations
 * Crosslinguisic variations
 * Verbs of quotation
 * Quotative particles
 * Quotative evidentials

Should also discuss quotative inversion under 'Syntax of quotation' section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FUNG F (talk • contribs) 04:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Direct speech into Quotation
Direct quotation redirects to Quotation, and Direct speech appears to be the same thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)