Forum:Remove character quotes

Forums: Yew Grove > Remove character quotes

This page or section is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. This thread was archived on 19 November 2013 by Spineweilder.

Hi everyone! So, recently a few people have decided to add "character quotes" to the top of major lore-related NPC articles. Saradomin, Zamorak, Moia are examples. There are many more.

Simply put, I think these are not worth having on the articles, let alone at the top of pages. I think they are very unprofessional and are straight out of TVTropes. I think they are unilaterally chosen, and often poorly at that. I think they serve no real purpose and do not benefit anyone. Every time I see a character quote at the top of one of our pages, I'm embarrassed. It's bush league.

More important to me, these compromise the article space. Not only do they take up the most important part of the page (the top), pushing the the actually useful infobox down, but they also get in the way of the other things we have at the top of pages -- 2007/RSC buttons, disambiguation links, you name it. We're moving the actual content down so we can get some random out-of-context quote that is actually of negative value.

So, yeah. Remove the quotes from the top of the page. If people want them somewhere else we can talk about it, but it's wasteful to have that be the very first thing that people see when they visit a fairly popular deity or Mahjarrat page. ʞooɔ 01:56, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Support - ʞooɔ 01:56, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

Support - I've seen an instance where there's been an edit war over what character quote should be at the top of a page. Some of those quotes are hardly neutral and really tend to paint the topic in a certain light (e.g. pures as not being right, Saradomin being benevolent/a selfish and egotistical bastard). Best to remove them than have wars over which quote is best Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 02:01, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

That's a very good point too, they are a strong edit war magnet. If we get a weeklong edit war over whether Armadyl is the god of Law or not, can we really expect the same people to agree over multiple words? Food for thought. ʞooɔ 02:06, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

[1] Take a look at the edits on 20 October for what I was referring to Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 02:08, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's ridiculous. Worst of all, it's the same user (btw see [2] for 21, 22 and 23 October)... Fswe1 07:25, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

Support - They're pretty terrible. Suppa chuppa ^Talk 02:01, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

Support - Although the quotes have a certain degree of relevance it's not really necessary to have those, especially at the top of the page. -- Spine^Talk 02:47, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - Moia and Bilrach have some utter crap at the top of their pages, yeah - it seems like those quotes were added simply to have a quote there. Which is, of course, stupid. However, "popular Mahjarrat/deity" articles like, say, Sliske, Zamorak or Bandos have some very nice quotes that serve as illustrations to their personalities and/or actions. Quotes at the top of sections are also nice to show the involvement of the relevant character in the relevant course of actions/etc.

However, I fully agree that we shouldn't be adding quotes "just for the sake of it", which seems to have been done with Moia, for example. I'd support having a quotes section like Surok Magis#Quotes (note that this particular one is horrible though), but removing them altogether, even the good ones, wouldn't be beneficial. Moreover, lots of good wikis have them, so it's not like they are an anomaly.

As for the pushing down of RSC or 2007 buttons, they are in the top right corner of the article, whether it is empty or has ten thousand quotes before the infobox. Fswe1 07:22, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

PS: If we keep quotes, there should be guidelines for them. And by guidelines I mean: "Don't add crap. If someone removes it, that means it's crap - don't war over it." Fswe1 07:25, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, butI don't think that´s the best guideline to use. Let's take the Saradomin example: some love him, some hate him, some are undicided, neutral or see both points... people will pick quotes that fit their perspective. If everyone would simply remove the quotes they disagree with, we end up with no quote (which is fine if no quote seems to fit well, but defeats the point entirely). The whole point of this thread is to reach consesnus, so I would suggest to do the same with these quotes: if some people disagree, take RS:3RR's advice "More controversial facts should be debated on the article's talk page". Ciphrius Kane´s point goes to this as well. It would be wise to talk about these quotes if people disagree. Certainly because it's used to sum up an NCP's character or an NPC's pov to a matter. This only stresses the importance of talkpages, imho, as well as the importance of stating your opinion why something is relevant or not. . . . _Yours, Enquidou ^Talk . . 12:05, October 31, 2013 (UTC)

They all have utter crap at the top of their pages. The only difference is that you personally think some of them are good, mainly because you or Battleben added them. Lots of good wikis have them? TV show wikis have them. Wookieepedia has them. This is considerably different and you should know why. And if you look at pages with quotes in Oasis (which over 99% of our uniques use), you'll see that they look very bad on pages with 2007 and RSC buttons. I shouldn't have to explain why. And a guideline like that would overwhelmingly not work. If you don't think that will lead to even more edit wars then you haven't thought it through. ʞooɔ 16:03, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

Quotes or not, those 2007/featured/rsc buttons need to be handled differently. There were rather recently lowered for some reason, and now they are shown on top of otheruses, redirects, see alsos, etc... An annoyance. IP83.101.44.209 (talk) 16:21, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

Originally at their higher height, they were only disturbed by a 1px line cutting through them; that was small enough for me to let go. Some time relatively recently, every part of the template above the line was covered. It can't be fixed, so we're stuck like this. MolMan 18:31, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't they be made blocking then, much like an infobox? Keeping the rest of the content to the left of it, instead of underneath? My basic CSS knowledge fails me here. IP83.101.44.209 (talk) 18:33, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

I haven't had a chnace to look into why it's happening at the moment, but I suspect there's been some change in the styling that Wikia apply to pages, specifically cutting off anything with position:absolute; that strays over the edge of the article area. I'm not sure why or how it does it. User:Cqm/Signature

Can't we make an entirely new template?? I mean, with citing a source there are multiple things you can add: "|name=.. |time=... |author=..." surely we could make a template that uses a similar set up that can incorporate multiple things, like: "|otheruse=[page] [reason] |2007=[page] |historical=... |absolute/outdated=[reason] |also see/disambig=..., ... |etc|". Couldn't this be used to make it more dense and organized? . . . _Yours, Enquidou ^Talk . . 12:05, October 31, 2013 (UTC)

Why do we need a new template? Especially one like that. It's a terrible, mess of an idea. MolMan 18:08, November 2, 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate a more constructive attitude. . . . _Yours, Enquidou ^Talk . . 18:57, November 2, 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, there is nothing wrong with quotes other than that they attract edit wars (but that seems to be just about anything lately) and the page is at risk of having crap quotes added. All are crap, you say? Well, like I "personally" think some of them are good (and the good ones haven't been subject to edit wars...), that's your opinion. Even if they had no purpose whatsoever, they'd still make a text more attractive to read. Fortunately, they do have a purpose; like images, they complement the text, often illustrating what simple words can't describe (id est a complex personality). Fswe1 06:48, October 25, 2013 (UTC)

Quotes better complement the material when they are actually included in the text. It provides better context for the quote and better fluidity for the reading. MolMan 17:00, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Idealiter, perhaps, but this is practically impossible due to the one-liner nature of quotes. Fswe1 18:58, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Disagree with you on this. "Yelps was among the gods present at the Empyrean Citadel, and said "Woohoo cabbage spins" when he heard of Sliske's plan" seems odd and out of place. May not be the best example... Wahisietel (Talk) 19:17, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Your example is just reporting on what was said instead of putting it into context. 'Yelps was among the gods present at the Empyrean Citadel. Here, he formed a pact with Brassica Prime. It was originally meant to be a secret alliance, but it was accidentally disclosed when Yelps heard of Sliske's plan, and, too excited from thinking of his powerful alliance with Brassica, exclaimed "Woohoo cabbage spins".' MolMan 21:01, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - They add flavour to otherwise often dry texts, and when done correctly serve as a one line synopsis of the entire article. Eg Zemouregal's quote perfectly illustrates his arrogant and egocentric character. If you don't like the way it's done on a particular page you could always just, you know, edit it. And the "edit war magnet" argument is rubbish - Mod MMG is a vandalism magnet but that doesn't mean we remove the article itself, it means we just remove vandalism when it actually happens. Oil4 ^Talk 07:49, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

That's a terrible analogy. Vandalism and edit warring are completely different matters. As well, some of the people who are adding these quotes are actually pretty adamant about these lame quotations enough to make that edit war argument completely valid. "All Mahjarrat have it.. have a discussion about removing those quotes before you just remove them" MolMan 11:59, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

Simply because one (or two) user decides to add a horrible quote on the ground that "other Mahjarrat pages have them and there is no better one", doesn't mesn they should be condemned right across the board. Remove crap like Moia, but keep them where they complement the text. And if "camping out on valuable real estate" by putting them at the very top of the article is not agréable, I suggest making a quotes section (like Surok's, only not crap). Fswe1 13:37, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

It's called a dialogue subpage. MolMan 15:24, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

That would either contain one single quote or many, many lines of text. The former is superfluous, the latter is irrelevant when it comes to quotes (aside from being a source). Quotes are like streamers in IRL articles, or like actual quotes at the beginning of chapters in some books/dissertations; telling people to read the dialogue page for that purpose is stupid. Fswe1 15:36, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a book or a dissertation. If you believe lists of information detract the value of an article, why would a collection of 1–3 line quotes not do the same? MolMan 15:42, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

Because quotes make whatever section they precede attractive to read and give a good view of the respective character's personality, better than or just as good as this can be described in words. Lists, on the contrary, make a text seem boring. We're en encyclopedia, aye, but that doesn't mean our articles have to look like bible pages. Tbh, saying "because we're an encyclopedia" isn't much better than saying "but wikipedia does it that way". Fswe1 16:00, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

What's the saying again? "Don't treat the symptoms, treat the disease"? If people are having edit wars over something as simple as a quote, then it's obviously the people doing it that should be changed. Oil4 ^Talk 16:02, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

Quotes are a disease and edit warring is a symptom. MolMan 18:31, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

In case you are being serious... No. The edit warmongers are the disease, edit wars the symptom and quotes the, er, surface that they sneeze (read: war) to heck. Fswe1 19:52, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

If you're being serious: that makes no sense.

If you're not being serious: please be serious. Oil4 ^Talk 20:50, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

Achoo. MolMan 00:04, October 25, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Fswe. Although perhaps the quotes would be more fitting on a "personality" section of the page? Characters like Lucien, General Khazard and Jhallan already have personality sections, and their respective quotes would be quite fitting there. Wahisietel (Talk) 09:20, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and quest sections. Wahisietel (Talk) 09:21, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

Support - There's no appeal to them that should pertain to us as a wiki. We are not here to entertain nor are we here to typecast with just one thing they've said. I think any argument for them having a "fitting relevance" in any section is truly overblown and a weak point at best. Beyond what I can say about quotes being possibly interpreted multiple ways, there is absolutely no reason information like this needs to be presented this way. Information like monster weakness and experience (which we keep in an infobox) are good examples of information that we want presented quickly and readily. Readers want to get in and out for that basic information and we have done a good job of doing that. On the other hand, when it comes to information like this — what's been poorly chosen to be handled as quickly with quotes — we want our readers to... well... read. Personalities are complex and cannae be summed up in 1 to 3 lines.

I am pretty sure that I am the only one who writes articles for the hedonistic orgasm I get from using my brain, and even then, I so arrogantly want people to appreciate the wonderful work I put into those paragraphs.

... ... My point being: we write articles to be read. We don't need any of this information summed up like that, quite the opposite. I might regret saying this... but we need as much good information as we can get on character articles. With that said, the only half-decent reason I can think of for keeping them still is they provide a nice hook. Well, beyond them showing only one side that someone believes is definitive of their character enough to be displayed prominently amongst all the other information... If your writing is so bland you need a hook to keep people reading after they've started, there's another problem.

If god forbid we have to, fine, good quotes in just the personality sections, but you are out of your right mind if you truly believe these campy quotes deserve to camp out on valuable article real estate. MolMan 11:59, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

Support - All characters have the same repeating dialogue trees. Plus you have NPC's that have nothing more than 1 liners or bland comments. (Have you ever read wookipedia? If a character said 1 line, it's up.) Do we really need for 'Drunken Man' "Giant Hairy Cabbages" at the top of the page?--Deltaslug (talk) 14:07, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but where did anyone suggest adding quotes to every single NPC in the game, let alone ones as insignificant as Drunken Man. Wahisietel (Talk) 15:21, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

Just taking the conversation to one of the logically illogical extremes.--Deltaslug (talk) 20:03, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

Because it's impossible to apply common sense to where they're used? User:Cqm/Signature

Correct! This thread exists, case and point. They were always bad, but now that they're a problem, we can obliterate them all. MolMan 00:04, October 25, 2013 (UTC)

The only reason I would support this was if they were featured on search engine results, but that's not the case: google:Moia, google:Dragonkin, etc. As a way of breaking up paragraphs or introducing a section I don't have any real problems with the existence of them as long as they're not random, unrelated quotes. User:Cqm/Signature

Support Kill with fire. http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/Blaze_fire.pnghttp://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/12.png 05:33, October 25, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - I think they add a nice touch to pages. I agree, however, that we shouldn't have one on every page Haidro ^(talk) 10:19, October 25, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I don't agree with the arguments referring to the increased likelihood of comment wars. They can and should be dealt with by consensus. A significant proportion of the characters in RuneScape lore are portrayed with little depth beyond "he is good and he is evil", so an accurate summation of many characters is perfectly plausible with the use of a quote, given, of course, that the quote is not purposely taken from a context that would mislead.

What concerns me, however, is the vertical screen space between the top of the web page and the beginning of the first line of the article (not including the quote). Including the browser chrome, ~45% of the top of my screen is used for displaying content other than the article (again, not including the quote) when the scrollbar is at the default position. I imagine that this is similar for those using a mobile device or a different environment. This area is precious. We cannot allow that space to be usurped by anything that is not essential, when we are already burdened with the useless wikia toolbar on the top of every page (this wiki should have cut away from wikia a long time ago). For those that modify their pages using scripts or stylesheets, I ask you to open a new, clean instance of a browsing session and view the page unaffected by your personal modifications. Yes, it is awful.

There have been one or two mentions of what this wiki is. I cannot find any definitive answer to the purpose of this wiki: it seems, in my opinion, to serve the dual purpose of advising players and documenting data. The quotes would serve the prior. I can see a place for them where there are sections relating to character personalities, as mentioned by a user above. WK of Angmar (talk) 20:48, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - So, general consensus seems to be that we shouldn't have quotes at the top of pages. I'm willing to agree to that. Would we be willing to make a policy or something saying that quotes are prohibited from going at the top of pages, but that they're allowed elsewhere as long as they're not overused and common sense is applied? Wahisietel (Talk) 09:47, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: would a quotes section like Surok Magis#Quotes (but, obviously, containing only good ones (UCS which are good)) be OK? We have personality, abilities and relationships sections anyway, so this'd be a decent addition. Fswe1 12:53, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather have nothing than that. It just seems forced if you make a list of quotes. Oil4 ^Talk 17:29, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

I'm against this as well. We aren't MLP wiki. Haidro ^(talk) 05:26, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

I too oppose a quotes section. Wahisietel (Talk) 11:10, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Support - I've only read some of the support/oppose comments but they seemed to be following the same thing. oppose: add flair to the dry, support:looks crappy at top. I don't like them being at the top of a page either they cause layout issues and give the who page a prejudged feel, but for lore extensive pages a quote here and there in the middle of the page can help break up the monotony just as an image would. As long as the quote is relevant to the topic being covered and they aren't caused layout issues I think they should be welcomed. Samberen 05:43, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Support - Some NPCs have entire dialog pages, which I never read, anyway. Keep it there, if anywhere, otherwise delete. --User:Saftzie/Signature 22:37, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

NPC dialogue pages don't usually have quest-specific dialogue. Also, the fact you don't read dialogue seems to imply that NPC pages aren't the kind of pages you usually read anyway. Wahisietel (Talk) 11:59, October 29, 2013 (UTC)

Is my position on an issue less valid based on what your opinion of my activities is (especially if it's false)? --User:Saftzie/Signature 22:32, November 1, 2013 (UTC)

Support - Definitely remove them from page tops. The quotes section is a nice idea though. 5-x ^Talk 11:44, October 30, 2013 (UTC)

Support - Most of the characters who have gotten quotes are much too complex to be described in a sentence or two. I dont really see any point in having them. Megadog14^Talk 19:47, October 30, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - Actually, I think that for some of the more important NPCs they should have quotes. NPCs that aren't encountered as much or are a one-time thing shouldn't. Feel like that the more important NPCs need to have something to say. :) Blizzardfoot^{*May StarClan light your path!*} 23:20, October 30, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - Any characters that are noteworthy should have a quote, but just not at the top. Maybe it should be in the infobox? I'm not sure if this was suggested before, but, if it was, please tell me. I don't feel like reading the whole page. User:King kolton9/Signature 02:04, October 31, 2013 (UTC)

No infobox. ʞooɔ 10:04, October 31, 2013 (UTC)

I second that. (although voice actor would be a good infobox parameter if we actually knew who voiced who...) Wahisietel (Talk) 11:46, October 31, 2013 (UTC)

Infobox parameter would be great! Except it wouldn't. Fswe1 16:06, October 31, 2013 (UTC)

Not a chance in Hell. MolMan 20:34, October 31, 2013 (UTC)

Care to explain why you don't like the idea, Mol?User:King kolton9/Signature 20:06, November 1, 2013 (UTC)

I like how I'm being singled out even though everyone who responded to you agrees the idea is terrible. MolMan 18:08, November 2, 2013 (UTC)

I asked you because you seem to have the strongest opinion on it.User:King kolton9/Signature 01:58, November 5, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - I think they can give a nice impression of a character, or give that characters perspective on a situation (e.g. during a quest). Sure quotes have to make sense and I would prefer the character quotes to be of the character itself (and not have some other character voice their oppinion on the other character). Furthermore, I think it's wise to add a quote source and the context of the quote to better understand it.
I also don't think it's a good idea to add quotes to each and every NPC. I think we should add them to 'important NPCs', like reoccurring quest characters or characters that otherwise have a big influence. I think this was mostly the line of reasoning anyway (Mahjarrat, Gods, Signature heroes, etc.). Certainly with characters that are heavily involved in 'lore', this may be an interesting addition, I think.
The point about losing valuable page-space is also important, but if you would deem a quote as one that can accurately sum up the character's personality or perspective on a topic (like is often done with the Mahjarrat's quotes during quests), then I think they can be just as useful as the pictures we use. . . . _Yours, Enquidou ^Talk . . 12:05, October 31, 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say just lorewise important characters. Stick to "if there's a good quote, add it - if not, don't". For instance, Armadyl, who is quite, quite important, has no quote, while the very minor gnome technician has a fine quote illustrating his personality. Fswe1 16:06, October 31, 2013 (UTC)

...urr... had... Fswe1 16:08, October 31, 2013 (UTC)

"Fine quote" my ass. It's stuff like that why this thread exists. People adding quotes for their own entertainment in a seemingly appropriate way. People have cited "good" quotes, but what about the other 90% of them, ones like that? MolMan 16:14, October 31, 2013 (UTC)

It shows Mr. Gnome is cruel (maybe sadistic) while also having a humourous twang. Very inviting to read more about the character (not that there is anything to read in his article, but, in theory) and it sums up his personality. I don't see what's wrong with it. Also, "my own entertainment"? You're making up stuff now, mate. Fswe1 16:33, October 31, 2013 (UTC)

I disagree as well: I don't think it shows he enjoys the suffering at all. It may just as well make a point that he has a defeatist attitude about his job. I wasn't suggesting it would be a good idea to add... bad quotes. Having a good quote is the all-overriding principle - I'm sorry if that wasn't clear in my initial post. But added to that, I also think the 'important characters' should have one, on top of that first criteria. But I also agree :P I do think a good quote can really invite a person to want to read more :3 . . . _Yours, Enquidou ^Talk . . 17:51, October 31, 2013 (UTC)

That's just an excuse to have a whacky quote at the top and you know it. An attitude like that only harms the legitimacy of any other quote you've added. MolMan 16:35, October 31, 2013 (UTC)

You're not making any sense, sorry. I still don't see what's wrong with it. Fswe1 16:59, October 31, 2013 (UTC)

If you geniunely believe that quote was appropriate as article material, that's concerning. MolMan 20:34, October 31, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Not to say this would suit us, but Avatar Wiki has small request pages for adding and modifying quotes at the top of pages. Examples of pages with quotes there might be characters or episodes. It's a little bureaucratic, but it adds some QA to the quotes used in articles. User:Cqm/Signature

Comment - What editors consider to be a "good," "significant," or "humorous" quote appears to be highly dependent on personal opinion. Do we really want content on character pages to become a matter of opinion? --User:Saftzie/Signature 22:21, November 1, 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure consensus, in someway, is an accepable solution to this problem of differences of opinion? . . . _Yours, Enquidou ^Talk . . 23:10, November 1, 2013 (UTC)

Do you understand what consensus means? Or are you just throwing the word around? His uestion isn't answerable with the vagueness of "I dunno... Consensus?" the real answer is: No we don't. Why should a 3 line portrait be painted by one particular person? It's impossible to describe a characte with a single quote without leaving a large portion of their personality out and introducing bias. MolMan 18:08, November 2, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do; for the rest: no, you are just mistaken. . . . _Yours, Enquidou ^Talk . . 18:57, November 2, 2013 (UTC)

If you claim that Mol is mistaken about it being impossible to describe someone in a single quote, without bias, then please give an example of a completely unbiased description of a character within a single quote. Also, if you think consensus would be a solution, would you mean that we would have to have something like a discussion for each page that would get a quote, and get a consensus on what quote would be best for that page? JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 10:41, November 8, 2013 (UTC)

If you think it's possible to write an article about an everchanging RS-character of which you, generally, don't know a lot about (which is any and all, imho) without bias - then please, yes, let me know. Because I think it's the same with the quotes. And yes, I think it's quite possible to debate that on the talk pages. The talk pages are used quite often, people know how to get there, and concensus as been achieved over other things (that seem difficult an possibly divisive) too. It's not too wild an idea I think. . . . _Yours, Enquidou ^Talk . . 12:14, November 8, 2013 (UTC)

That's a large leap, going from a single line to an entire article being biased. It is easily possible to stay objective when writing an article (I'm not saying anyone has been), but it is completely different from choosing a quote. I don't care what sort of spin you try to put on it either; "everchanging", "don't know a lot about", both irrelevant if you know how to stay objective properly. As for talk pages, those don't go over well and it's overly complex for a useless quote. MolMan 14:15, November 8, 2013 (UTC)

So, what about quotes in say, quest sections? They aren't about summing up their personality, but rather give their view on the events that transpire. Wahisietel (Talk) 15:47, November 8, 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't think I care about them as much as I had previously implied. I do feel it needs to be said that a quote for a quest section should probably highlight part of the climax or solution, though. MolMan 15:52, November 8, 2013 (UTC)

What about, say, quotes about a character from another character, like Wahisietel's description of Sliske on his page? That's unbiased (from our point of view, at least) and it's just a small quote (using the "quote" template) on the personality section of his article. Wahisietel (Talk) 15:56, November 8, 2013 (UTC)

Somethings arecompletely undisputed, like: you can always trust Sliske to not be trustworthy.. something like that. But also NPCs are written with bias, even if they share the same religious out look. A quote doesn't have to be unbiased, such a think doesn't really exist. To think that anything is unbiased is a mistake, imho. That's maybe also why I like Zemouregal´s quote that much "This is me, I am awesome!". Honestly, it couldn't be more biased than that - at least I think. And that makes it such a good quote. . . . _Yours, Enquidou ^Talk . . 19:24, November 8, 2013 (UTC)

Support - Let me get this straight, people have been putting their favourite quote at the top of the article instead of putting it on their own /Awesome_Quotes subpage? JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 10:44, November 8, 2013 (UTC)

Insofar this is a question and not a statement :P The answer is, obviously, yes. . . . _Yours, Enquidou ^Talk . . 12:14, November 8, 2013 (UTC)

Closure - Quotes will be removed at the top of pages, but sections can be added in cases where the quote is relevant to what's being discussed in the article. -- Spine^Talk 02:17, November 19, 2013 (UTC)