This one template I love!! I've seen a lot of Quotefarms out there! Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 08:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myself, I dislike this tag template intensely. The wording of it is really peculiar. It's a flat statement that makes it sound like there's actually some official limit on the number of quotations, but if you follow the linked phrase "too many quotations" over to the [Wikipedia::Quotations] article, all it says on the subject is that if you've got too many of them it might not feel so "encyclopedic". Quotations are a basic tool of factual writing, and if using a bunch of them makes a better article, then you should use a bunch of them, and not have to cater to a made-up rule like this.

Also you know, just because wikiquote exists, it does not mean that every quotation in the universe should be moved there. I sometimes get the feeling that geeks get hung up on this a place-for-everything notion. -- Doom (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This tag is dedicated for speedy deletion. What´s the problem in having many references? --Kuebi (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a repository of primary sources. That's what wikiquote is. Articles should be tertiary sources which don't directly rely on the words of others to describe their subject matter. When 60% of an article consists of quoted text that's not appropriate.

I would note that the article which led you here, Inedia, only used quoted text sparingly (and appropriately) when you de-tagged it, so the article was simply wrongly tagged. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a repository of primary sources. That's what wikiquote is. Articles should be tertiary sources which don't directly rely on the words of others to describe their subject matter. I'm sorry, but I think you're really reaching here. A quotation is hardly original work or anything like that, and inserting a referenced quotation into a piece of factual writing is simply not Bad And Wrong, or un-wikipedian, or violating some implicit rule about a-place-for-everything. Replacing a quotation with an awkward paraphrase is purely and simply Bad Writing. We can agree that there's something peculiar about an article if the quotations dominate it, but the right thing to do might very well be to write more prose in-fill between the quotations. -- Doom (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're being very abstract about this. A quick perusal of the kind of article presently tagged turns up monstrosities like this, and pages like this where the quotations are so excessive as to turn the article almost into a literary examination. There is certainly a valid use case for this tag, even if it's occasionally misused. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations aren't references. The fact that many of them are unsourced is actually a referencing problem. The main problems with over-quotation is that is a lazy substitute for writing, and in excess is actually an unlawful copyright violation. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 10:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to tag sections that are just a random list of quotes? --Deutschgirl (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Put this tag on them? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 10:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]