Talk:Quotation mark

Quotations spanning multiple paragraphs

Looking at the history of this page and archived discussions, I see this has gone through a few iterations and some previously included information has been removed, though it doesn't appear that the removed information was particularly complete, helpful, or accurate. I frequently look to this very useful article. The one thing I really wish it included was a thorough explanation (probably in the table) of how each language handles quotes that span multiple paragraphs. Specifically, I would want to know whether this is indicated by repeating either the opening or the closing quotation mark, no markup at all, or layout (e.g., indentation). I would also like to know whether it is required at the start of each stanza/line of "poetic" (indented) material. Finally, I would like to know when a nested quote (level 2 or deeper) crosses a paragraph boundary whether the continuer marks, if any, are repeated for all levels or only the innermost level.

Note: In case this seems esoteric, it is actually quite common in the Bible. Boglet (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid you will need to research reliable sources for that, we can't rely on personal observation. It might be covered in Lynne Truss's Eats shoots and leaves or Bringhurst's Elements of typographic style. But more importantly, I suspect that this is a style guide decision and you would need to consult a number national and international English SGS before you write it up. Because you are going to contribute a [cited] paragraph on it, aren't you? Welcome to Wikipedia, if you want anything done properly around here you have to do it yourself! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Unicode and html in infobox: BRD

Bhbuehler boldly added to the infobox the Unicode code points and html mnemonics. Per WP:BRD, I reverted, essentially because imo it looks ugly and undue. The article already has a whole section giving this information. Infoboxes should summarise very succinctly the essential information about the topic but this info is only used by some webpage authors. I really don't think it belongs but let's see what others have to say. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I had mixed feelings about adding it. I agree that the formatting wasn't the best. Perhaps following the formatting on Guillemet would be better (there are no bullet points so there is less margin which fits better in the box). But the template page had the example formatted differently, so I stuck with that despite it looking worse. Also, despite your edit message saying the codepoints need to be added to the article, the information is in there—just in Quotation Marks#Unicode code point table. The advantage of duplicating the information in the infobox is that it puts the information in a predictable place for someone looking for it—if you've read articles about characters in the past and know to check the infobox, finding that info is a lot faster than figuring out which section the editors of a given article happen to have placed it. So I would suggest trying to fix the formatting rather than taking the information out entirely and relying on a somewhat difficult to find table. Bhbuehler (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

My edit note was misconceived: the code points and html are certainly needed so I assumed incorrectly that you wouldn't have added them if they were already in the article. But they are so that aspect of the debate is moot.

{{infobox symbol}} does include this sort of info but the structure is rather different, as are the requirements. It just doesn't seem so "in your face" as in this case. I suggest that the way forward is to open a discussion at the template talk page. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Dutch standard vs alternative

What is presented as the standard in Dutch (= English style) is definitely not what I learned in school (that would be „the alternative”) before computers were used by most people. Yes, it's true that the English style quotation marks are now in common use, as well as the simple ' and " for quotation, but just because it's widely used doesn't make it a standard. Unless I get some good reasoning to the contrary, I'm going to change standard vs alternative for Dutch in the near future. BGPexpert (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Wide usage most certainly IS a standard, though not necessarily the only one. There is no law or regulation saying coffee must be served in a convenient container, but people don't usually want coffee poured into their hand or down their throat, so cups have become the standard, despite the fact that the EU does not have a committee for it. (If such a committee really does exist, let's go pour coffee on them.) TooManyFingers (talk) 06:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

What you learned about quotation marks in school, you were taught for only one reason: it is the way everyone did it, and it is convenient that everyone does this kind of thing the same way. "The standard" is nothing but "everyone does that". If "everyone" changes "everyone's" mind, then the standard has already been changed.

And if an intelligent and prudent group of people propose something that is easier and better in every way, but no one listens to them, then (unfortunately) it is not a standard. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The trouble is that there is not really a "standard". The rules of the Dutch language spoken in the Netherlands, Belgium and Suriname are governed by the Taalunie, and they don't seem to have rules for quotation marks. I'd say „traditional” vs ‘common use’ would be the best description here. BGPexpert (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

''" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect '' has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 27 §  until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)