Jump to content

Template talk:Blockquote/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

RTL support?

Is there a shortcut to style="text-align: right; direction: ltr" for putting RTL text in a blockquote? Also, short of using columns or a table, is there a way to get the blockquote to align to the left of the page but have the text itself align to the right? 

As in:
                               ,tema tis rolod muspi meroL
                              .tile gnicsipida rutetcesnoc 
.subicuaf icro tidnalb ca susruc euqen a eugua sillom siuD
                                .surup sutem cen sullesahP

Thanks for your help. Ibadibam (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Read the documentation for Template:Script/Hebrew. Using {{lang|he|‹Hebrew language string›}} or, for multi-line quotes {{rtl-para|he|‹Hebrew language string›}} or the equivalent for other languages might do the trick. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Do we need to propose removing the quote-trimming feature?

This would be a huge change and it should be discussed in a more central location like WP:TfD or at least advertised there if it is going to be discussed here. It would also need to be advertised at Wikipedia talk:Manual_of_Style as it affects WP:Manual of Style#Block quotations. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

It seems to have been added only recently. Was there such a discussion before that was done? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Trimming quotation marks

The quote template removes leading and trailing quotation marks, giving us the following formatting in the Greg Packer article, which is quoting a newspaper quoting Packer (who is a man specifically famous for being quoted in newspapers):

"The Jewish people are fans of Pope John Paul II", said Greg Packer of Huntington, N.J. "He does not limit his message to one faith; he reaches out to everybody."

Should {{trim quotes}} be altered so that it only trims in situations where the only quotemarks in a quote are at the start and the end? Or is this quote of a quote so niche that it's maybe the only article where it goes wrong, and it's better fixed by changing that article to use unstrippable "s? --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

There's now a |notrim=y that works around this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I think we should remove the attempted quote trimming feature entirely. It causes more harm than good. Having quote marks around an indented quotation is not good style, per MOS:BLOCKQUOTE, but given the choice between weak enforcement via template documentation and strong enforcement through a buggy technical measure, I would choose the one without bugs. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
The template could add a tracking category when it detects marks. Then editors can either remove them or add |notrim=y. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Remove it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
I have removed the quote trimming, which was apparently added without discussion in mid-2019. I see no record of a discussion in the talk page archives, and since it had multiple undesirable effects, it seemed best to revert entirely. I have also attempted to restore the documentation to a state that resembles the mid-2019 state, though I expect I have missed a couple of things. Help is welcome in completing the documentation restoration. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Add notrim=1 parameter to disable effect of call to template:trim quotes

There is a need to prevent {{trim quotes}} from removing italics and bold from quotes. The documented way of using <nowiki /> is a hack. I've sandboxed a version that adds a new parameter, notrim, which if set to 1 will insert <nowiki /> at the start of the quote automatically. This is less elegant on the output than skipping the call to "trim quotes", but it is far easier to maintain.

Note that earlier today, SMcCandlish added <nowiki /> to the actual template, but it was in a different place. It had the effect of adding <nowiki /> to all quotes. I think he was trying to accomplish the same thing as I am doing here.

The diff to the sandbox is here. The version of the template that I tested against is here. The diff is here.

The test case page I used is here. It has additional test cases for this parameter.

Once this is approved, I will update the documentation page.

See related discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Interrupting parsing at beginning of parameter so wikimarkup at very start of its content is not misparsed(permalink). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Working on it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 Done, but not requiring the exact |notrim=1 syntax; any value like |notrim=y or |notrim=true will work. I've also asked for help at Template talk:Trim quotes to upgrade that template's smarts and make this workaround unnecessary, except for the case of actual embedded quotes as reported in #Trimming quotation marks above (this new parameter also works around that problem).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
See above; I think we should remove the buggy quote trimming feature entirely. People won't know about |notrim=, and they'll end up with buggy output that can only be detected by a detail-oriented reader. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
The |notrim= parameter was a valiant patch for something that was not going to work. I have reverted to the pre-trimming state of this template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Problem with indented use of this template; fixing it causes line break issues

Please see Template:Quote/testcases#With indentation for an illustration of a problem encountered with the template when it is used in an indented section (with : markup on a DYK page, for example, as at Template:Did you know nominations/Serious Hazards of Transfusion).

I have fixed the problem in the sandbox, but my fixing of it has somehow broken line wrapping, as shown in Template:Quote/testcases#With line breaks. I tried a wide variety of things in the sandbox to fix the line break issue, and I read the mysterious "explanation" at Template:Quote#Line breaks, but I was unable to preserve the line breaks.

If the sandbox code is moved to the live template, it will fix one problem and introduce another. Does anyone know how to work around this line break issue, which does not occur in regular text? Something makes me think that a little CSS wizardry will help, but I don't know enough about CSS to fix it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

With my revert to the template to remove the quote trimming code, indenting appears to work well, and line breaks appear to be removed. Further investigation may be necessary if editors want this template to preserve line breaks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Jonesey95: See Lynette Dolphin, which includes this:
{{quote|text=<small>Your service as a teacher has been most satisfactory, but it is in the field of music that your contribution to the country has been outstanding. Since 1952 you have been largely responsible for the Biennial Music Festivals in Georgetown. You are joint Honorary Secretary of the Music Festival Committee and the success of the Festivals is in a large measure due to your organization and supervision. 

You have also made a name for yourself in arranging musical programmes in the Schools Broadcasts which have taught many children the joy of music and of singing together.
By Command of the Queen conveyed to me through Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies, I present to you the Insignia of a Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire.|author=His Excellency the Governor, [[Patrick Muir Renison|Sir Patrick Renison]], [[Order of St Michael and St George|K.C.M.G.]] on May 8, 1959</small><ref>{{Cite web |url=http://parliament.gov.gy/documents/hansards/parliamentary_debates_8th_may_1959.pdf|title=Second Legislative Council, Constituted under the British Guiana, Friday, 8th May, 1959|date=May 8, 1959 |accessdate=February 28, 2020 }}</ref>}}
—Anomalocaris (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Now I understand it even less. I added a version of this quote as a testcase, for those who wish to plumb the depths of this enigma. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Poem tag?

Would someone please include a link to the W3C specification of the "poem" tag? I can't find it. JKeck (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's part of MediaWiki, not part of any W3C specification. I could be wrong. Have you looked at mw:Extension:Poem? – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

  • This is in itself just nitpicking, but the consequence is annoying: Please, add in first line a space char before /> at the end of style.css inclusion. Due to the lack of this space in the moment the highlighting of wikisyntax with CodeMirror is impeded for everything following.
  • According to TemplateData in the doc the param. "character" could also be used as unnamed alias param. 5., and in the parameter check this is included, too, but it is missing in the actual template code. While it would be easier to remove this from template and templatedata, nobody knows, whether someone actually used it this way, either implicitly (by position) or explicitly (by writing |5=). So, I would suggest to add it:
{{#if:{{{sign|}}}{{{cite|}}}{{{author|}}}{{{by|}}}{{{personquoted|}}}{{{source|}}}{{{ts|}}}{{{title|}}}{{{publication|}}}{{{quotesource|}}}{{{char|}}}{{{character|}}}{{{2|}}}{{{3|}}}{{{4|}}}{{{5|}}}|{{#if:{{{multiline|}}}|<nowiki />}}
 […]
{{#if:{{{char|{{{character|{{{5|}}}}}}}}}|{{{char|{{{character|{{{5|}}}}}}}}}, in }}{{Comma separated entries

(Edit: Note that here in output &#32; is not displayed.) — Speravir (talk) – 22:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"Template:Zitat" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Zitat. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 13#Template:Zitat until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Lorem ipsum?

How come the beginning of this Template, before the documentation stats, has the full "Lorem ipsum" message showing? I looked around to see if I can find where it was placed, but can't see where it's coming from... I'd suggest deleting that, as that doesn't have any use for appearing at the beginning of a Template page. Hezkezl (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Many template pages provide an example of what the template looks like, in the space above the documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Multiple paragraphs

Could someone explain how to make quotes spanning multiple paragraphs? I'm having difficulty getting the syntax to work. ImTheIP (talk) 02:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Like this:

Paragraph 1

Paragraph 2

Paragraph 3

or like this:

Paragraph 1
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 3

Will that work for you? – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Fixing the accidental return of decorative quotations

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Fixing the accidental return of decorative quotations
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

"This is not a pipe"

Not sure if anyone watches this talk page, but I'm confused why in the examples, "Ceci n’est pas une pipe" translates to "This is Not a Pipe" vs "This is not a pipe'. What's with the non-standard case? Is this on purpose? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not really a good example, since it is confusing, but see the linked article, The Treachery of Images. Different languages have different capitalization rules. The example should be replaced with something less ambiguous. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

What is the point of the "content" field?

Go to an article with a blockquote and try editing the surrounding text in Visual Editor. The surrounding text is suddenly uneditable, and has to be edited instead in the quote template in the "content" field.

For example, in the Visual Editor, go to Adaptation (film), go to the Production section, and select the text either side of the blockquote ("Kaufman said" or "Kaufman also said..").

What is the utility of this? Why can't it just be ordinary text? Popcornfud (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a question for Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor. This template and its siblings ({{blockquote}}, etc.) appear to work fine in VE. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
It may be that it's simply malfunctioning in the VE, but it makes me wonder what the point of the content field is at all? Why define text outside the quote in the quote template? Popcornfud (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the quote template is not doing anything here. The Visual Editor is doing something that neither of us understands, so your best bet is to ask your question in a forum where people who know about Visual Editor can help you understand the situation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I see, so it's not actually a function of the template at all, rather than the VE just displaying something incorrectly. Thanks, I'll ask there. Popcornfud (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Created a discussion at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback#Visual_editor_and_blockquotes, for any interested peeps. Popcornfud (talk) 12:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

How to format?

We all know the problems trying to find help with formatting on Wikipedia as the help pages are virtually useless, but usually I have been able to muddle through. However I give up with blockquotes. I know that <center> works, but how do I align text right? <right> and <align=right> don't work. Why is it so difficult to find this kind of basic information? Davidelit (Talk) 06:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Davidelit: See Help:Wikitext#Align text to right. <center> is obsolete per Help:Wikitext#Center text. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: Thanks for your help. I have now used that information to reformat what I wanted to. Davidelit (Talk) 09:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
See also WP:HTML5 for more tips on centering, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
PS, @Davidelit: You generally should not be doing strange things to text, like right-justification, in actual articles. I hope you're playing around with text only in user and project space.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: Hi. I wouldn't dream of messing around with article text - I'm aware of the problems that could cause. It was for a blockquote, and it looks OK on mobile devices. Thanks and Happy New Year. Davidelit (Talk) 04:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, I meant a blockquote within an article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 1 December 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. TR filed. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Template:Quote → Template:Blockquote – The current name is ambiguous and confusing, and appears to be the primary cause of misuse of this template for {{Quote|Very short quotations.}} See MOS:BQ: Only long quotations that will (on most monitors anyway) take up multiple lines should be put in <blockquote>...</blockquote> or a template wrapper for it like this one. Using Template:Blockquote will also be mnemonic with <blockquote>, and help prevent confusion with the <q> HTML element (which is for inline, non-block quotations, and which WP generally doesn't use). The change will not break anything, as the proposed name already redirects to the current one, and the current one would continue to work in situ with no changes. WP has been moving for years to less ambiguous and less "shortcutty" actual template names while retaining the short versions as redirs (e.g. Template:Citation needed and its {{cn}} shortcut).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Somehow, the promised automagic appears to have failed. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Quote/styles.css, where dozens of pages are transcluding a template styles page that was moved without leaving behind a redirect. Pinging SMcCandlish and JJMC89. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that appears to be due to raw xtag calls to <templatestyles>, probably from template substitution. I'll restore a redir to the styles.css page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 Done. A bot could be tasked with cleaning up after this and obviating the need to keep the CSS redir, but it's too many affected pages to bother with it manually.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I fixed the redirect but I think those pages just need null edits. They are transcluding this template, they just dunno the path has changed. But due to that, nothing should be broken here while the job queue catches up. Jonesey are there any visible errors here? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't know enough about template styles to know whether this page's absence was causing problems. I was going through a list of nonexistent templates with transclusions, and this one appeared in the list. If null edits fix the problem, then perhaps a redirect from the .css page to its new incarnation will no longer be needed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, well, I don't think this should change anything. Before the job queue gets around to it, it shows the old page. Once the job queue gets around to it, then it updates to the new template. In either case, as far as I can see, there will be no visible errors. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Parameter date

Hello, I would propose a Parameter for the Date of the Quote. W like wiki good to know 15:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Is there a reason the source parameter is insufficient for this purpose? Ibadibam (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 September 2021

Title of the unknown parameters tracking category needs to be changed since it has been moved to Category:Pages using quote box with unknown parameters. Thank you. Jeeputer (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Attribution outside blockquote element

HTML spec has changed. The attribution must be outside the blockquote element. Working on potential solution in /sandbox. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it's about ready. One issue, I imagine there is some <small>{{blockquote}}</small> type abuse out there. Linter will have new complaints about the sandbox expansion <small><div class="templatequote">...</div></small>, but only because Linter fails to complain as it should about the current expansion <small><blockquote class="templatequote">...</blockquote></small>. Both div and blockquote are flow, so neither is actually more of an error than the other. @Jonesey95: Will the increase in Linter count be acceptable? I'll be happy to help squash the errors that turn up. CC WT:LINT. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Please link to an explanation of why this template needs to change. There are many block quotation templates on Wikipedia, not to mention blockquote tags; if this one needs to change for some reason, the others may need to be modified as well. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I only spotted one occurence of <small>{{blockquote -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect usage?

Does anyone know what causes an article to categorised as using the template incorrectly, besides what the cat page itself says? Specific issue described at Category talk:Pages incorrectly using the Blockquote template. -- Scyrme (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The use of |class= in {{rquote}}, a wrapper for {{blockquote}}, in the section "Symbolic approaches to ritual" is causing this categorization. I don't know if the use of |class= is still worth tracking. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: Rquote! I missed it, thanks. I'll be honest, I'm not sure what |class= does, but messing with {{rquote}} (in the article preview, not directly) it seems the article gets categorised as "incorrect" even if you follow the advice on the template documentation, whether the parameters are explicitly named or not, even if the input for all four recommended parameters are plain text with no '=' signs; the mere existence of the template on the page seems to be tagged as "incorrect", and only commenting it out or deleting it from article removes the category. Either I'm being very clumsy or this is a mistake with {{rquote}} itself or something else. Fixing it is beyond me. -- Scyrme (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Are you able to fix it? Or is there a process to this? This issue is probably polluting the category with other articles that don't actually have anything wrong with them, so it should probably be fixed. -- Scyrme (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
All transclusions of {{rquote}} use |class=, so all articles using it will end up in the category. Someone needs to decide whether usage of |class= still needs to be tracked in this way. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Do you know who decides? – Scyrme (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: Hello? – Scyrme (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Since the parameter is documented on this template page, and it appears to function, and I was unable to find any mention of this tracking in the talk page archives for this template, I have removed |class= from the code that performs this category assignment. If anyone knows why it was there, they are welcome to post here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
The edit that added tracking of |class= to Template:Blockquote is Special:Diff/646356023, quote: template:bq has now been redirected/merged here per tfd, adding parameters which were not merged here in the tracking (emphasis mine). As per edit summary, at the time in 2015, template {{Blockquote}} did not support parameter |class=! It wasn't added during said merge intentionally.
In the mentioned TfD – Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29#Template:Bq there is this bit: Note that Category:Template bq using class param and Category:Template bq using id param are empty, and Category:Template bq using title param has but one entry, suggesting that the additional features are neither used nor needed, with parameter |class= being one of those unused and unneeded features. However, in the same TfD some people voiced support for |class=: [template resolving to <blockquote>] should have an option to add predefined classes.
Later, in 2021, support for parameter |class= was added to {{Blockquote}}, but without removing the tracking in question. Edit summary refers (but unfortunately doesn't link) to this discussion, where User:Great Brightstar explains the rationale for |class=: On your phone [template {{Rquote}}] may looks extremely narrow. To improve the visual appearance on mobile view, I created TemplateStyles to this template. But in order to make this template works as expected, you need to add |class= parameter into Template:Blockquote.
P.S. for reference, parameter |class= has been added to template {{Bq}} in 2012 (corresponding doc update) and the tracking of it was added in 2014. —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. According to the Template Data monthly report, |class= is used in 11 articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Since the change Category:Pages incorrectly using the Blockquote template has gone from over 1000 pages to under 500; it may drop further since categories can be slow to update after changes to templates. Regarding my original issue, Ritual is no longer wrongly categorised as using the blockquote template incorrectly. I think I was right that this issue was polluting the category with a large number of false positives. – Scyrme (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Update: Thanks to the change removing the false positives, I've now been able to clear Category:Pages incorrectly using the Blockquote template of all erroneous uses by amending the remaining articles. As of right now, all incorrect uses have been corrected and the category is now empty. (However, the category should be kept in order to catch any future misuses of the template, as it won't necessarily stay empty.) – Scyrme (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request

It's confusing that this template page starts out with lorem ipsum text. Can we add an introduction explaining what the template is, before we give an example of how blockquote looks on the page? Birdsinthewindow (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

That is how almost all templates are formatted, with sample text preceding the template documentation. I don't think it is appropriate to deviate from the status quo here. Geordannik (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

References Inside Blockquote Broken

References contained within the blockquote template (before the terminating curly braces) will not link to the correct citation in the article, and break the citation numbering for the article. It appears that the relevant citation is skipped and not included in the reference list. This method of referencing should be depreciated from this template. Please see this historic version of the circumcision and law article and take note of each blockquote. Geordannik (talk) 01:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

There is something more subtle here, since this sort of reference placement usually works. See this version of my sandbox, which contains copy/paste wikitext from the same version of that article. All of the reference links work fine for me there. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
And references should not be inside the quotation, jsut to be clear. They are not part of the quoted material. Either use the template's citation parameters, for displayed attribution, or more often put the ref at the end of the regular text that introduces the blockquote, as in: "J. Q. Publick wrote in 1997:<ref>...</ref>{{blockquote|Quoted material here.}}"  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hair space or thin space?

FYI, I've started a discussion on the Manual of Style for whether this template (and others) should put a hair space or a thin space after the attribution dash. (Apologies if I'm just totally misunderstanding something.) — ⁠Will ⁠• ⁠B [talk] 20:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 July 2023

Change the thin space (&thinsp;) to a hair space (&#8202;), per WP:Manual of Style § Other uses (em dash only), which recommends attribution em dashes be followed by a hair space in block quotations. {{Cquote}} and {{Quote frame}} both use the hair space; this template is the only one I could find that uses a thin space. — Will • B [talk] 01:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

So turns out that in 2015, SMcCandlish replaced the NBSPs in several quote templates (including this one) with thin spaces—not hair spaces, which "apparently [did] not render in all browsers". But I guess that's since improved, because in 2019, he replaced them with hair spaces on {{Cquote}} and {{Quote frame}}. But the rest of the quotation templates still had the thin space, so I've replaced them all with hair spaces except on the two protected templates—this one, and also {{Talk quote block}}. (And yes, I've put way too much effort into this change that nobody will ever notice. But that's kind of my thing.) — Will • B [talk] 03:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, the hair-space rendering problem is very old news at this point; we should use hair-space for this consistently.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 Done. I fixed it in both of the mentioned templates.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Awesome thanks. It looks like there's one more spot on {{Talk quote block}} that still uses a standard non-breaking space after the em dash—the one that goes with the |source= parameter, I think. Could you fix that too? — Will • B [talk] 03:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 October 2023

−
{{#if:{{{class|}}}{{{id|}}}{{{diff|}}}{{{4|}}}{{{5|}}}|{{main other|[[Category:Pages incorrectly using the Blockquote template]]}}
+
{{#if:{{{class|}}}{{{id|}}}{{{diff|}}}{{{5|}}}|{{main other|[[Category:Pages incorrectly using the Blockquote template]]}}

I see no reason for the usage of the positional alias for source to be marked as incorrect. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the "incorrectly" tracking category was installed during a template merge. Now that the category is cleared, it is no longer needed. All of the numbered parameters, as fragile as they are, are supported. I have removed the "incorrectly" tracking entirely and removed |id= and |diff=, two parameters kept temporarily during a template merge, from the unknown parameter check. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Blockquote tag vs this template: strange indentation on mobile

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T357742

Recently the <blockquote> tag has been producing some additional indentation on mobile:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

This template doesn't do that, even though AFAIK it uses the blockquote element:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

What happened? Can this be fixed? Hairy Dude (talk) 12:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

In mobile, the blockquote tag appears to include style="margin-left:41px. In the rendered template, that style is not included for some reason. I do not know how to get our CSS file to apply a style only in mobile view. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Blockquote/Archive_4&oldid=1246715573"