Template talk:Quote frame/Archive 1

Archive 1

on making 'source' a required field of this template

under what circumstance is it acceptable to quote someone without providing a source for the quote?

Usage

{{Quotation|Cry "Havoc," and let slip the dogs of war.|[[William Shakespeare]]|[[Julius Caesar (play)|Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene I.]]}}

produces

Cry "Havoc," and let slip the dogs of war.

— William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene I.

{{Quotation|{{Lorem ipsum}}|[[Cicero]]|De finibus bonorum et malorum}}

produces

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.

— Cicero, De finibus bonorum et malorum

Related templates

{{quote box}} {{cquote}}

Quote box

Isn't this sort of redundant, since we already have Template:Quote box? --Jtalledo (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

This one's a lot more subtle than Template:Quote box. It seems, therefore, to be useful in situations where the other template might not (like in the body of an article). -Seth Mahoney 21:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

What's with the small font? I detest gratuitous font size changes like this. I'm glad my eyesight doesn't suck.
As an aside, this looks like something you could find on a blog, not something a professional encyclopedia would do. Just because it's a website doesn't mean we obsolete printed typesetting.
And if I can gripe some more: you're putting a custom-formatted table inside a <blockquote>. That nearly defeats the purpose of <blockquote>, since all you're doing is indenting the resulting box. See the recommendations at [1].
(No, I'm not going to edit this. Style tweaking tends to be a huge waste of time on WP. Knock yourself out.) 82.92.119.11 15:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I popped the table out of the template. æle ✆ 21:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Scaling

This box seriously runs into problems when next to thumbnail boxes (see Søren Kierkegaard). Can anyone fix the code so that it adjusts width when facing images? gren グレン ^? 22:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

css version

I was thinking that this template could be improved with a simpler-HTML, CSS-based version, something like this:

When secessionists protested in 1861 that they were acting to preserve traditional rights and values, they were correct. They fought to preserve their constitutional liberties against the perceived Northern threat to overthrow them. The South's concept of republicanism had not changed in three-quarters of a century; the North's had. ... The ascension to power of the Republican Party, with its ideology of competitive, egalitarian free-labor capitalism, was a signal to the South that the Northern majority had turned irrevocably towards this frightening, revolutionary future.

— James McPherson, "Antebellum Southern Exceptionalism: A New Look at an Old Question," Civil War History 29 (Sept. 1983)

You can't see the above example without this CSS — put in your monobook.css or use the test styles bookmarklet:

blockquote.quotation {
    font-size: 90%;
    margin: 1em 4em 1em 2em;
    background: url("http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/56/Left_double_quotation_mark.png") no-repeat;
    padding-top: 3px;
    padding-left: 35px;
}

blockquote.quotation cite {
    padding-top: 5px;
    display: block;
    text-align: right;
    font-style: inherit;
}

instead of this:

When secessionists protested in 1861 that they were acting to preserve traditional rights and values, they were correct. They fought to preserve their constitutional liberties against the perceived Northern threat to overthrow them. The South's concept of republicanism had not changed in three-quarters of a century; the North's had. ... The ascension to power of the Republican Party, with its ideology of competitive, egalitarian free-labor capitalism, was a signal to the South that the Northern majority had turned irrevocably towards this frightening, revolutionary future.

— James McPherson, "Antebellum Southern Exceptionalism: A New Look at an Old Question," Civil War History 29 (Sept. 1983)

And I thought, since blockquotes aren't being used for anything on the Wikipedia except blockquotes (I hope), we could just dispense with the quotation class and use the same style for all blockquotes.

The only problem is that it breaks when next to floating images, as mentioned above. Any ideas? — Omegatron 06:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry, but this is isn't an attractive template. As it stands, it doesn't even make logical sense. We have a big "``" and then we duplicate it with another """, and then we don't terminate it with another big "''", I think it would be much more useful if we got rid of the silly image. Dysprosia 00:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe you're supposed to use quotes inside it. It's meant for blockquotes, not inline quotations. Using a big quote icon to indicate a blockquote is pretty standard on the web: [2][3][4][5] (scroll down) — Omegatron 01:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it looks attractive, nor does it mean we have to do what they do ;) Dysprosia 10:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I kind of like it. I think blockquotes should be set off from the text a little more than they are. Do you have any alternative ideas? Regardless, the style should be applied to every blockquote on the site; not just the ones inside a template. — Omegatron 14:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy without the silly image. If one wants to indent further, one can do so. But that's just my 2c. Dysprosia 04:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The image is awful. If someone doesn't change it, I'm going to have to go back to the places in which I used thisd template and undo them. — goethean ॐ 20:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I got used to the template with both the image, and without. You see, with the image in place, I was forced to take out quotation marks in my quotes, as, like Omegatron said, they are for blockquotes. Now that the enormous " has gone, I believe I have to go back and add quote marks... (I used about 5 of them in The Killers (band). Kareeser|^Talk! 06:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The manual of style says not to use quotation marks inside block quotes. And if they should, in fact, be there, this template puts them there anyway. — Omegatron 15:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

We want to be important and to last.

— Brandon Flowers, Unverified

Now, why do we need yet another box enclosing the quote? Dysprosia 10:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the box, but I think that there should not be quotation marks within it per Omegatron's comment. — goethean ॐ 14:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree and am glad they were removed.

^—IGNIS_SCRIPTA—

21:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Now people are going to add them inside the article, though. — Omegatron 00:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Are they simply unaware that is not in accord with blockquote procedure? I honestly think the box itself does a suitable job of setting the quotation apart from the text, giving it the air it requires, whereas that with the quotation marks is superfluous. On another note, this might solve the difficulties the template runs into with thumbnails and so forth—someone familiar with the coding should take a close look; I've never seen the linked template run into any remotely similar problems.

^—IGNIS_SCRIPTA—

01:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Are they simply unaware that is not in accord with blockquote procedure?

Yes. — Omegatron 21:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

can't make template work

I just tried about five times tgo make this template work. Can anyone tell me what I was doing wrong? [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] — goethean ॐ 22:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I discovered it is the "=" sign that some how interupts the code's representative effect. Try quoting without it. For example, "1 plus 1 equals 2."^—ignis_scripta— 22:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

External link in quotation not working

As co-anchor of CNN’s morning program, Cafferty had something to report on March 31: “It’s a red-letter day here in America,” he said. “Air America, that communist radio network, starts broadcasting in a little while.” Cafferty was unyielding when CNN colleague Soledad O’Brien responded by saying that the new talk-radio network was not communist but liberal. He replied: “Well. Aren’t they synonymous?”

— Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Announcing The P.u.-litzer Prizes For 2004

Can anyone tell me why the external link in this quotation isn't showing up? Thanks. -- noosphere 20:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Without a doubt, it is the "=" again. I'm not exactly sure how, but you will have to find a means to reference the link without having the "=" in the template.—^ignis _scripta 22:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply, Igni. Do you know if there's a chance that the template will be fixed to allow every valid URL ? -- noosphere 22:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I honestly cannot say. Although I am of the assumption that somewhere someone, who is also familiar with the code, will reckon with these issues (including the thumb problem) and thereby fix them. I unfortunately am not that someone, so we must wait it out.—^ignis _scripta 22:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

See the template above for how situations like this can be handled. -- grm_wnr Esc 23:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, grm_wnr! -- noosphere 23:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Text Citation vs. Spoken Citation

Is this template only appropriate when the source is a published document? Example: Michael Hayden. Thanks, GChriss 06:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

PrettyQuotation fork

I've now forked my version of this template to Template:PrettyQuotation, which lacks the (imo) ugly box. Spiff 18:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't fork style templates. Styles should be uniform everywhere. — Omegatron 12:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing background

The whole point of this template is that it makes a quotation stand apart from the other content, which is desirable in some articles. If you remove the background, then it would defeat the object and would be no different to the standard "blockquote" tags. Provided it's used where it displays properly, then I think the background should stay. If it causes problems, then use "blockquote" instead. At least that way everyone's happy. Chris 42 11:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. — Omegatron 12:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Reverted change by user:Omegatron

you reverted the change on this template. Could you please explain the reason? Just for interest, I originally wrote this template on 8 June 2005 and the present version does not work correctly with thumb images - see here and the first example below:

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.

— Cicero, De finibus bonorum et malorum

while the version I amended, worked as here:

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.

— {{{2}}}, {{{3}}}

A detailed explanation would be helpful so that I can properly appreciate your logic. Many thanks. (This message is also copied to talk page of template)--Hari Singh 05:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it. Someone modified the original so that the background was removed thus making it identical to a blockquote tag. I obviously reverted back one version too far by mistake. Many apologies. Chris 42 11:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just noticed that my reversion was on 1 September: I had nothing to do with today's edits. Either way, I would like the background to stay as otherwise it will mess up the presentation of certain articles, and, as stated above in "Removing background", what would be the point of the template if it just duplicated the blockquote tag.? Chris 42 11:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Chris is talking about, but I reverted simply because it's improper HTML. You're trying to format a blockquote by putting it inside a table instead of using the blockquote tag. This is bad for several reasons. I'm pretty sure the same effect can be achieved with DIVs and CSS. I started to look at this a while ago but never finished. I think the image frame markup might be the culprit. — Omegatron 12:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Should be fixed now; uses the proper, semantic blockquote tag but "establishes a new block formatting context" with "display:table", which causes it to be pushed out from under floated elements. — Omegatron 14:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Mprotected2|Richard_III_(1955 film)

Richard III (1955 film) is no longer the featured article. This page should be unprotected, or at least the template (Template:Mprotected2|Richard_III_(1955 film)) should be replaced with another, such as Template:hprotected —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gatewaycat (talk • contribs) 03:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Optional parameters

Is it possible to make the attribution bits optional? Sometimes it's attributed to a person without a text, sometimes a text with no person speaking, and sometimes the text or person are implied by the article (a list of quotes). — Omegatron 21:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed // Gargaj 17:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Why??

Why can't we have a quote template that just uses <blockquote>? Formatting should be up to the CSS, period. You shouldn't be changing colors and fonts directly here.

So why not just use <blockquote>? The issue I have is with the attribution line. It needs to be done to match what the CSS is expecting, so a template can take care of that. I'm thinking something like:

<blockquote>
<P>paragraph...</P>
<P>a very long quote has another paragraph...</P>
<P class="sigline">fromwhom<span class="source">optionalinfo</span></P>
</blockquote>

Point is, the support in the CSS needs to match the markup used to get the bottom line to format. Those who maintain styles need to know about it, and those who customize their CSS can count on it.

—Długosz January 3, 2007

See {{quote}}. — Omegatron 19:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

How does it relate to references?

If I say who said the quote and where, then it would be weird to also include a footnot reference. But if I don't include a reference, my list of references would be lacking.

Here are some options:

Option 1 (the original usage of this template - no footnote reference):

Some quote.

— Whoever said it, Source of the quote

Option 2 (only a footnot reference):

Some quote.

Option 3a (both):

Some quote.

— Whoever said it, Source of the quote

Option 3b (both):

Some quote.

— Whoever said it, Source of the quote

Option 3c (both):

Some quote.

— Whoever said it, Source of the quote

What do you think?

Sometimes option 2, sometimes option 3c, depending on the context within the article. Note that this applies to {{quote}}, too. — Omegatron 19:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-italicized and mixed-italics text in source attributions?

Is there any way to revert part of the source field of this template to non-italicized text?

For example, the article on the Ward Churchill misconduct issues contained the following:

In academia, you measure the influence of your publications via what's called the "Citation Index," that is, a literal count of the number of times your material is cited by others. Neither of LaVelle's essays on the Allotment Act, the first of which came out in the American Indian Quarterly almost a decade ago, has ever been cited by an Indian legal scholar. Not once.

— Ward Churchill, statement to Counterpunch

The previous editor was trying to make Counterpunch non-italicized, but this didn't work. I think "statement to Counterpunch" would work better, but I can't get the template to do this, either. Any ideas?

Thanks!

Banazir 20:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a PITA, but you can bypass it by skipping the second parameter and using the style-free third one:

{{Quotation|Some text.|Author||from "Short Story", in ''Anthology'' (2024)}}

Your text

— Author, from "Short Story", in Anthology (2024)

Notice the double || here. — Komusou ^talk @ 11:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

why put a box around a quote?

Have you ever, anywhere through-out throughout the vast literature of the English language, seen anyone who thinks it's a good idea to wrap block quotations inside of a big, heavy-handed boxy border like this?

It makes absolutely no sense, it's not standard usage, and it doesn't read right to my eye at all.

Personally, I'm going to boycott the quotation tag. Anything I edit, I'm going to just remove it, and use "::" to indent. -- Doom 22:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. It looks silly. I'll be bold. —Ben FrantzDale 08:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• As indicated in "Related templates", you have {{Quote}} for exactly the same thing without the border, so please don't remove the border on this one.
• Please also note that Wikipedia doesn't mandate one quotation template, so please don't start edit wars by unilateraly switching an article from Quotation to Quote. Wikipedia policy is that an article's creator or first main contributor get to chose the style of things not mandated by MoS.
• In addition to mere personal preferences, having a choice between Quote and Quotation is a Good Thing:
  • When there is a lot of alternating quotes and comments, borders can get handy.
  • When the quote is really long but necessary, border can get handy.
  • I have seen articles where they use the bordered Quotation for Biblical quotes and unbordered Quote for other quotes, to separate Scripture from commentary. Why not, if that works better for an article.
  • When quotes are used in endnotes, borders can really get handy. See for instance Derrida#References.
• When you are unsatisfied with a template, please check the "See also" or "Related templates" first, and what else is available in the categories, such as Category:Quotation templates here.

Before {{Quote|{{Lorem ipsum}}|Author|Book}}.

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.

— Author, Book

Before {{Quotation|{{Lorem ipsum}}|Author|Book}}.

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.

— Author, Book

After examples.

— Komusou ^talk @ 09:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Dash?

Shouldn't this be a quotation dash (U+2015, ―)?

Let's say I have this:

• Asdfffa.

  — asdfah, asfhash 25.6

• Asdf asgh.

  — asdfasdhazsh h, aashsh ash 2356.636

Compare:

• Asdfffa.

  — asdfah, asfhash 25.6

• Asdf asgh.

  — asdfasdhazsh h, aashsh ash 2356.636

As you can see, line spaces (or enters [or returns]) do no show up. You've got to fix this.68.148.164.166 (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)68.148.164.166 (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

NOTE

Currently this says:

• NOTE: This template should not be used for block quotes in article text. For long quotations in the text, the Manual of Style recommends using the HTML <blockquote> element, such as through the use of the {{Quote}} template.[11]

But there is no such prohibition in Wikipedia:MOS#Quotations, (where this template is mentioned by name) and as this template starts with a "<blockquote>", so I am of a mind to remove the note. --PBS (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed it. --PBS (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Category sort index incorrect

In Category:Quotation templates, this template is classified under T, while it should be under Q. This needs to be corrected.
Aveek (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Italics, etc?

Is there any reasoning why the italics are used on the title? Though this template currently outputs – Author, Title, Publication, I'm pretty sure it should actually be – Author, "Title", Publication in accordance with MOS:ITALICS (and other MOS bits that I can't find right now). For example, I'm certain that a newspaper article title is quoted, and the newspaper itself is italicised. -M.Nelson (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Purpose of Title and Publication parameters

Please add an explanation of how the Title and Publication parameters should be used. Note also the comments in the preceding Talk section by M.Nelson. Nurg (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

border="1"

Please add

border="1"

to the table styling so that the quote border shows up when parts of an article are sent around in email, blogs, etc..

See: meta:Help:Table#Viewing tables in email and web pages outside Wikipedia

The quote box will look the same on the Wikipedia page, but it will now also have borders when copied into email, blogs, and other web pages.

Bloggers and webmasters will not have to add CSS code in order to see the quote borders. It can get very confusing otherwise without borders, expecially with more than one quote. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Trouble with indenting

Here's what happens when I don't indent:

Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book. It has survived not only five centuries, but also the leap into electronic typesetting, remaining essentially unchanged. It was popularised in the 1960s with the release of Letraset sheets containing Lorem Ipsum passages, and more recently with desktop publishing software like Aldus PageMaker including versions of Lorem Ipsum.

— Some famous professor

Here's that same quote, indented:

Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book. It has survived not only five centuries, but also the leap into electronic typesetting, remaining essentially unchanged. It was popularised in the 1960s with the release of Letraset sheets containing Lorem Ipsum passages, and more recently with desktop publishing software like Aldus PageMaker including versions of Lorem Ipsum.

— Some famous professor

The same trouble is shown when using a bullet:

• Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book. It has survived not only five centuries, but also the leap into electronic typesetting, remaining essentially unchanged. It was popularised in the 1960s with the release of Letraset sheets containing Lorem Ipsum passages, and more recently with desktop publishing software like Aldus PageMaker including versions of Lorem Ipsum.

  — Some famous professor

Can you look into getting the source back into the grey box, when indented? Thanks ←Spidern→ 13:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone looked into this? The problem persists. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

mdash

Change the en-dash, –, to an em-dash, —, to bring the template into line with other quote templates and general WP usage. 178.16.0.184 (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I have converted your request to an {{Edit protected}}, it does not appear that there is a conflict of interests, and the page is fully protected. Monty₈₄₅ 17:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Needs to be able to handle multiple paragraph text

This template really needs to address a real solution of having multiple paragraph text. Having to go in and add break tags for every paragraph is problematic at best. Templates should be making formatting easier instead of creating more work to use multiple paragraph quotations. Lestatdelc (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I've just run into this myself and must agree; this should be a priority issue for this template. I'm not going to try to fix it myself, my templating isn't that good. — Hex (❝?!❞) 00:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI on Paragraph Breaks

In case anyone needs to include paragraph breaks in this template, just include a <br> tag wherever needed. Hope this helps, GChriss 20:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The <p> tag is also preferable. — ^ignis _scripta 21:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Is an unclosed <p> tag ok? --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC):::

Why? for both of the 1st 2 responses? Can't you fix the template so a simple punch on the ENTER key works?Curb Chain (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

cite tag

This isn't the highest priority, but its one of those little things that should be fixed.

The main CSS styled <cite> as italic, and Common.CSS overrode that as normal since <cite> was used for entire citations at one time. The CSS was recently removed from Common.CSS so <cite> now has the default style of <cite>. With HTML5, <cite> is used only for the title of a work being referred to or quoted from.

Currently, Author, Title and Publication are all wrapped in <cite>...</cite>. The documentation is not clear, but it appears that Title is intended to the the included work title (chapter, verse, etc.) and Publication is the main work title. Thus Title should present in quotes and Publication in italics, while Author is plain.

But, I am going to bet that a lot of uses of Title are for the main work title.

So, I am unclear as to where to go here. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, we need an intermediate template to cite minor works and major works with appropriate HTML, in various contexts like this one.

In the meantime, I’m removing the cite element, because this use contradicts HTML5. —Michael Z. 2013-06-07 18:54 z

Done. I am not restoring italicizing for the entire attribution. It serves no design purpose, and is potentially confusing, because it may make an author’s name look like a book title. —Michael Z. 2013-06-07 19:00 z

Is this a typo?

I know nothing about code so sorry if this is dumb, but is

{{Quotation|quoted material|Author||skip italics to use '' '' for italics}}

a typo on Template:Quotation? Anthony (talk) 10:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. It seems incomprehensible to me too. -- -- -- 20:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Layout problem

Hi, someone who understands how this stuff works might want to try to fix the problem exhibited at

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Welsh_Dragon&oldid=383972608#Royal_Badge

whereby, in IE at least, the quotation box overlaps the Royal Badge image obscuring most of the latter. (For now I have changed the page to use the "Cquote" template.) 19:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.171.63 (talk)

The same problem exists with Watchmaker analogy. I have changed to the quote template as a work around, but it would be good if someone who understands the template could sort out the problem.Rjm at sleepers (talk) 10:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect formatting, contravenes MOS

The template is formatting source title completely backwards. What it calls Title (i.e. article title) should be in quotation marks, and Publication (i.e. title of the larger work or periodical) in italics. Everyone knows this. Why has this widely deployed template not been fixed? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 17:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Be that as it may, how many of the 14000 existing uses would be broken by changing it? If you have a solution that would fix {{quotation|text|Title|Publication}} without breaking {{quotation|text|Book title}} or {{quotation|text||"Title"}} or {{quotation|text||"Title", ''Publication''}} or {{quotation|text|Book title|some explanation}} or the like, please propose it. Otherwise I think we're up against hysterical raisins. Anomie⚔ 15:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Live test cases for the above. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Test cases
{{quotation|text|Title|Publication}} text — Title, Publication {{quotation|text|Book title}} text — Book title {{quotation|text||"Title"}} text — "Title" {{quotation|text||"Title", ''Publication''}} text — "Title", ''Publication'' {{quotation|text|Book title|some explanation}} text — Book title, some explanation

SMcCandlish is correct, and we have two catastrophes. (1) We have a template that if used as intended violates both Wikipedia's MOS and the standard accepted style in all major stylebooks. (2) There are thousands of uses of this template, some of which have worked around this problem, and attempts to fix this template may mess those up. I believe the solution is to mark this template as deprecated, explaining why, and create a new template "Quotation2" that italicizes correctly. Over time, all uses of template Quotation should move to template Quotation2. When all references to template Quotation have been expunged, then template Quotation can be modified to redirect to Quotation2. This may be a lot of work, but you gotta do what you gotta do.—Anomalocaris (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Redrose, expanding your template, you wrote, "Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template." Your comment is inapplicable here.

The instructions say "Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request." I did exactly that. The instructions do not say, "please establish a consensus first." My purpose was to spotlight that we have a serious problem and to start a discussion on solutions to the problem. If and when a consensus becomes apparent, it can be implemented. I am trying to start a conversation on a proposed solution to a serious problem. Instead of engaging on the merits or making any proposals of your own, you appear to be trying to shut down that conversation before it starts. Let's have the conversation. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Per {{edit protected}}:

This template should be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately.

This template should be used only to request edits to fully protected pages that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template.

The purpose of {{edit request}} is not to stimulate discussion, but to request to apply changes. You haven't complied with the "complete and specific description of the request" in that you have not specified the exact changes desired. You told us the problem, now tell us how to fix it. Once a fix is described and preferably tested in the sandbox, then come back and make an edit request. As noted, a solution must consider current uses. --  Gadget850 ^talk 08:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I did not use the "edit request" template. I changed the parameter in the "Editprotected" template exactly according to instructions. Not only that, I did tell Wikipedia how to fix it. And, my solution does consider current uses. If my action was not in accord with Wikipedia intent, then the instructions ("Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.") should be changed.—Anomalocaris (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

{{edit request}} (with a space) was a typo by Gadget850 for either {{editrequest}} (without a space) or {{edit requested}} (with a space but slightly longer). The latter two lead to {{edit protected}}, which has several other redirects, including {{Editprotected}}, as was used at the top of this thread. I fixed one of Gadget850's errors, but overlooked the other. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the simplest solution is to add explicit parameters: 'author', 'title' and 'work'. Then migrate current uses. --  Gadget850 ^talk 10:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

That won't work either, because titles of books are italicized, but titles of articles are not italicized.—Anomalocaris (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Your solution? --  Gadget850 ^talk 19:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thumb + Quote

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.

— Cicero, De finibus bonorum et malorum

TfM

Please move the TfM notice from this template's documenation to the template itself (better still, allow template-editors to edit it). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Padding interferes with mobile skin

Please consider removing the padding on your blockquotes, and adding them to MediaWiki:Vector.css They are interfering with the mobile skin and causing some render issues there. Please see https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68001 Thanks! Jdlrobson (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC) Jdlrobson (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you maybe make an edit request on how to do this? Would this need something like

<blockquote class="toccolours templatequotation">

and then in MediaWiki:Vector.css (and other supported skins)

blockquote.templatequotation { float:none; padding: 10px 15px 10px 15px; display:table; }

? I'm not really sure what a. works and b. is best from a technical perspective. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Styling is already defined in MediaWiki:Common.css:

blockquote.templatequote div.templatequotecite {
    line-height: 1.5em;
    /* @noflip */
    text-align: left;
    /* @noflip */
    padding-left: 1.6em;
    margin-top: 0;
}

I did a quick test and it looks like the style declaration in the template is redundant. class="toccolours" is what creates the border. --  Gadget850 ^talk 18:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Compare Template:Quotation to Template:Quotation/sandbox on mobile. --  Gadget850 ^talk 18:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't quite like the look of the sandbox on mobile on the desktop skin myself - but I haven't tested properly what's going on there (HTC sync hates remote page inspector and also, humans) - it looks like it gets much less padding than the 5px I get on desktop, but I'm not sure, I can never eyeball pixels on mobile. I'm also not sure if the desktop skin on mobile is really a priority - lots of stuff look like crap on that, or are we fixing that as well? At least it fixes the overlapping jumbo quote marks on the mobile skin, so that's a thing. What's with the stripping out the float and the display properties? Are they just superfluous, or can there be a usecase we're overlooking? Also, I can't find where toccolors is defined (in Vector itself?), so I really don't fully understand how this thing is styled and how stripping inline styles might affect users on skins other than Vector. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

side note, templatequote nor templatequotecite is applied to any element in this template, neither the current version nor the sandbox version. It doesn't seem to have that class. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gadget850:@Jdlrobson: thoughts, ideas, elaborations? With the above questions in mind - especially the possible effect on other skins and unforseen consequences of scrubbing the seemingly redundant styling - are we good to go ahead with Gadget850's sandbox version? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick note I have seen this but I've been swamped with work. Will look as soon as I can! 05:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlrobson (talk • contribs)

Looks like User:Gadget850 template fixes the issue. You can put the CSS in MediaWiki:Common.css as this doesn't run on mobile. Jdlrobson (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gadget850:Good to go then, shall I make the edit, or wait for the TfD to finish? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 September 2015

How can I change the background color of a Quotation for a single instance -- I'm not trying to change the template. Wahrmund (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC) Wahrmund (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The background colour is not customisable. Why do you need to do this? Alakzi (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The embedded gray color is really boring. Wahrmund (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not a blog, and we do not want people installing random color schemes into articles. See various raging, angry debates about even colored infoboxes. This is an encyclopedia. It's intended to be "dry", consistent, and just-the-facts in approach, not a platform for visual experimentation. "Making things pop" often raises WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE policy concerns, by visually "leading" the reader to content that one particular editor is trying to get them to pay attention to. There's a reason so many people do not like templates like this one and want to do away with them, using a consistent, calm approach to quotation presentation that is like that in mainstream books, instead of visual eye-candy than manipulates reader eye-tracking. The more visually manipulative that templates like this are made, the more likely they are to finally be deleted. I've long advocated allowing these templates to do visually interesting things, as long as it's not in mainspace. If people want to make their userpages or wikiprojects look like a gaming site, no one cares, but we don't want our articles to look like you just went to a different website.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Equal sign inside quotation breaks rendering

I added a note in section "Usage", explaining how to avoid incomplete rendering of the template when using the character = inside the quoted text. -- Rfassbind -talk 12:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I compressed that, and described the three most common approaches to getting around this problem, which is a limitation of the MediaWiki parser that affects all templates.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Is this a typo?

I know nothing about code so sorry if this is dumb, but is

{{Quotation|quoted material|Author||skip italics to use '' '' for italics}}

a typo on Template:Quotation? Anthony (talk) 10:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. It seems incomprehensible to me too. -- -- -- 20:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Update: The above has since been changed by SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) to: {{Quotation|Quoted material|Author||skip italics to use wikimarkup: "Article", ''Newspaper''}}. However, whatever that's supposed to mean is still incomprehensible to me. -- -- -- 10:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

It means the third parameter, the one that produces italic output, is being skipped: || (left blank) and the one after it is being used to manually mark up output instead, so you can have something not italicized: "Article", followed by something manually italicized: ''Newspaper''. Will try to make that clearer in the documentation. Frankly this is a terrible, old template that dates from an older wiki era when parameters were not usually named, and people had to memorize parameter ordering to do anything. Migrating away from it will take time, I guess.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, SMcCandlish, for the explanation. Please see if you like the way I changed the documentation. -- -- -- 22:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

August 2016 Notice -- RfC involving this template

It is here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: What (if anything) to do about quotations, and the quotation templates? Herostratus (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Notice of external RfC

An RfC which also envisions changes to this page is here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Proposal to stop supporting pull quotes. Herostratus (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion

Perhaps the font size should be larger for better readability; indeed, at present it's smaller than normal text. --Mathmensch (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, perhaps the background color should be set to white for the very same reason. --Mathmensch (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 March 2017

Request that a list of templates that redirect here be added, as at Special:Diff/772749659. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Already done Nothing to do here. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Space between source and author

Just reviewing Somnath Sharma where two quote boxes are used. They both render with an incorrect space between author and source information. Is there a way around this? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)