![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
User:ais523 and myself have been hacking a bit on this template, fixing the margin bug when it's next to images, and adding a box parameter to make it boxed like {{ quotation}} currently is. There is some scattered discussion (the scattering being largely my fault) at Template talk:Quotation and User talk:Martijn Hoekstra, and there is a proposed replacement template with test cases over at test wiki. It also requires a small common.css change. Does anyone see any issues or improvements? Can we go ahead with these changes? Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 10:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
11:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
11:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
It's been three months, now. The template still hasn't been changed, and the TfD is still open. We're never going to get improvements done if the reaction to changes is always "hold up, maybe we can do better". -- ais523 07:52, 6 February 2015 ( U T C)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
10:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
15:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
17:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
23:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)The changes discussed at http://html5doctor.com/cite-and-blockquote-reloaded/ are interesting. Maybe we should revise this template accordingly? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
|author=
value in <cite>...</cite>
if |author=
has a value and |title=
does not. The maximal change would be to wrap both in this element. For coding purposes it would be easier to do the latter. <cite>
may often contain only the author's name, and not be limited to the italicized title of a major published work. I.e., this:It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.
– Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's New Calendar", Following the Equator (1897)
<cite>...</cite>
element applies to all citation data, not just the title.
Mediawiki:Common.css has been corrected to stop force-italicizing the title. {{
Quote}}
has been updated to apply the element correctly per the current HTML5 specs. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
14:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)Any place I see the {{ quote}} template used if the attribution pipe is used a little square box appears instead of the space after the mdash and before the first letter of the attribution. I even see it here at [[ Template:Quote]] in the rendered example.
I have submitted a case to https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T115689 and updated the case today.
I don't see the square on my Blackberry Bold 9900 using the Blackberry browser.
Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
23:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
10:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC){{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
11:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC) 
), across all the quotation templates (which I kind of have on "speed dial"). That named character entity is not "exotic" in any way, and has been around since the mid-1990s or so. An alternative would be use an en dash with a full-width space, but the thin-spaced em dash should work everywhere. PS: Anyone who does not have fonts installed to handle spacing and punctuation characters represented by numeric character references, like the hair space, are going to have a lot of problems on WP, which makes heavy use of Unicode. We probably should not be tweaking templates to try to compensate for "I haven't undated my PC in ten years"
PEBKAC. We cannot predictively account for every possible problem such users run into here, and basically much of the Web is going to be malfunctional for them, since their ancient browsers are going to choke on all sorts of things everywhere. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
05:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
05:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
07:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
{{
IPA notice}}
and every template like it to
WP:TFD then, since instructing the downloading of such fonts is precisely what they do. LOL. "Not an option"? It's the only option in most cases. In this unusual, individual case we're fortunate that there's virtually no difference between the hair space and thin space, and the latter has been around for long enough that everyone can use it. I'm not making an argument that the hair space needs to be put back in. But WP came to a consensus a long time ago to continue to use Unicode appropriately, and let people catch up. The "I just get boxes" complaint and "I'll replace something you can't render with something different" sort of "solution" is usually not going to be a valid approach. You cannot go to
Kannada and replace that language's characters with other characters from some other language that appeared in Unicode earlier, after all. This hair-space case is a highly unusual exception. WP being in the top 5 most used websites and making such heavy use of Unicode is surely among the main vectors of everyday people's systems being incrementally upgraded, font-wise, to support newer versions of Unicode. While this is not WP's mission, it's a positive side effect. If people are frequently having Unicode problems here (even I do rarely, for obscure languages), we probably need to assemble a freeware font collection and make it available as a "new user package", available from some Help-namespace page here, and linked to from templates like the one I mentioned (the "rendering support" link in that doesn't actually even go to anything any longer; the section it was linking to no longer exists, at least not under that name. I'll dig in history and see if I figure out what the intent was; I'm guessing it was #Fonts at the same article, but that short section it's actually particularly helpful). [Update:
Fixed.] —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
09:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
10:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Dinoguy1000, we really need to use the same logic for in the 'if clause' of the conditional as the 'then clause', otherwise you can get strange output for situations like
{{quote|A|sign=|cite=C|source=|ts=D}}
before, since the same logic was used in both cases, the |cite=
and |ts=
were silently ignored. now, they trip the 'if clause', but then show nothing since they are overridden by the blank |sign=
and |source=
, and so you get the floating dash. a far more robust version can be found
in this version of the sandbox. by using
template:if empty in the 'then clause' the blank parameters are ignored, and don't override the non-blank parameters. of course, an even better solution would be to not allow so many variations of the same parameter names, but that would require cleaning up the articles.
Frietjes (
talk)
20:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
#if
statements - something we can probably agree wouldn't have been very manageable considering the number of alternate names for the same input. As you said, though, cutting down those alternates would be a very good way of controlling the code bloat in this case, and for that matter I don't think the recent addition of a number of variants should have happened. 「
ディノ奴
千?!」
? ·
☎ Dinoguy1000
06:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)In fixing the errors flagged in Category:Pages incorrectly using the quote template, I found one where improper usage {{ pull quote}} was converted to {{ quote}} ( diff). Care needs to be taken to check the parameters used, because the syntax of these two quote templates is not identical; my fix: diff. – Wbm1058 ( talk) 18:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
|4=
, |5=
, ... basically, catching post template merger issues.
Frietjes (
talk)
00:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Frietjes, why would
this edit fix anything? I thought that text=
and 1=
should be equivalent? That one had me stumped; I was going to come back to it later.
Wbm1058 (
talk)
00:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Frietjes, right, the system has been misbehaving more often in strange ways like that recently. Sometimes even null edits don't seem to fix it. I'll leave this one for you User:Kamina/vector.css as I don't follow why a comment in a script would trigger the categorization, or I guess this is it?
.quote {
margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em 2.2em !important;
padding: 2px 5px 2px 5px;
background-image: url('http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/Quote_background_transparent.png/38px-Quote_background_transparent.png');
background-size: auto 32px;
background-position: right bottom;
background-repeat: no-repeat;
}
Wbm1058 ( talk) 00:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
/* {{Quote}} */
comment causing this, not the CSS you copied above). Useful for tracking script usage, if the script in question has a standard installation method of copying code that includes a comment with a link to the source script, though it can also be problematic as you see there. 「
ディノ奴
千?!」
? ·
☎ Dinoguy1000
02:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)... to whomever fixed the interaction between quotes and right-aligned images/boxes, thus eliminating the need for {imagequote}. A minor but highly annoying headache eliminated! EEng ( talk) 18:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I thought Template:Quote/to right of image and its kind were now unnecessary because the underlying bug was fixed. Am I mixed up? EEng ( talk) 22:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
11:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Adding a signature makes the template ignore line breaks in the text. For example:
[T]he various typefaces used before the introduction (The) Times New Roman didn't really have a formal name. They were a suite of types originally made by Miller and Co. (later Miller & Richards) in Edinburgh around 1813, generally referred to as "modern". When The Times began using Monotype (and other hot-metal machines) in 1908, this design was remade by Monotype for its equipment. As near as I can tell, it looks like Monotype Series no. 1 — Modern (which was based on a Miller & Richards typeface) — was what was used up until 1932.
But:
[T]he various typefaces used before the introduction (The) Times New Roman didn't really have a formal name. They were a suite of types originally made by Miller and Co. (later Miller & Richards) in Edinburgh around 1813, generally referred to as "modern". When The Times began using Monotype (and other hot-metal machines) in 1908, this design was remade by Monotype for its equipment. As near as I can tell, it looks like Monotype Series no. 1 — Modern (which was based on a Miller & Richards typeface) — was what was used up until 1932.
— Dan Rhatigan, type director
Can someone please fix this? Esszet ( talk) 23:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
[T]he various typefaces used before the introduction (The) Times New Roman didn't really have a formal name. They were a suite of types originally made by Miller and Co. (later Miller & Richards) in Edinburgh around 1813, generally referred to as "modern". When The Times began using Monotype (and other hot-metal machines) in 1908, this design was remade by Monotype for its equipment. As near as I can tell, it looks like Monotype Series no. 1 — Modern (which was based on a Miller & Richards typeface) — was what was used up until 1932.
with
[T]he various typefaces used before the introduction (The) Times New Roman didn't really have a formal name.
They were a suite of types originally made by Miller and Co. (later Miller & Richards) in Edinburgh around 1813, generally referred to as "modern". When The Times began using Monotype (and other hot-metal machines) in 1908, this design was remade by Monotype for its equipment. As near as I can tell, it looks like Monotype Series no. 1 — Modern (which was based on a Miller & Richards typeface) — was what was used up until 1932.
To editors Frietjes and Esszet: The most recent edit messed up the quote sig on my user page. I confirmed this by changing this sandbox back to the previous version and previewing it on my user page. This edit sets the sig back to the left margin for some reason, instead of where it was under the quote. I've illustrated it below.
(type quotation here)
(type quotation here)
— Paine
Can what you want done be accomplished differently? Paine 23:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
(type quotation here)
— Paine
<poem>...</poem>
inside? or do we add a feature which adds <poem>...</poem>
inside?
Frietjes (
talk)
15:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)<br>
) is dissociated from indentation created by colons even if there's no signature included (see below). Does that make a difference?
Esszet (
talk)
15:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)::::{{Quote|'''''{{Color|#9724c4|(type quotation here)}}'''''<br>'''''{{Color|#9724c4|(type quotation here)}}'''''
'''''{{Color|#9724c4|(type quotation here)}}'''''
'''''{{Color|#9724c4|(type quotation here)}}'''''}}
To editors
Frietjes and
Esszet: <div style="margin-left:7em">
as a wrapper around the entire quote + sig works well and is fine with me:
(type quotation here)
— Paine
Might want to make a mention of this application of the style param (to indent a quote) in the documentation somehow. Thank you very much for the tip, Frietjes! Be prosperous! Paine 17:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
|style=
, and I'd have to say that also applies to <div>...</div>
tags.
Esszet (
talk)
18:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
|indent=
, but I still don't think that would prevent people from trying to use colons. I can't really think of a case where you would want to use colons for indenting the quote (outside of talk pages). as I said before, we could make the new additional linebreak (between the quote and the citation) optional. perhaps it would be good to have a bot scan all uses to see how many are uses are being indented by colons?
Frietjes (
talk)
18:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
<
poem>
; that's what it's for, after all, and MediaWiki eating whitespace is something that affects other block elements, not just the <blockquote>...</blockquote>
used by this template. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
01:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
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.
— Someone, somewhere
<p>
tags.
Hairy Dude (
talk)
15:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC);
and :
to indent things is shite when it comes to
semantic HTML (because it formats the material as description lists (a.k.a. definition lists or association lists) in HTML, and this is an abuse of
separation of content and presentation just to get a trivial stylistic effect, like abusing HTML tables for layout). No one much cares if we do it in talk pages, but I eliminate this on-sight in articles. If you need to indent a line, use {{
in5}}
or another indenting template. If you need to indent a block of content that is not a quotation, use {{
block indent}}
, which supports internal <p>...</p>
paragraph breaks and such, and can be configured to indent on one or both sides. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
21:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Thanks everyone for screwing up the presentation of archived discussion pages like this one, apparently just to make the trivial point that Wikipedia conventions on talk page layout don't comply with the programmer's handbook of coding. Spinning Spark 11:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
To editors Frietjes and Esszet: it appears that the edit to this Quote template should be reverted until a way can be found to keep the indented quotation formats on existing pages intact. There's no telling how many discussion pages have been adversely affected by the change. Be prosperous! Paine 17:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
|multiline=y
.
Frietjes (
talk)
17:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Anyone who has had more coffee than me know why the problem illustrated at
Template:Block indent#Technical issues with block templates is no longer affecting this template? (If you transclude the same
Template:Block bug documentation doc snippet into
Template:Quote/doc, the output in both table rows is identical). It would be good to propagate this improvement to all templates using divs and other block elements, and document what the cleanest version of it is in Help-namespace pages about coding (and maybe even update some MediaWiki bug reports about what the workaround is). The "traditional" way to work around this has been to insert <nowiki />
as the first thing in the block content parameter, before any list or other markup dependent on a character like * or # being at the beginning of a line. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
19:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Input | Output |
---|---|
<div>{{#if:1|* one * two * three}}</div> |
|
<div>* one * two * three</div> |
* one
|
The bug described above seems to have reared its ugly head again. At Aeon (Gnosticism)#Horos I'm unable to get the paragraph break in the second quotation to render correctly using a blank line, as currently demonstrated on my sandbox. Hairy Dude ( talk) 11:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
|text=
fixed it. The the template still has issues, like using a block-level <div>
inside an inlnine <cite>
tag. That is what causes HTML Tidy to mess with the output. -- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
11:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC){{
edit protected}}
This template is using {{
comma separated entries}} to handle the attribution, i.e.
{{{author}}}
, {{{title}}}
, {{{source}}}
, ... so that they are displayed nicely one after another and separated from each other with exactly one comma. However {{{char|{{{character}}}}}}
is excluded from and followed immediately by {{
comma separated entries}}. Though it is still showing up properly, I just do not understand the reason behind it. Would it not be intuitively easier to understand the code if it is included? I just made a {{
Quote/sandbox}} to try it out, and you can take a look at
Template:Quote/testcases#With character. Even though theis is not a big deal, I think it would help a lot if later there is any change or upgrade. Thanks!--
Quest for Truth (
talk)
02:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
{{{char|{{{character}}}}}}
has value and is displayed. --
Quest for Truth (
talk)
02:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)But read again my testcase with closer look. It doesn't sound natural to put an "in" between Sherlock Holmes the fictional character and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle the author. After the word "in", a reader should be looking for the title of the work rather than the author. Keep in mind that this template is very flexible and allow user to choose which parameters they would like to use. There are a few approach to this problem:
|author=
has value, but other times it is skipped.|author=
has value, words like "by" should be used instead of "in". If only |title=
has value, the word "in" is suitable.{{{character}}}
should be followed by "in {{{title}}}
", which in turn should be followed by "by {{{author}}}
". But does it require to use the order "{{{author}}}
, {{{title}}}
" when character is absent?Any thoughts? -- Quest for Truth ( talk) 03:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Because I am tired of referring back to
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 October 20, everytime I want to do a multilingual quotation, the deleted
Template:Multilingual quotation can be simulated with: {{columns|width=auto | col1 = {{quote|{{lang-en|Quotation not in English.}}|Author}} | col2 = {{quote|{{lang-es|Quotación no en inglés}}}} }}
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Furius (
talk •
contribs)
21:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
|
|
{{subst:User:Furius/Multilangquote}}
, anywhere you need it, save the page, then re-edit it to insert the content. I have to note that the original TfD rationale was that we generally don't need to do this kind of display. It's usually more useful to just give the English translation, and provide the original with |quote=
in the citation template for the source of the quote. There's not much utility on en.wikipedia in providing blocks of non-English content, unless it's being analyzed as such for a specific purpose, e.g. in a linguistics article. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
07:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)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)
It's become pretty common in many stylesheets out there to highlight blockquotes with a line on the left, like this:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed ultricies nisi eu lectus egestas scelerisque. Etiam vitae ante vel lorem efficitur fermentum at quis nisi. Nulla et augue eget arcu scelerisque malesuada. Maecenas porta vestibulum libero eget varius. Donec lacus magna, fermentum vel ante vitae, malesuada posuere magna. Aenean scelerisque in neque ut semper. Donec eleifend tortor justo, ut ullamcorper tortor dictum at.
For contrast, here's how it currently looks:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed ultricies nisi eu lectus egestas scelerisque. Etiam vitae ante vel lorem efficitur fermentum at quis nisi. Nulla et augue eget arcu scelerisque malesuada. Maecenas porta vestibulum libero eget varius. Donec lacus magna, fermentum vel ante vitae, malesuada posuere magna. Aenean scelerisque in neque ut semper. Donec eleifend tortor justo, ut ullamcorper tortor dictum at.
I would like to propose that this template adopts this style, as it makes blockquotes more identifiable, and in line with the pattern that readers may have encountered elsewhere. Thoughts? -- Waldir talk 19:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I suggest that the formatting for this template be changed to match what is in my opinion the aesthetically superior ro:Format:Citat from the Romanian Wikipedia:
<div style="padding-left:3%; padding-right:3%; color:#606060; text-align: left; font-size:95%"> <span style="font-style:italic">„{{{1}}}”</span>{{#if:{{{2|}}}|<div class="templatequotecite">—{{{2}}}{{#if:{{{3|}}}|, ''{{{3}}}}}''</div>}}</div><noinclude>{{pp-semi-template|small=yes}}</code>
I hope that others agree.-- Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 21:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Is there a reason why this template doesn't support the use of the date of the quotation? If a quote is taken from a debate or event that took place on a specific day, it is common to see the date quoted in sources in such instances, e.g. "John Smith - 12 April 1956". The template documentation says: "Technically, all citation information can be given in a single parameter" and then goes on to say that the information should be identified by parameter to help with the generation of metadata (when did Wikipedia turn from an encyclopedia into a project to generate metadata?). But if you have extra information that you want to include that doesn't fit the existing parameters, you are stuck. Shoehorning it in somewhere else will just pollute the metadata. Carcharoth ( talk) 05:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
|source=
parameter is a catchall for all citation information. If we want to do more specific meta-data we can do that, but we'd probably do it by recycling long-extant code from the
WP:CS1 system, not re-engineering it here. If you want to ask why WP is concerning itself with citation metadata, the place to ask (or object or support) is at
WT:CS1, since that's where this decision was made and where the code to implement it is crafted and re-crafted. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<
07:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Hi, y'all. Why is there a comma and space at the end of the attribution in this quote?
— Christina Shane-Simpson; Kristen Gillespie-Lynch, [23]
Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
20:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
@
Checkingfax and
K kisses: The author/source parameters of the quote template are for visual effect, not for
WP:V citations; they're for visual attribution of a usually famous quote (e.g. to do something like |author=Martin Luther King Jr.
|source="I Have a Dream" speech
. When using this template for the average block quotations, the full <ref>...</ref>
citation goes after the colon introducing the blockquote. If you do what K kisses did, you're "polluting" the author field's metadata with non-author information that belongs in |source=
. If it were important in that article's context to display the author and source info and to also have an inline citation, the way to do it would be something like:
The study concluded that:<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Shane-Simpson |first1=Christina |last2=Gillespie-Lynch |first2=Kristen |title=Examining potential mechanisms underlying the Wikipedia gender gap through a collaborative editing task |journal=[[Computers in Human Behavior]] |date=January 2017 |volume=66 |pages=312–328 |doi=10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.043}}</ref> {{quote |text= ...visible female editors on Wikipedia and broader encouragement of the use of constructive feedback may begin to alleviate the Wikipedia gender gap. Furthermore, the relatively high proportion of anonymous editors may exacerbate the Wikipedia gender gap, as anonymity may often be perceived as male and more critical.|author=Kristen Gillespie-Lynch |source="Examining potential mechanisms underlying the Wikipedia gender gap through a collaborative editing task", ''Computers in Human Behavior'', (2017)}}
That's assuming that the attribution to Gillespie-Lynch alone is actually correct (seems unlikely), and that one wanted to have that much source info appear in the visual output of the template. From the context there, this does not appear to be desirable, given the nature of the rest of the quotes in that material. I thus fixed it differently [3]. However, given the short length of the quote, this template probably shouldn't have been used in the first place; it is not used there for others, which are just given inline in the prose. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 07:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Using single line quotes in the middle of a threaded (indented) talk where it can appear in the middle of the sentence is currently broken.
Proof: The following wikicode
:::: ''In a long thread discussion... {{Lorem ipsum}}... I'm speaking about this: {{Quote|This is an ''inline'' quotation: {{Lorem ipsum}}...}} which '''I'd like''' to comment. {{Lorem ipsum}}...''
:::: ''Do you see that ? {{Lorem ipsum}}...''
</blockquote>
is preceded by a newline, which breaks the wiki input line and forces a new paragraph to be generated after it. This unwanted newline should be removed (or hidden by HTML comments) to really support inline quotes without breaking indented talk threads. (this newline was added in this old
diff but this was wrong).{{#if:{{{multiline|}}}|<nowiki />}}
is followed in all cases by a newline, which must be placed inside the "#if" by placing it between "nowiki" tags (so the newline will not be trimmed by "#if").Thanks. verdy_p ( talk) 04:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
It's a bit of a pain to copy/paste the style for nested quotations that suppresses the size change and decorative quotation marks. Could we get a nested=yes
parameter that adds it automatically?
Hairy Dude (
talk)
03:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I believe the recent
edit of 08:37, 10 August 2018 of
Template:Quote by
TheDJ resulted in
Multiple unclosed formatting tags lint errors when the template is wrapped by <small>...</small>
tags. There are more than 20 items affected in the main (article) namespace. (It is possible that I'm mistaken and these articles had the error even before this edit, but I don't think so.) Was this change necessary, or, is there a way to accomplish the same goal without generating this lint error? —
Anomalocaris (
talk)
10:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
<small>{{quotation|...}}</small>
→ {{quotation|style=font-size:smaller|...}}
At least in Firefox on Linux, I see no difference between cases with and without multiline=y:
Line 1
Line 2 Line 3
Line 1
Line 2 Line 3
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 3
I'm at least temporarily removing that parameter from the documentation, so folks will use one of the more reliable methods in the "Line breaks" section. In the long term, though, should this parameter be repaired or just removed since there are alternatives? -- Beland ( talk) 20:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
|source=
, when the |multiline=
parameter was not specified. The code was not doing anything at all other than conditionally inserting/removing <nowiki />
, when that bit of code actually needed to be present in all cases. I'm not going to dig way back in the history to try to figure out what was originally intended, but have simply removed this broken and undocumented parameter. The content wrapped by this template can be formatted by any means any other content block can be, including preservation of line breaks, and use of <
poem>
for unusual and precise layout demands. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
17:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
User:ais523 and myself have been hacking a bit on this template, fixing the margin bug when it's next to images, and adding a box parameter to make it boxed like {{ quotation}} currently is. There is some scattered discussion (the scattering being largely my fault) at Template talk:Quotation and User talk:Martijn Hoekstra, and there is a proposed replacement template with test cases over at test wiki. It also requires a small common.css change. Does anyone see any issues or improvements? Can we go ahead with these changes? Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 10:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
11:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
11:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
It's been three months, now. The template still hasn't been changed, and the TfD is still open. We're never going to get improvements done if the reaction to changes is always "hold up, maybe we can do better". -- ais523 07:52, 6 February 2015 ( U T C)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
10:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
15:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
17:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
23:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)The changes discussed at http://html5doctor.com/cite-and-blockquote-reloaded/ are interesting. Maybe we should revise this template accordingly? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
|author=
value in <cite>...</cite>
if |author=
has a value and |title=
does not. The maximal change would be to wrap both in this element. For coding purposes it would be easier to do the latter. <cite>
may often contain only the author's name, and not be limited to the italicized title of a major published work. I.e., this:It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.
– Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's New Calendar", Following the Equator (1897)
<cite>...</cite>
element applies to all citation data, not just the title.
Mediawiki:Common.css has been corrected to stop force-italicizing the title. {{
Quote}}
has been updated to apply the element correctly per the current HTML5 specs. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
14:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)Any place I see the {{ quote}} template used if the attribution pipe is used a little square box appears instead of the space after the mdash and before the first letter of the attribution. I even see it here at [[ Template:Quote]] in the rendered example.
I have submitted a case to https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T115689 and updated the case today.
I don't see the square on my Blackberry Bold 9900 using the Blackberry browser.
Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
23:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
10:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC){{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
11:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC) 
), across all the quotation templates (which I kind of have on "speed dial"). That named character entity is not "exotic" in any way, and has been around since the mid-1990s or so. An alternative would be use an en dash with a full-width space, but the thin-spaced em dash should work everywhere. PS: Anyone who does not have fonts installed to handle spacing and punctuation characters represented by numeric character references, like the hair space, are going to have a lot of problems on WP, which makes heavy use of Unicode. We probably should not be tweaking templates to try to compensate for "I haven't undated my PC in ten years"
PEBKAC. We cannot predictively account for every possible problem such users run into here, and basically much of the Web is going to be malfunctional for them, since their ancient browsers are going to choke on all sorts of things everywhere. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
05:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
05:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
07:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
{{
IPA notice}}
and every template like it to
WP:TFD then, since instructing the downloading of such fonts is precisely what they do. LOL. "Not an option"? It's the only option in most cases. In this unusual, individual case we're fortunate that there's virtually no difference between the hair space and thin space, and the latter has been around for long enough that everyone can use it. I'm not making an argument that the hair space needs to be put back in. But WP came to a consensus a long time ago to continue to use Unicode appropriately, and let people catch up. The "I just get boxes" complaint and "I'll replace something you can't render with something different" sort of "solution" is usually not going to be a valid approach. You cannot go to
Kannada and replace that language's characters with other characters from some other language that appeared in Unicode earlier, after all. This hair-space case is a highly unusual exception. WP being in the top 5 most used websites and making such heavy use of Unicode is surely among the main vectors of everyday people's systems being incrementally upgraded, font-wise, to support newer versions of Unicode. While this is not WP's mission, it's a positive side effect. If people are frequently having Unicode problems here (even I do rarely, for obscure languages), we probably need to assemble a freeware font collection and make it available as a "new user package", available from some Help-namespace page here, and linked to from templates like the one I mentioned (the "rendering support" link in that doesn't actually even go to anything any longer; the section it was linking to no longer exists, at least not under that name. I'll dig in history and see if I figure out what the intent was; I'm guessing it was #Fonts at the same article, but that short section it's actually particularly helpful). [Update:
Fixed.] —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
09:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
10:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Dinoguy1000, we really need to use the same logic for in the 'if clause' of the conditional as the 'then clause', otherwise you can get strange output for situations like
{{quote|A|sign=|cite=C|source=|ts=D}}
before, since the same logic was used in both cases, the |cite=
and |ts=
were silently ignored. now, they trip the 'if clause', but then show nothing since they are overridden by the blank |sign=
and |source=
, and so you get the floating dash. a far more robust version can be found
in this version of the sandbox. by using
template:if empty in the 'then clause' the blank parameters are ignored, and don't override the non-blank parameters. of course, an even better solution would be to not allow so many variations of the same parameter names, but that would require cleaning up the articles.
Frietjes (
talk)
20:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
#if
statements - something we can probably agree wouldn't have been very manageable considering the number of alternate names for the same input. As you said, though, cutting down those alternates would be a very good way of controlling the code bloat in this case, and for that matter I don't think the recent addition of a number of variants should have happened. 「
ディノ奴
千?!」
? ·
☎ Dinoguy1000
06:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)In fixing the errors flagged in Category:Pages incorrectly using the quote template, I found one where improper usage {{ pull quote}} was converted to {{ quote}} ( diff). Care needs to be taken to check the parameters used, because the syntax of these two quote templates is not identical; my fix: diff. – Wbm1058 ( talk) 18:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
|4=
, |5=
, ... basically, catching post template merger issues.
Frietjes (
talk)
00:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Frietjes, why would
this edit fix anything? I thought that text=
and 1=
should be equivalent? That one had me stumped; I was going to come back to it later.
Wbm1058 (
talk)
00:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Frietjes, right, the system has been misbehaving more often in strange ways like that recently. Sometimes even null edits don't seem to fix it. I'll leave this one for you User:Kamina/vector.css as I don't follow why a comment in a script would trigger the categorization, or I guess this is it?
.quote {
margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em 2.2em !important;
padding: 2px 5px 2px 5px;
background-image: url('http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/Quote_background_transparent.png/38px-Quote_background_transparent.png');
background-size: auto 32px;
background-position: right bottom;
background-repeat: no-repeat;
}
Wbm1058 ( talk) 00:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
/* {{Quote}} */
comment causing this, not the CSS you copied above). Useful for tracking script usage, if the script in question has a standard installation method of copying code that includes a comment with a link to the source script, though it can also be problematic as you see there. 「
ディノ奴
千?!」
? ·
☎ Dinoguy1000
02:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)... to whomever fixed the interaction between quotes and right-aligned images/boxes, thus eliminating the need for {imagequote}. A minor but highly annoying headache eliminated! EEng ( talk) 18:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I thought Template:Quote/to right of image and its kind were now unnecessary because the underlying bug was fixed. Am I mixed up? EEng ( talk) 22:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
11:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Adding a signature makes the template ignore line breaks in the text. For example:
[T]he various typefaces used before the introduction (The) Times New Roman didn't really have a formal name. They were a suite of types originally made by Miller and Co. (later Miller & Richards) in Edinburgh around 1813, generally referred to as "modern". When The Times began using Monotype (and other hot-metal machines) in 1908, this design was remade by Monotype for its equipment. As near as I can tell, it looks like Monotype Series no. 1 — Modern (which was based on a Miller & Richards typeface) — was what was used up until 1932.
But:
[T]he various typefaces used before the introduction (The) Times New Roman didn't really have a formal name. They were a suite of types originally made by Miller and Co. (later Miller & Richards) in Edinburgh around 1813, generally referred to as "modern". When The Times began using Monotype (and other hot-metal machines) in 1908, this design was remade by Monotype for its equipment. As near as I can tell, it looks like Monotype Series no. 1 — Modern (which was based on a Miller & Richards typeface) — was what was used up until 1932.
— Dan Rhatigan, type director
Can someone please fix this? Esszet ( talk) 23:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
[T]he various typefaces used before the introduction (The) Times New Roman didn't really have a formal name. They were a suite of types originally made by Miller and Co. (later Miller & Richards) in Edinburgh around 1813, generally referred to as "modern". When The Times began using Monotype (and other hot-metal machines) in 1908, this design was remade by Monotype for its equipment. As near as I can tell, it looks like Monotype Series no. 1 — Modern (which was based on a Miller & Richards typeface) — was what was used up until 1932.
with
[T]he various typefaces used before the introduction (The) Times New Roman didn't really have a formal name.
They were a suite of types originally made by Miller and Co. (later Miller & Richards) in Edinburgh around 1813, generally referred to as "modern". When The Times began using Monotype (and other hot-metal machines) in 1908, this design was remade by Monotype for its equipment. As near as I can tell, it looks like Monotype Series no. 1 — Modern (which was based on a Miller & Richards typeface) — was what was used up until 1932.
To editors Frietjes and Esszet: The most recent edit messed up the quote sig on my user page. I confirmed this by changing this sandbox back to the previous version and previewing it on my user page. This edit sets the sig back to the left margin for some reason, instead of where it was under the quote. I've illustrated it below.
(type quotation here)
(type quotation here)
— Paine
Can what you want done be accomplished differently? Paine 23:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
(type quotation here)
— Paine
<poem>...</poem>
inside? or do we add a feature which adds <poem>...</poem>
inside?
Frietjes (
talk)
15:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)<br>
) is dissociated from indentation created by colons even if there's no signature included (see below). Does that make a difference?
Esszet (
talk)
15:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)::::{{Quote|'''''{{Color|#9724c4|(type quotation here)}}'''''<br>'''''{{Color|#9724c4|(type quotation here)}}'''''
'''''{{Color|#9724c4|(type quotation here)}}'''''
'''''{{Color|#9724c4|(type quotation here)}}'''''}}
To editors
Frietjes and
Esszet: <div style="margin-left:7em">
as a wrapper around the entire quote + sig works well and is fine with me:
(type quotation here)
— Paine
Might want to make a mention of this application of the style param (to indent a quote) in the documentation somehow. Thank you very much for the tip, Frietjes! Be prosperous! Paine 17:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
|style=
, and I'd have to say that also applies to <div>...</div>
tags.
Esszet (
talk)
18:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
|indent=
, but I still don't think that would prevent people from trying to use colons. I can't really think of a case where you would want to use colons for indenting the quote (outside of talk pages). as I said before, we could make the new additional linebreak (between the quote and the citation) optional. perhaps it would be good to have a bot scan all uses to see how many are uses are being indented by colons?
Frietjes (
talk)
18:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
<
poem>
; that's what it's for, after all, and MediaWiki eating whitespace is something that affects other block elements, not just the <blockquote>...</blockquote>
used by this template. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
01:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
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.
— Someone, somewhere
<p>
tags.
Hairy Dude (
talk)
15:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC);
and :
to indent things is shite when it comes to
semantic HTML (because it formats the material as description lists (a.k.a. definition lists or association lists) in HTML, and this is an abuse of
separation of content and presentation just to get a trivial stylistic effect, like abusing HTML tables for layout). No one much cares if we do it in talk pages, but I eliminate this on-sight in articles. If you need to indent a line, use {{
in5}}
or another indenting template. If you need to indent a block of content that is not a quotation, use {{
block indent}}
, which supports internal <p>...</p>
paragraph breaks and such, and can be configured to indent on one or both sides. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
21:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Thanks everyone for screwing up the presentation of archived discussion pages like this one, apparently just to make the trivial point that Wikipedia conventions on talk page layout don't comply with the programmer's handbook of coding. Spinning Spark 11:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
To editors Frietjes and Esszet: it appears that the edit to this Quote template should be reverted until a way can be found to keep the indented quotation formats on existing pages intact. There's no telling how many discussion pages have been adversely affected by the change. Be prosperous! Paine 17:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
|multiline=y
.
Frietjes (
talk)
17:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Anyone who has had more coffee than me know why the problem illustrated at
Template:Block indent#Technical issues with block templates is no longer affecting this template? (If you transclude the same
Template:Block bug documentation doc snippet into
Template:Quote/doc, the output in both table rows is identical). It would be good to propagate this improvement to all templates using divs and other block elements, and document what the cleanest version of it is in Help-namespace pages about coding (and maybe even update some MediaWiki bug reports about what the workaround is). The "traditional" way to work around this has been to insert <nowiki />
as the first thing in the block content parameter, before any list or other markup dependent on a character like * or # being at the beginning of a line. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
19:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Input | Output |
---|---|
<div>{{#if:1|* one * two * three}}</div> |
|
<div>* one * two * three</div> |
* one
|
The bug described above seems to have reared its ugly head again. At Aeon (Gnosticism)#Horos I'm unable to get the paragraph break in the second quotation to render correctly using a blank line, as currently demonstrated on my sandbox. Hairy Dude ( talk) 11:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
|text=
fixed it. The the template still has issues, like using a block-level <div>
inside an inlnine <cite>
tag. That is what causes HTML Tidy to mess with the output. -- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
11:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC){{
edit protected}}
This template is using {{
comma separated entries}} to handle the attribution, i.e.
{{{author}}}
, {{{title}}}
, {{{source}}}
, ... so that they are displayed nicely one after another and separated from each other with exactly one comma. However {{{char|{{{character}}}}}}
is excluded from and followed immediately by {{
comma separated entries}}. Though it is still showing up properly, I just do not understand the reason behind it. Would it not be intuitively easier to understand the code if it is included? I just made a {{
Quote/sandbox}} to try it out, and you can take a look at
Template:Quote/testcases#With character. Even though theis is not a big deal, I think it would help a lot if later there is any change or upgrade. Thanks!--
Quest for Truth (
talk)
02:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
{{{char|{{{character}}}}}}
has value and is displayed. --
Quest for Truth (
talk)
02:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)But read again my testcase with closer look. It doesn't sound natural to put an "in" between Sherlock Holmes the fictional character and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle the author. After the word "in", a reader should be looking for the title of the work rather than the author. Keep in mind that this template is very flexible and allow user to choose which parameters they would like to use. There are a few approach to this problem:
|author=
has value, but other times it is skipped.|author=
has value, words like "by" should be used instead of "in". If only |title=
has value, the word "in" is suitable.{{{character}}}
should be followed by "in {{{title}}}
", which in turn should be followed by "by {{{author}}}
". But does it require to use the order "{{{author}}}
, {{{title}}}
" when character is absent?Any thoughts? -- Quest for Truth ( talk) 03:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Because I am tired of referring back to
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 October 20, everytime I want to do a multilingual quotation, the deleted
Template:Multilingual quotation can be simulated with: {{columns|width=auto | col1 = {{quote|{{lang-en|Quotation not in English.}}|Author}} | col2 = {{quote|{{lang-es|Quotación no en inglés}}}} }}
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Furius (
talk •
contribs)
21:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
|
|
{{subst:User:Furius/Multilangquote}}
, anywhere you need it, save the page, then re-edit it to insert the content. I have to note that the original TfD rationale was that we generally don't need to do this kind of display. It's usually more useful to just give the English translation, and provide the original with |quote=
in the citation template for the source of the quote. There's not much utility on en.wikipedia in providing blocks of non-English content, unless it's being analyzed as such for a specific purpose, e.g. in a linguistics article. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
07:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)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)
It's become pretty common in many stylesheets out there to highlight blockquotes with a line on the left, like this:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed ultricies nisi eu lectus egestas scelerisque. Etiam vitae ante vel lorem efficitur fermentum at quis nisi. Nulla et augue eget arcu scelerisque malesuada. Maecenas porta vestibulum libero eget varius. Donec lacus magna, fermentum vel ante vitae, malesuada posuere magna. Aenean scelerisque in neque ut semper. Donec eleifend tortor justo, ut ullamcorper tortor dictum at.
For contrast, here's how it currently looks:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed ultricies nisi eu lectus egestas scelerisque. Etiam vitae ante vel lorem efficitur fermentum at quis nisi. Nulla et augue eget arcu scelerisque malesuada. Maecenas porta vestibulum libero eget varius. Donec lacus magna, fermentum vel ante vitae, malesuada posuere magna. Aenean scelerisque in neque ut semper. Donec eleifend tortor justo, ut ullamcorper tortor dictum at.
I would like to propose that this template adopts this style, as it makes blockquotes more identifiable, and in line with the pattern that readers may have encountered elsewhere. Thoughts? -- Waldir talk 19:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I suggest that the formatting for this template be changed to match what is in my opinion the aesthetically superior ro:Format:Citat from the Romanian Wikipedia:
<div style="padding-left:3%; padding-right:3%; color:#606060; text-align: left; font-size:95%"> <span style="font-style:italic">„{{{1}}}”</span>{{#if:{{{2|}}}|<div class="templatequotecite">—{{{2}}}{{#if:{{{3|}}}|, ''{{{3}}}}}''</div>}}</div><noinclude>{{pp-semi-template|small=yes}}</code>
I hope that others agree.-- Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 21:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Is there a reason why this template doesn't support the use of the date of the quotation? If a quote is taken from a debate or event that took place on a specific day, it is common to see the date quoted in sources in such instances, e.g. "John Smith - 12 April 1956". The template documentation says: "Technically, all citation information can be given in a single parameter" and then goes on to say that the information should be identified by parameter to help with the generation of metadata (when did Wikipedia turn from an encyclopedia into a project to generate metadata?). But if you have extra information that you want to include that doesn't fit the existing parameters, you are stuck. Shoehorning it in somewhere else will just pollute the metadata. Carcharoth ( talk) 05:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
|source=
parameter is a catchall for all citation information. If we want to do more specific meta-data we can do that, but we'd probably do it by recycling long-extant code from the
WP:CS1 system, not re-engineering it here. If you want to ask why WP is concerning itself with citation metadata, the place to ask (or object or support) is at
WT:CS1, since that's where this decision was made and where the code to implement it is crafted and re-crafted. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<
07:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Hi, y'all. Why is there a comma and space at the end of the attribution in this quote?
— Christina Shane-Simpson; Kristen Gillespie-Lynch, [23]
Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
20:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
@
Checkingfax and
K kisses: The author/source parameters of the quote template are for visual effect, not for
WP:V citations; they're for visual attribution of a usually famous quote (e.g. to do something like |author=Martin Luther King Jr.
|source="I Have a Dream" speech
. When using this template for the average block quotations, the full <ref>...</ref>
citation goes after the colon introducing the blockquote. If you do what K kisses did, you're "polluting" the author field's metadata with non-author information that belongs in |source=
. If it were important in that article's context to display the author and source info and to also have an inline citation, the way to do it would be something like:
The study concluded that:<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Shane-Simpson |first1=Christina |last2=Gillespie-Lynch |first2=Kristen |title=Examining potential mechanisms underlying the Wikipedia gender gap through a collaborative editing task |journal=[[Computers in Human Behavior]] |date=January 2017 |volume=66 |pages=312–328 |doi=10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.043}}</ref> {{quote |text= ...visible female editors on Wikipedia and broader encouragement of the use of constructive feedback may begin to alleviate the Wikipedia gender gap. Furthermore, the relatively high proportion of anonymous editors may exacerbate the Wikipedia gender gap, as anonymity may often be perceived as male and more critical.|author=Kristen Gillespie-Lynch |source="Examining potential mechanisms underlying the Wikipedia gender gap through a collaborative editing task", ''Computers in Human Behavior'', (2017)}}
That's assuming that the attribution to Gillespie-Lynch alone is actually correct (seems unlikely), and that one wanted to have that much source info appear in the visual output of the template. From the context there, this does not appear to be desirable, given the nature of the rest of the quotes in that material. I thus fixed it differently [3]. However, given the short length of the quote, this template probably shouldn't have been used in the first place; it is not used there for others, which are just given inline in the prose. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 07:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Using single line quotes in the middle of a threaded (indented) talk where it can appear in the middle of the sentence is currently broken.
Proof: The following wikicode
:::: ''In a long thread discussion... {{Lorem ipsum}}... I'm speaking about this: {{Quote|This is an ''inline'' quotation: {{Lorem ipsum}}...}} which '''I'd like''' to comment. {{Lorem ipsum}}...''
:::: ''Do you see that ? {{Lorem ipsum}}...''
</blockquote>
is preceded by a newline, which breaks the wiki input line and forces a new paragraph to be generated after it. This unwanted newline should be removed (or hidden by HTML comments) to really support inline quotes without breaking indented talk threads. (this newline was added in this old
diff but this was wrong).{{#if:{{{multiline|}}}|<nowiki />}}
is followed in all cases by a newline, which must be placed inside the "#if" by placing it between "nowiki" tags (so the newline will not be trimmed by "#if").Thanks. verdy_p ( talk) 04:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
It's a bit of a pain to copy/paste the style for nested quotations that suppresses the size change and decorative quotation marks. Could we get a nested=yes
parameter that adds it automatically?
Hairy Dude (
talk)
03:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I believe the recent
edit of 08:37, 10 August 2018 of
Template:Quote by
TheDJ resulted in
Multiple unclosed formatting tags lint errors when the template is wrapped by <small>...</small>
tags. There are more than 20 items affected in the main (article) namespace. (It is possible that I'm mistaken and these articles had the error even before this edit, but I don't think so.) Was this change necessary, or, is there a way to accomplish the same goal without generating this lint error? —
Anomalocaris (
talk)
10:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
<small>{{quotation|...}}</small>
→ {{quotation|style=font-size:smaller|...}}
At least in Firefox on Linux, I see no difference between cases with and without multiline=y:
Line 1
Line 2 Line 3
Line 1
Line 2 Line 3
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 3
I'm at least temporarily removing that parameter from the documentation, so folks will use one of the more reliable methods in the "Line breaks" section. In the long term, though, should this parameter be repaired or just removed since there are alternatives? -- Beland ( talk) 20:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
|source=
, when the |multiline=
parameter was not specified. The code was not doing anything at all other than conditionally inserting/removing <nowiki />
, when that bit of code actually needed to be present in all cases. I'm not going to dig way back in the history to try to figure out what was originally intended, but have simply removed this broken and undocumented parameter. The content wrapped by this template can be formatted by any means any other content block can be, including preservation of line breaks, and use of <
poem>
for unusual and precise layout demands. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
17:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)