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 45 | ← | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
I don't see any guidelines here. Where would I find them? Clarityfiend 19:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I noticed there is nothing in the Manual of Style in regard to the Cquote tag. Could someone add the Wikipedia recommendations on its use. I noticed it on the Thomas Jefferson article. Morphh 15:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
“ | Here is an example of the use of the Cquote tag. | ” |
Umm Ok.. so is anyone going to add something to Look of quotation marks and apostrophes? Something should be included as it is used and people need to know that it is available and either desirable / not desirable to Wikipedia standards. Morphh 22:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Normal block quotations don't need any of this additional formatting—it's definitely overkill. A pull-quote or epigraph can be formatted to stand out a bit more (for example, at the beginning of some sections in T-34), but it still doesn't need big purple graphical quotation marks—Wikipedia articles should not be made to look like weblog discussions.
I have proposed a minor tweak of the default style sheet formatting for block quotations, following traditional typesetting conventions. Please see MediaWiki talk:Monobook.css#Block quotations. — Michael Z. 2006-08-04 14:51 Z
blockquote { font-style: italic }
to
User:Tyrenius/monobook.css (or the appropriate equivalent if you don't use the default Monobook skin). If it's decided that this should be the default for everyone, that can be added to
MediaWiki:Monobook.css, and then people who prefer blockquotes in roman text can add a similar line to deitalicize them.As for typing <blockquote>
as opposed to a colon, it may be longer, but surely it's not less intuitive. The key thing is that it allows things like the change I suggested in the previous paragraph to happen easily: we know what's a blockquote and what's just indented, so we can deal with them in an automated fasihon. —
Simetrical (
talk •
contribs)
17:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Here are some points to consider in defense of cquote. I'm not interested in debating it, as I think just about any solution is poor for reasons that have nothing to do with print publications (e.g. usability and accesibility, behavior of cut-and-paste, etc.) That said, cquote does some things right.
That said, cquote could be improvied on. Its use of images should be done in such a way that skins can easily target and modify them. Also, its fields should be named for more ease of extracting meta-information later on. It wouldn't hurt to have a cquote variant that auto-generates a <ref>...</ref>
of the appropriate type. For example, something like:
{{cite quote | quote="cquote could be improved on." | type=web | author=[[User:Harmil|Harmil]] url="http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style" | date=2006-09-18}}
should generate something like:
{{cquote | cquote could be improved on.| 20px|20px| [[User:Harmil|Harmil]]}}<ref>{{cite web | author=[[User:Harmil|Harmil]] url="http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style" | date=2006-09-18}}</ref>
That's just my thoughts, and I'm sure others will disagree, especially since most of the people who would care don't know about this discussion.... - Harmil 05:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
blockquote.significant { padding-left: 24px; background-image: no-repeat top left url(" http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6b/Cquote1.png/20px-Cquote1.png"); }
I don't see what all the debate is about. The HTML <blockquote> element, intended for long quotations, is already formatted in the monobook style sheet. HTML is a bit problematic, because novices may forget to close the tag, and because contained block elements like paragraphs aren't handled properly (there is a patch for this, but it's not installed on Wikipedia yet; please add your vote for bug 6200 and bug 4827). So I created template:blockquote, and a redirect from template:long quotation (edit to see how it works here):
This is an example of a long quotation, entered in wikitext using {{ blockquote}}, but it would look the same if it was enclosed in an HTML <blockquote> element. It is pulled out from running text by its margins, and by a subtle reduction in font size. This is all that is necessary to format a long quotation. In professional typography, long quotations are rarely italicized, never marked with quotation marks, and certainly not with the big cartoon ones that are used in some weblogs' comments.
Paragraph breaks within block quotations still have to be entered manually as <p> tags, but this will be resolved in a future update to the Wikimedia software.
There is no need for a special format for "important" quotations, just as there is no special format for important paragraphs; the solution to this [non-existent] problem is called "writing".
Some articles do have pull quotes or epigraphs, but these are not the same thing as long quotations, and they also do not need oversized cartoonish quotation marks—perhaps such formatting is appropriate in a light-hearted weblog, but sure as heck not in an encyclopedia. For examples, see T-34 and Nagorno-Karabakh War.
Template:cquote is... how to phrase this? Very inappropriate. And its technical implementation is, um... Very crappy. — Michael Z. 2006-09-20 04:02 Z
<blockquote>
and <cite>
tags, without relying on JavaScript. You can view my progess at this page:
User:Down10/Template:Pullquote.Are there guidelines for use of an ellipsis? (i.e. should it be ". . ." or "...", etc.?) David aukerman 02:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
According to Bringhurst's Elements of Typographic Style, it depends on the typographer's preference and the character and size of the font. But he writes that a full space between each dot is a "Victorian eccentricity" with too much separation—he suggests using flush dots, or thin-spaced dots (M/5), or the prefabricated ellipsis character (… … ). Thin spaces must be avoided on Wikipedia, because they cannot be displayed reliably on some important platforms [*cough* MS Windows]. In the middle of a sentence, the dots ... should be spaced fore-and-aft, to separate them from the text: I use a non-breaking space before the dots, so they won't wrap to the beginning of a new line. But where they occur next to other punctuation, they should be combined with it.... Examples in Bringhurst include:
composed with separate dots:
composed with the ellipsis character:
In my chosen Wikipedia font ( Lucida Grande), the plain dot looks subtly bolder next to a precomposed ellipsis, but all of the spacing is the consistent. I just use plain dots for consistency and ease of editing. — Michael Z. 2006-07-28 04:40 Z
I don't know if this is the right place for this, so feel free to move this comment to the right place and/or tell me. I tried to use sentence case headings in Srebrenica massacre but was reverted. Can people take a look and see if what I was doing was wrong? Thanks. bobblewik 18:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
In terms of defining "encyclopedic tone", is there a specific guidelines policies that explicitly mention it? I.E. there are cleanup templates for this as well, but I've had new users ask what this means specifically - and I guess "the formal tone expected of an encylclopedia" isn't good enough. Any good way to explain this? RN 18:32, 17 July 2006 (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 45 | ← | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
I don't see any guidelines here. Where would I find them? Clarityfiend 19:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I noticed there is nothing in the Manual of Style in regard to the Cquote tag. Could someone add the Wikipedia recommendations on its use. I noticed it on the Thomas Jefferson article. Morphh 15:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
“ | Here is an example of the use of the Cquote tag. | ” |
Umm Ok.. so is anyone going to add something to Look of quotation marks and apostrophes? Something should be included as it is used and people need to know that it is available and either desirable / not desirable to Wikipedia standards. Morphh 22:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Normal block quotations don't need any of this additional formatting—it's definitely overkill. A pull-quote or epigraph can be formatted to stand out a bit more (for example, at the beginning of some sections in T-34), but it still doesn't need big purple graphical quotation marks—Wikipedia articles should not be made to look like weblog discussions.
I have proposed a minor tweak of the default style sheet formatting for block quotations, following traditional typesetting conventions. Please see MediaWiki talk:Monobook.css#Block quotations. — Michael Z. 2006-08-04 14:51 Z
blockquote { font-style: italic }
to
User:Tyrenius/monobook.css (or the appropriate equivalent if you don't use the default Monobook skin). If it's decided that this should be the default for everyone, that can be added to
MediaWiki:Monobook.css, and then people who prefer blockquotes in roman text can add a similar line to deitalicize them.As for typing <blockquote>
as opposed to a colon, it may be longer, but surely it's not less intuitive. The key thing is that it allows things like the change I suggested in the previous paragraph to happen easily: we know what's a blockquote and what's just indented, so we can deal with them in an automated fasihon. —
Simetrical (
talk •
contribs)
17:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Here are some points to consider in defense of cquote. I'm not interested in debating it, as I think just about any solution is poor for reasons that have nothing to do with print publications (e.g. usability and accesibility, behavior of cut-and-paste, etc.) That said, cquote does some things right.
That said, cquote could be improvied on. Its use of images should be done in such a way that skins can easily target and modify them. Also, its fields should be named for more ease of extracting meta-information later on. It wouldn't hurt to have a cquote variant that auto-generates a <ref>...</ref>
of the appropriate type. For example, something like:
{{cite quote | quote="cquote could be improved on." | type=web | author=[[User:Harmil|Harmil]] url="http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style" | date=2006-09-18}}
should generate something like:
{{cquote | cquote could be improved on.| 20px|20px| [[User:Harmil|Harmil]]}}<ref>{{cite web | author=[[User:Harmil|Harmil]] url="http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style" | date=2006-09-18}}</ref>
That's just my thoughts, and I'm sure others will disagree, especially since most of the people who would care don't know about this discussion.... - Harmil 05:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
blockquote.significant { padding-left: 24px; background-image: no-repeat top left url(" http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6b/Cquote1.png/20px-Cquote1.png"); }
I don't see what all the debate is about. The HTML <blockquote> element, intended for long quotations, is already formatted in the monobook style sheet. HTML is a bit problematic, because novices may forget to close the tag, and because contained block elements like paragraphs aren't handled properly (there is a patch for this, but it's not installed on Wikipedia yet; please add your vote for bug 6200 and bug 4827). So I created template:blockquote, and a redirect from template:long quotation (edit to see how it works here):
This is an example of a long quotation, entered in wikitext using {{ blockquote}}, but it would look the same if it was enclosed in an HTML <blockquote> element. It is pulled out from running text by its margins, and by a subtle reduction in font size. This is all that is necessary to format a long quotation. In professional typography, long quotations are rarely italicized, never marked with quotation marks, and certainly not with the big cartoon ones that are used in some weblogs' comments.
Paragraph breaks within block quotations still have to be entered manually as <p> tags, but this will be resolved in a future update to the Wikimedia software.
There is no need for a special format for "important" quotations, just as there is no special format for important paragraphs; the solution to this [non-existent] problem is called "writing".
Some articles do have pull quotes or epigraphs, but these are not the same thing as long quotations, and they also do not need oversized cartoonish quotation marks—perhaps such formatting is appropriate in a light-hearted weblog, but sure as heck not in an encyclopedia. For examples, see T-34 and Nagorno-Karabakh War.
Template:cquote is... how to phrase this? Very inappropriate. And its technical implementation is, um... Very crappy. — Michael Z. 2006-09-20 04:02 Z
<blockquote>
and <cite>
tags, without relying on JavaScript. You can view my progess at this page:
User:Down10/Template:Pullquote.Are there guidelines for use of an ellipsis? (i.e. should it be ". . ." or "...", etc.?) David aukerman 02:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
According to Bringhurst's Elements of Typographic Style, it depends on the typographer's preference and the character and size of the font. But he writes that a full space between each dot is a "Victorian eccentricity" with too much separation—he suggests using flush dots, or thin-spaced dots (M/5), or the prefabricated ellipsis character (… … ). Thin spaces must be avoided on Wikipedia, because they cannot be displayed reliably on some important platforms [*cough* MS Windows]. In the middle of a sentence, the dots ... should be spaced fore-and-aft, to separate them from the text: I use a non-breaking space before the dots, so they won't wrap to the beginning of a new line. But where they occur next to other punctuation, they should be combined with it.... Examples in Bringhurst include:
composed with separate dots:
composed with the ellipsis character:
In my chosen Wikipedia font ( Lucida Grande), the plain dot looks subtly bolder next to a precomposed ellipsis, but all of the spacing is the consistent. I just use plain dots for consistency and ease of editing. — Michael Z. 2006-07-28 04:40 Z
I don't know if this is the right place for this, so feel free to move this comment to the right place and/or tell me. I tried to use sentence case headings in Srebrenica massacre but was reverted. Can people take a look and see if what I was doing was wrong? Thanks. bobblewik 18:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
In terms of defining "encyclopedic tone", is there a specific guidelines policies that explicitly mention it? I.E. there are cleanup templates for this as well, but I've had new users ask what this means specifically - and I guess "the formal tone expected of an encylclopedia" isn't good enough. Any good way to explain this? RN 18:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)