Template talk:Quote box/Archive 3

Extension dependencies
Could "Extension dependencies" be documented for Template:Quote_box?

One approach might be to include an Extension dependencies sub-section in the documentation (Template:Quote_box/doc). Another option might be to add Categories for all Extension dependencies.

Extensions that are already listed as required for Template:Quote_box include:
 * Extension:TemplateStyles
 * Via the Category:Templates_using_TemplateStyles, and in a little Quote box near the top

However, as I'm working to get this template functioning on another MediaWiki instance, additional extensions required for Template:Quote_box appear to be:
 * Extension:Scribunto
 * Providing Lua language support
 * Extension:ParserFunctions
 * Required for Logic_programming constructs used in the template
 * Extension:TemplateData
 * Providing JSON data to populate forms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donfede~enwiki (talk • contribs) 22:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Please be gentle, this is my first Wikipedia "contribution". Donfede~enwiki (talk) 02:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be impractical to document extension dependencies for templates. mw:Extension:Scribunto, for example, is required for all Lua scripts, which means all pages and templates that transclude, directly or indirectly, pages in Module space. Likewise, parser functions are used in a vast array of templates. You might look around for a guide to setting up MediaWiki instances that would help you understand which extensions are typically required. If you can't find anything, ask at WP:VPT. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Spacing
When a source is added, some extra space is added at the bottom inside the border.

Jroberson108 (talk) 10:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Use of source= without author= does not display the source
I have created a new test case using source with a blank author. It should show the source but does not. I took a quick look at the if statements in the code, but I didn't see an obvious reason why this would happen. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Fix the display issue on mobile screen
I got the solution to improve the visual appearance of this template on mobile devices. In the  rule while I make use of   to set the width of template, the template could give wider space to display the quotation. Now you can copy the new code from Template:Quote box/sandbox/styles.css to improve compatibility with mobile view. -- Great Brightstar (talk) 10:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * could you post a screenshot of the before/after on mobile? Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 01:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, on Firefox I enabled the Responsive Design Mode view following their instructions from MDN, then I set the device as iPhone X/XS, the problem is happening to me in the section "Test Case Vode for Centered Box". On such device view the quote box could be extremely narrow, and it's slightly affect the article de Havilland Comet on my phone. So I made the fix at the sandbox, and take screenshots to you.
 * Main template: https://postimg.cc/tYYJHhXY
 * Sandbox: https://postimg.cc/8ff2ZPSP
 * -- Great Brightstar (talk) 05:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * your sandbox version changed quite a lot of other stuff. can you just make the exact changes you want here, so I can implement exactly what is necessary? thanks. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 04:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, you can copy the @media rule to fix the main template. (I previously modified the color based the on codes used for &lt;pre&gt; tag, now I returned back to previous color.) -- Great Brightstar (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 01:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Merge changes from /sandbox
I propose merging my changes from sandbox (including /styles.css) to the template: Both versions should look consistent, most differences are semantic. Both the template and template styles (/styles.css) need to be updated from the sandbox. Template styles need a change of  to   throughout the text. provided some feedback on the changes (thanks). stjn 19:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) TemplateStyles declaration is moved to the start of the template to remove possible FOUC.
 * 2) The template text is rendered from a new line accommodate list insertion, e. g. in Member state of the European Union.
 * 3) The margins of the first element and the last element in a quote are dropped to keep the look consistent for the change in (1).
 * 4) The quote text itself is wrapped in a semantic element   with standard styles removed.
 * I've added a test case for the template, using an abbreviated version of the sovereignty quote box, to help illustrate the effects of your changes. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , looking at the testcases it appears the sandbox version adds padding around the quote content - was this intentional? firefly  ( t · c ) 09:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't seem to be seeing that, here (Google Chrome 91, Linux x86_64). Which cases did you notice added padding on? Chrome's inspector view shows the &lt;div&gt;s for the live template and the sandbox have identical layout dimensions, with the exception of the cases where formatting differs. (Wikilist, collapsible text.) The difference there can be attributed to the those differences in formatting. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 09:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , pretty much all of them (Firefox 89, Linux x86_64). See here for an example. The  element appears to end up with a   style. If I manually override that to none it appears identical to the live template.  firefly  ( t · c ) 09:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, those are very different. That's the second test case in "Parameters: border, width, alignment", right? Here's how that looks for me in Chrome, both at my normal browsing width and then with the browser fullscreened: https://imgur.com/a/MtYpIpp -- FeRDNYC (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you’re using Monobook. Monobook has a style for blockquotes that has really high specificity that I did not account for. If we can get to fix it via an edit in MediaWiki:Monobook.css (by changing  to   to decrease specificity), the rendering would be more similar to default skin. stjn 11:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Now that the Monobook style issues are resolved and I couldn't see any others. Thanks! firefly  ( t · c ) 15:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Image appearing blank beside quote box
On my user page User:Thincat the image that used to appear beside a quote box has just disappeared. Removing the quote box restores the image.diff The user page layout is just frippery and it doesn't matter but I thought it worth reporting. I suppose this is due to the change reported in the section immediately above. If anyone is investigating please do not change my user page – ask me to do it. Thincat (talk) 05:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

This applies on Windows Chrome and Firefox and Android Chrome. Logged in to WP and logged out. No other environments tested. Thincat (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've copied the pre-change versions of the template and TemplateStyles CSS to the template's sandbox for testing, and cannot see any difference in how your userpage displays when using it e.g. here in my sandbox. firefly  ( t · c ) 13:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, That rev. of your sandbox for me shows blank where the image should be. Windows 10: Chrome, Firefox (and now I've tested Edge). All when logged out from WP. Thincat (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I've just realised the TOC underneath the image wasn't displaying either (the box extends the full window width but the text in the box has a reduced right margin). Thincat (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh, I now see it blanks out infoboxes as well (no saved example). I like it! Just leave it as it is. Thincat (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Breaking change
the July 18th edit appears to be a breaking change in articles. Whenever an image and quote boxes are used, the article's rendering is now problematic. See Morgan le Fay. The quote box goes fullwidth and overlaps the image and/or its caption whith empty whitespace. I'm pinging you so you can fix it instead of reverting the edit wholesale right away. Ben · Salvidrim!  &#9993;  13:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Same issue as your sandbox diff . Quotebox goes out of bounds and overlaps images with empty space. I'm using the primary skin (Vector) on latest Chrome on Win10. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  13:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ,  firefly  ( t · c ) 14:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Reverted change for now as it's causing issues in mainspace and I cannot immediately determine the cause. Will re-apply once I've figured out what is going on here. firefly  ( t · c ) 14:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just noting that with the "old" (now current) setup, the quotebox extends under the image (tested Monobook, legacy Vector and New Vector) - while this is obviously preferable to it overlapping the image, I'm not sure this is the best look. firefly  ( t · c ) 14:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't see the error now that the template has been reverted, but can one of you please add a relevant test case to Template:Quote box/testcases? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , done. I believe I've fixed the issue in the sandbox with a tweak to the CSS, however the previous behaviour around images seems less than ideal regardless, perhaps we should figure out how to make it "behave" properly? The overlapping issue is particularly noticeable in MinervaNeue... firefly  ( t · c ) 16:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The new test case looks fine to me in Monobook and legacy Vector, but I see the problem in MinervaNeue. Is it a bug in the MinervaNeue skin (maybe related to ?), or a bug in the template? I feel like we might be bending over backwards to support a non-standard skin, like supporting Internet Explorer in the old days. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Basically, this is due to the original styling lacking, and not due to my change per se. If it will be added, the change can be restored without issues. stjn 20:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added the CSS stjn mentions above and this does indeed appear to resolve the issue. Any objections to me re-implementing the change with this fix? c/p   firefly  ( t · c ) 12:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine with me, as long as the test cases look good. I haven't bothered to jump through the hoops of changing my skin again to check. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, I'll check to make sure the few affected examples I was aware of remain fine and will let y'all know if anything breaks again. :) Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  14:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , ✅. Looks good to me. firefly  ( t · c ) 16:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Quote box interfering with reflist
On the page for "Vanessa Low", the Quote Box seems to be interfering with the listing of references. Currently the references are listed as a single character width column under the quote. If I add "| align=left" to the Quote Box, the ref list completely disappears but there is lots of blank lines. For this reason, I suspect it is the Quote Box that is at fault, not the reflist. - 58.179.183.147 (talk) 12:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That looks like a bug in mobile view. I worked around it by adding clear before the reflist. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Border colour
Could anyone create an option by which the border colour could be changed?  Peter Ormond &#128172;  17:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If someone decides to do this, please ensure that the color is not displayed in article space, per MOS:BLOCKQUOTE. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Date or year parameter
Would a date parameter be a reasonable addition to the template? I noticed that, for example, a quote like the one at Kanye West#Legacy would be better contextualized as coming from 2013. But according to this template’s doc, the example appears to recommend using source for the year. — HTGS (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility of font-size: 88%
Why does the CSS for this template display the quoted text smaller than usual, setting it to ? Shouldn't an embedded quote (or tweet, which I think uses the same CSS) be as easy to read as any other article text? Lord Belbury (talk) 09:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You can set the size with fontsize if you want something different. For accessibility, do not go below 85%. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm asking this from the perspective of all Wikipedia articles, not a specific individual case. Why does the template default to being slightly smaller and harder to read than regular article text? --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know. You'd have to dig back in the history of this template and its talk page to see if there is an explanation. In general on the English Wikipedia, auxiliary text is rendered smaller than the prose in the main body of the article. Text in infoboxes, navboxes, sidebars, and references and notes, among other elements, is rendered smaller than the default. This template may have been designed to that de facto standard. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Setting off quotations (whether un block quotes inserted in the article proper, or in boxed quotes etc.) is commonly found in publications' house style. EEng 23:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Feature request revisited: one box, multiple quotes
This was requested over 8 years ago and got no response.

When using a single box I needed to improvise the separation of two quotes on Nandi Bushell (because separate boxes made for poor formatting). This would not be necessary if the template had additional options such as quote1=, quote2=, source1=, source2=, and so on. Can this be done, et al.?

Thanks for your attention. —DaydreamBelizer (chat) 16:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What say you, ? —DaydreamBelizer (chat) 19:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @DaydreamBelizer I'm sure it's possible, but I have no real opinion on whether it's a good idea or not. I'd recommend working something out in the sandbox for the template and seeing how it goes - if it seems to work you can make an edit request and someone can assess it. firefly  ( t · c ) 19:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

About a ¿unclear? sentence
There seems to be a word missing from the sentence «The "class=" parameter can be used add a generic CSS class to this template». Maybe «to» («The "class=" parameter can be used to add a generic CSS class this template»)? LauraFarina (talk) 10:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * . – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The lack of an mdash
Looks like this template started life in 2005 with an mdash (actually two hyphens) at the start of the source line, to distinguish it from the quotation.

From the talk page archives this was removed unilaterally in 2007, added back as a proper mdash in 2008, removed in 2010 when merging templates (with a straw poll on whether to add it back apparently petering out), suggested again in 2013 (with no response) and briefly added and reverted in 2015 (with some discussion of how to handle double mdashes where the article template call also has one).

That last thread suggests using Module:String to handle the double mdash issue. Should we do this? In the 2010 straw poll nobody was actually in favour of the current mdashless layout, which can be misread as a single quotation with a paragraph break. Belbury (talk) 12:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 October 2023
Add 4 as an alias for source. This would make the parameter easier to specify and enhance parity with blockquote. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: source already has an alias of 3. Let's not make it worse. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

This template would be more clear if it included quotation marks
As it is, there is no explicit indication that this is a quotation rather than additional article text. Other things appear in boxes. This is essentially a pull quote and those generally include quotation marks. Sometimes they are styled as part of the frame rather than as part of the text. (See example at pull quote.) The lack of an em dash exacerbates potential confusion. ---Vroo (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * See MOS:BLOCKQUOTE. I do wonder if the author should be indented, though. The 2010 straw poll linked above didn't go anywhere, but we could try again. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Background color
This current version with a white background doesn't look good, it makes the body of the pages look cluttered. I suggest that the article space boxes get locked with the default grey colour (#F9F9F9). It's a very neutral tone and different just enough to not look visually appalling. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 17:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The transparent background is applied only in article space, where this template is not supposed to be used, per the template's documentation. The lack of color is per MOS:BLOCKQUOTE: Block quotations using a colored background are also discouraged. The default background color everywhere else is #F9F9F9, as requested. Please link to a page where something is not working as expected. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The template might be "rarely appropriate" for article pages, but it's currently used 22,000 times on them, and a lot of that usage is for floating sidebar quotes, which I'm not sure that MOS:BLOCKQUOTE is taking a view on.
 * Even if background colour is discouraged, some articles may be using it meaningfully. I know I've often seen biographies switching between different colours for different quote boxes (possibly to distinguish between quoted works by the subject and quotes from third parties?), and wondered if an informal rule was being followed there. If it was, this has been lost with yesterday's template change. Belbury (talk) 10:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please link to such a page. I would be curious to see how such a page complies with our the accessibility policies and guidelines such as MOS:COLOR.
 * We can't entirely control the ways in which editors misuse templates, even widely. Coding templates is one way to help articles comply with MOS. Recoding cquote is how we got rid of a large batch of decorative curly quotes in article space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Elie Wiesel is one I noticed that was using a LightCyan background for a quote from one of his books, and CornSilk for a quote from somebody else about him. Looking back at the edits that added the templates in 2016 they were both from User:Light show, if they can give any input on the colour choices. Belbury (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My choices of light background colors was random, but having them seems to help to break up long pages of text, making the document easier to read. Readers can more easily focus on these areas and that visual distinction can help guide readers through the document. The TOC, infoboxes, paragraph spaces, and photos are helpful for the same reason.
 * In addition, light background colors can make a document more visually appealing by adding a layer of design and sophistication, which can make the text more engaging to readers. But generally, IMO, large pages of black and white text can be monotonous to read, so having some light background colors for block quotes with borders can break this monotony, making the reading experience more pleasant and less tiresome. Light show (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good suggestion to take to a MOS talk page to see if there is a community consensus to change such guidance as do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method, such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels (MOS:COLOR) and Block quotations using a colored background are also discouraged (MOS:BLOCKQUOTE). – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Has there been some site-wide action to remove the shading from quoteboxes? I use them quite frequently, and I can't say I think the white background is an improvement. KJP1 (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is from a comment I made at MoS talk back in 2017: "browsing the beginning of the list of Featured Articles on literature and theatre, I found quote boxes used in All God's Children Need Traveling Shoes, The Autobiography of Malcolm X, Big Two-Hearted River, Burger's Daughter, Candide, Casino Royale (novel), and Cento Vergilianus de laudibus Christi (about 22% of the ones I checked)... I think in literature-related articles at least, short excerpts of the work can help give the reader an idea of what the work is like, much like how images are used in articles about paintings." Since such excerpts are serving the same illustrative purpose as images, it would make sense for the text to be formatted the same way image captions are. They're not block quotes (which are expected to be placed within the flow of text and read in that order) and so shouldn't be bound by the same guidance. As the change to the template was a bold edit following personal interpretation of the MOS and not explicit consensus, I suggest it be reverted per the WP:BRD. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree that they are more illustrative than narrative. An example is here. WSC's chair quote is pretty incidental to the main article, but it is illustrative of the wide range of things that took his interest. It just looked much better shaded, and broke up the text. I appreciate that there may be accessibility issues that could be discussed, but I think a site-wide change - if that is what has happened - was a bit bold. KJP1 (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, if you have a problem with the wording I quoted from two sections of MOS above, please take it to the relevant MOS talk page(s). If consensus there is that this template is an exception to the guideline, we can document that exception here and provide options for accessible background colors in article space. As far as I know, I have not performed any personal interpretation of the MOS here or elsewhere. Feel free to ping me from any discussion that you start. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi - when I wrote the article(s), and when they went through FAC, the quote boxes had coloured backgrounds. Now they don’t. Can you just clarify what action made the change? Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The change was made in this edit on 28 January 2024. The change is limited to article space, since there is general consensus that MOS applies primarily to article space and I did not want to overreach without consensus either at MOS or here. If editors here wish to apply the change to all namespaces, I will be happy to make that additional edit. This change is analogous to a change in June 2020 that removed decorative curly quotes, also per MOS. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That’s helpful. And could you point me to the discussion that occurred before you made that change - which must affect many hundreds/thousands? of pages. KJP1 (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have linked to and quoted from the relevant MOS pages above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So you didn't discuss it. KJP1 (talk) 06:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So you didn't discuss it. KJP1 (talk) 06:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 February 2024
Requesting reversion to the August 2021 version. As noted in the above discussion and at WT:Manual of Style, the recent changes were bold edits by Jonesey95 based on their own understanding of the Manual of Style, which does not appear to have consensus in support. Per WP:BRD, the edits should be reverted until consensus is actually achieved. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The MOS talk page discussion is ongoing, and the text of MOS hasn't been changed yet. The assertion that recent changes are based on my "understanding" of the MOS has been contradicted above with direct quotations from two MOS pages; no guideline text in support of arbitrary background colors has been put forward here or at the MOS talk page. A change can wait for the MOS talk page discussion to bear fruit. That said, any other template editor, upon reviewing the two discussions, is welcome to make a change to the template if they feel that consensus merits it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Nearly everyone participating in the discussion has been of the opinion that the prescription on block quotations does not apply to quote boxes, which makes those cited passages irrelevant to this template. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ * Pppery * it has begun... 18:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That is much appreciated. We can discuss the wider issues raised by the earlier change to this template over at the MoS page. KJP1 (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

bottom-of-box sizing
As an example, at A Wizard of Earthsea, this template doesn't have uniform internal spacing throughout. The bottom looks almost twice as wide as the top. Is this intentional? —  Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 17:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That example uses manual line breaks in the quote, and the box is very narrow. If I widen it to 20em, it looks much nicer. Do you have another example that is broken but not as easily explainable? – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Every example on the documentation page (with the exception of the short To be or not to be...) has visibly more spacing at the bottom than the top, for me.
 * From Template:Quote box/testcases it may be an old issue, the 2021 sandbox version is also doing it. Belbury (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, I can't say it's "broken", I'm just asking if it's intentional. As for examples, yeah, SEBAI: A. A. Milne, AK-47, Amazing Grace, American Airlines Flight 77, Apollo 1, Apollo 15.  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 19:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you are saying that the space after the quote attribution is too large. If that is what you are reporting, it may be related to, which has a patch on the way. Currently, tags have 0.5 em of space before them and 1.0 em of space after them. This asymmetry is causing a variety of problems. I hacked the sandbox to work around what should be a temporary bug; do the sandbox examples look right to you now? – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It looks like that bug fix didn't account for this template's use case. I have manually adjusted the padding. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Font size
Jonesey95, currently, the font size of the quote box text "defaults to 88%". I'd like to be able to tweak that as it's pretty small text. Is there any workaround or another template that allows this? -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 20:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Have you tried using the fontsize parameter that is listed in the template's documentation? See this test case for an example. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was using fontsize (8, 10, 12, etc) and that didn't work. Percentages work. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 15:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We do not use specified font sizes, because different readers have different default font sizes for accessibility and other reasons. See MOS:TEXTSIZE for guidance. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I wonder why it "defaults to 88%"? That makes the letters smaller and harder to read. Shouldn't it default to 100%? -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 21:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know. You might look through the archives of this talk page, or the template's history, for an answer to your question. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, it's been mentioned before here: Template_talk:Quote_box/Archive_3 I just don't see a good reason to make the quote text harder to read. Can we agree that the default should be 100%, while preserving the option to tweak it? -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 02:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no objections. If nobody else here objects in the next week, remind me here again and I will change the default. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Jonesey95. Isn't this a good time to do this? I think so. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 02:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Done, since there were no objections. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I just noticed this change at several articles on my watchlist that use this template and I personally feel it has made it harder for the eye to differentiate between normal text and in-line quote boxes. The template is also now inconsistent with the font-size of image captions. I don't think either of those reasons are convincing enough to get this changed back but I do think, considering how many articles use this template, that a wider discussion should be had about whether they should all default to 100% or whether the status quo was fine. I have searched back through the history of the template (as well as Template:Quote box2) and both were changed from 90% to 88% without discussion, but at the time 88% was the default size for infoboxes so I think it was for consistency with other page elements? - adamstom97 (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Making the text smaller seems to defeat the purpose of a quotebox, when one wishes to highlight (IOW draw attention to) the text. How about trying 110%? -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 21:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Discussions happened here, at the talk page for the template, multiple times, and there were no objections, AFAICT. Editors are free to use fontsize to make the text larger or smaller in a given template instance. There may be a separate, widely advertised discussion about whether this template is even appropriate in article space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Somehow it feels bigger than the normal text. Maybe my eyes are playing tricks on me. My preference is the smaller font size, but it's not the end of the world. SWinxy (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Came here to provide the same sentiments. As someone who thoroughly reads and researches a variety of articles and websites and edits here, this change made the fontsize larger than the rest of the text on the site and made it more difficult to read and navigate around the box, especially for our mobile readers who ought to also be considered when making changes to display formatting and style. I concur that this should be reversed, and the same argument for using fontsize can be had for increasing the text size as it can be for decreasing it. Don't mess with the whole thing for a small, relatively new position and leave it up to the editors' discretion of each individual article, rather than forcing a change that affects a multitude of articles and viewing formats of the site. I will note this change also made the textsize inconsistent with the captions of images, and thus can make it more difficult to read and navigate between those when paired closely together within the same article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please link to an example page on which this template's text renders larger than the default size for the prose on the page. That would be something to fix, or at least investigate. This template's text should render at 100% of the normal prose text size. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * On here, the quote box text is slightly larger than the prose text, which I had to adjust given the changes here. I also noticed the larger quote bo font size compared to prose and image captions here, which Adam corrected. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links. On the Batgirl page and on the Falcon and Winter Soldier page, the text is rendering in my browser at 12.25px in both the quote box and the paragraph to the left. The line height is 19.25px. Identical. I am using Firefox on Mac OS in Wikipedia's Desktop mode. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please self-revert your BOLD edit. 88% has been the font size for many years, and your unilateral change has just changed the formatting on many articles. Since three editors have now objected, please start a new discussion/proposal. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 88% is harder to read, thus defeating the purpose of a quote box. You can't assume that most readers are young people with perfect eyesight. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 19:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You realize many places on Wikipedia, including infoboxes, navboxes, and reference sections, already use a smaller font size? No, it does not make it "harder to read" (in fact, it makes it easier to separate the quote from the byline, and it avoids making the box excessively large on an article), and no, it does not "defeat the purpose" of a quote box just because the font size is slightly smaller. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Valjean 88% is what infoboxes and sidebars use as the font size FWIW. SWinxy (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's true, but they don't usually contain a lot of prose text. If I need to read a lot in them, I have to enlarge my screen's font size to 120-130%, exactly as when I encounter a larger quote box. I can read it, but it's tiring if it's a larger amount. A sentence or two is okay.
 * I see there are enough people who don't give a shit about the rest of us with poorer eyesight, so I won't fight this. It's not worth it. Fortunately (on another matter), the default spacing around headings is determined by the software, and I wish people would respect that and not mess with it. The default is a blank line above and below every heading, and some editors remove them. That's not good. The default makes it much easier to quickly scan a page while editing and find each section. Without that, one can easily miss a heading, so one has to scan much more slowly. But that's another matter.... Carry on, and have a good day. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 22:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am confused about the description of this change as a bold edit. The matter was discussed here twice, and there were no objections to either discussion. The change clearly has some support. If there are technical problems with the change, such as the quote box text rendering larger than 100% of the default text size for a page, that is something I will be happy to investigate and fix, if necessary. MOS:FONTSIZE indicates that small font sizes should be used sparingly; this template may be one of those rare cases where it is useful. Is reduction to 88% really needed, or would something like 95% get the job done and still result in accessible text for people with visual impairments? – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Two editors discussing a major change to the longstanding conventions and formatting of a template used on around 805,000 pages without properly notifying a single WikiProject that may be affected by these is a BOLD edit, and now that the change has been implemented, those who were not invited to this discussion have seen it and have raised their concerns and opposition to it. That's how the process works. Just revert it back to how it was and let individual editors adjust on a page-by-page basis, and users are free to adjust their own displays as necessary for their individual cases. Don't just force a change directed toward a certain few upon all. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * yeah no i agree this wasn't bold in the slightest SWinxy (talk) 05:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If you make a post on the talk page, discuss with zero or one other editor, ask "are there any objections", and then implement the edit, it's called being BOLD because you're assuming there is consensus and testing whether this is the case. If editors revert you or object to the edit, it means you do not in fact have consensus. If this template were not template-protected, any of four editors above who have objected to your edit would have reverted you. So, please self-revert, and then we can continue this discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have reverted reluctantly. It looks like people with visual accessibility challenges will have to make do for now. I hope that some compromise size can be reached that will help all editors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Cquote tangent
There used to be this option which a lot of people thought was an elegant solution, and used (I'm talking about the big quote marks you see here, at the upper left and lower right). But, an editor who really really really hated it conducted a years-long relentless campaign against it (using skeevy methods too), and after a few unsuccessful RfC finally got a small one to ban it and impose his opinion on the editor corps generally, and I was too exhausted to contest it anymore. It is called Cquote (and Rquote); it only works on talk pages now, which is why you can see it here. As you can see I'm still salty about it lol. I miss not being able to use cos it's better than just an indentation at helping the reader understand right off that she is reading a quote -- you do not need a font size change -- and looks better than a 1985-style colored box, and other editors do too. IDK, on the one hand you hate to see this kind of thing, but on the other hand people who have an untiring and ruthless belief in something and will never give up, well, you have to respect that in a way. Sorry, but I felt compelled to rant lol. I feel better now, thank you. Herostratus (talk) 04:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

For instance, just recently I came across Battle of Krasnoi. The section begins with a quote, and there was absolutely zero signal to the reader that it was a quote, since an indentation can't be sussed if you not indenting from previous text. Sure would have liked access to Cquote. Did not want to put a colored box around the material because IMO it's ugly and I don't make ugly pages and refuse to be forced to. All I could think of was to italicize the passage, which works pretty well. AFAIK that's not forbidden. That should be pointed out, or maybe italic text should be the default for quote box material instead of font size changes. Herostratus (talk) 23:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * - The way bold changes affecting thousands/tens of thousands of pages are being made on the basis of discussions by a very small number of people in this obscure backwater should be a matter of concern. KJP1 (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this happens far too often with templates and PAGs, which the vast majority of editors (especially those who focus on the content side of things) don't watch. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If people have a problem with the way that consensus works on Wikipedia, there are Village Pumps where issues like that are discussed. We have WP:CENT, but the bar for inclusion there is pretty high; I suspect that a link to a discussion here about font sizes or colors would be removed as too trivial. So it goes. As for the Battle of Krasnoi, that article has all sorts of problems with formatting, including the use of italics for quotations and WP:CITEVAR problems. It would benefit from significant cleanup of formatting, especially in the citations. Starting a section with a blockquote is just poor style, not a problem with a template or Wikipedia guidelines. Using a poor example to complain about MOS and how consensus works at Wikipedia does not make for a strong argument. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As a template editor, I'm with Jonesey on this. It's a balance, and I think we've currently got it right. I'd rather have people come complaining after noticing a change than going to a noticeboard. SWinxy (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Battle of Krasnoi has a lot of citation problems that would require a whole effort to untangle (bare URLs, blockquotes not having the source listed, lacking identifiers, etc.) and I'd rather not do because it's a subject not in my wheelhouse. I think the big problem with the article is that it's not using Template:Blockquote properly. It doesn't use the parameters for the author or source, which would add the em dash at the bottom to visually indicate that it's a block quote. SWinxy (talk) 04:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)