Template talk:Rquote

Modified attribution
Modified this template to put the attribution outside of the quotes, rather than inside them.

E.g. (old at left, new at right):

--Stratadrake 13:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I tried that, I'm not all down with the wiki type of coding yet. :P Looks much better. Havok (T/C/c) 13:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Neither am I, actually.... :) --Stratadrake 03:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Major Revamp
I reconfigured a lot of this template. Too many changes to list. Let me know what you think! — Down10 T / C 06:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Spaces??
It seems for small quotes, spaces appear to the right of the quote. Can somebody fix this? Danski14 00:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Rquote is broken (Redirected to Template:Quotebox)
Someone redirected RQuote to Quotebox and now it is broken in all the pages that use it. This was probably not the smarted move. --CGM1980 20:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You can see above on this page where RQuote is used that it is now broken. --CGM1980 20:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

33% width bad
For users with less than 1024×768 resolution (e.g. 800×600), rquote boxes become too narrow, fitting only a couple of words on each line, and pushing excessively downward. It would be good if we could at the least add a min-width of 200 pixels or so, to prevent this problem. But frankly, the template should just in general have a fixed width, to avoid bad formatting on both wide and narrow displays. --jacobolus (t) 21:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I originally wanted a fixed width in scalable em-units, but those aren't as compatible on older web browsers. —Down10 TACO 20:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you opposed to adding a min-width? It will be ignored by the oldest browsers, but that doesn't really bother me.  --jacobolus (t) 08:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Transparent background
Please change this template to have a transparent background, as so:

scroll

— M C  10  &#124;  Sign here!  22:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Changed to "background:transparent;" instead, because I know that older IE versions have trouble with "background-color:transparent". —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 09:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please remove the transparent background. The requester has not stated any rational and the forced white background in monobook is to hide the lines when tables cross headings.  I've also updated the sandbox with copy that removes the deprecated elements from the table.  — Dispenser 04:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As no one has opposed this request, ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible need for discussion

 * I'm to note a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style regarding the use of this and other templates (brought to my attention by a deletion proposal). It clearly needs sorting out. Thanks. (Please feel free to redirect the discussion to the proper place if I have started the discussion in the wrong place). Thanks.Imgaril (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Line breaks
It appears that leaving a blank line in markup between paragraphs doesn't result in the usual paragraph separation. Is this intentional? (I know that extensive quoting is in violation of the NFCC but am using in conjunction with a request edit, and we may use (long) freely-licensed quotations within articles.) -- Trevj (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: moved. I will leave the nominator to make the necessary changes to the template documentation. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Rquote → Template:Reduced pull quote – To match move of Template:Cquote to Template:Centered pull quote and our general trend toward natural-language template names with short redirects. May also help stop the rampant abuse of this template for non-pull quotes. If concluding in favor of move, references to Rquote in template documentation (e.g. in "See also" sections of all the quotation templates) should be changed, as they were for Cquote. —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼  22:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
 * Fixed template name in it's /doc and in that of Centered pull quote. The shared "See also" material was already updated by someone else.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Visual appearance changed
I'm aware that this template was abused, in fact, I've removed uses of it in a number of places. I think I did use it correctly, as a pull quote in Kamie_Ethridge.

However, the visual appearance has changed. It used to be much larger font. Did something get changed when it was recently moved? I don't see any recent edits, other than the move. I'd like to restore the old functionality, or figure out how to fix the use in this article. S Philbrick (Talk)  17:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Addendum, looking at the template, the font specified is Times New Roman, with a font size of 3.3 em. That isn't what is displaying. S Philbrick (Talk)  15:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The 3.3em Times New Roman only applies to the purple quotes; the quoted text appears in regular body font. It has been like this for a very long time. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 20:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 21 July 2014
Could someone add "line-height: 1em;" to both of the quotation mark table cells so that the the line-height matches the font-size. This should make the formatting less broken-looking for single-line quotes. Kaldari (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Kaldari (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅, could you please check--Ymblanter (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 February 2015
Please edit the template to use a blockquote (styled with CSS) rather than using HTML tables for presentation of non-tabular data.

174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please use the editprotected template only for requesting exact code changes, not for general requests. All quote templates are being converted, but it's a slow process.  09:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay, didn’t realize it was already in the works. Sorry. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I’ve just done some editing in the sandbox… all I did was change the wikitable to a div, and the middle table cell to a blockquote, using the same respective inline CSS for each, so the presentation probably needs some tweaking. And I left out the decorative quotation marks, figuring those could be added with CSS pseudo-elements. But at least the content’s right. So, is that usable? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Preferably, all CSS should be centralized, and the theferred implementation should be build around a single tag.   17:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And in the meantime? Do we keep using tables for pull quotes until the main CSS is ready? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is still a table--5.28.127.248 (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:Reduced pull quote
Greetings! The current example at Template:Reduced pull quote does not quite answer on how to align the actual body of text to the left. One of the examples utilizes the following:

This is a template, however, specifically designed for this example. But how should one cope with normal text? Where to insert the text, let's say, in this example? Just inserting it in-between the curly braces doesn't yield with the desired outcome.

Thanks for paying attention! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC directly affecting this template
It is here: Template talk:Pull quote. Herostratus (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016 Notice -- RfC involving this template
It is here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style Herostratus (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Notice of external RfC
An RfC which also envisions changes to this page is here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Herostratus (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested edit
Will somebody please fix this template by removing the large pastel quote marks. See talk page for Cquote template for explain (that template has been fixed). Herostratus (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * just a note, request edit is reserved for conflict of interest edit request. I'm pretty sure your intention was not that. Since it's template-protected, you should be using edit template-protected. I can't answer this TPER since I'm not a template editor. &#123;&#123;replyto&#125;&#125; Can I Log In 's  (talk) page 01:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oof, oops. Thanks! Herostratus (talk) 02:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me know if Template:Rquote/testcases looks reasonable to you. --Izno (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What is the reason to display differently depending on namespace? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , see the activity at Template talk:Cquote and RFC at WT:MOS. --Izno (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Izno (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Documentation also needs to be changed. The part showing the large quotes is not in the /doc page, it is integrated into the body of the template I guess. IMO there's no need to have the documentation show the large quotes depending on namespace, since AFAIK use outside of article space is limited to the Signpost and very few other places. But your call. The same applies to {tl|cquote}}. Herostratus (talk) 05:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Missing quotation marks
On the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_China%E2%80%93India_skirmishes#Causes there are no quotation marks around the quote. I tried three different browsers, with login and without, and all show it the same way without quotation marks. This is a bug, since the template documentation says "Quotation marks are supplied by the template and should not be included here." It's a problem, since it's very important to put quotation marks around quotes to distinguish their contents from facts.

A copy of the quote is supplied here (likely shown to the right):

This also illustrates the importance of the quotation marks, as the quoted text is likely not considered a fact by everybody.

Note that here on the talk page, there are quotation marks. So there is something going on that turns off the quotation marks on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_China%E2%80%93India_skirmishes#Causes page. I don't know what it is, or whether it's related to the page or this template, or a combination.

--Jhertel (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The absence of quotation marks in article space is now a design feature of Rquote in the article space; see the discussion in the immediately preceding section. So, 2020 China–India skirmishes isn't a special case; it illustrates the new template behavior since May. You can also see it on other pages, like Indian Forest Service. Klbrain (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I'm sad to hear it's a design feature. And I tried reading the preceding section and to follow the links there, but I had to give up, as the discussions are almost completely about technical template stuff and also quite aggressive (it's like diving into a fight or a war), and I didn't find any place where there is a calm, simple reasoning about the core of the matter: why someone thinks quotes should be displayed without any form of quotation marks. Do you know the reasoning or where to find it? I find it quite problematic to have unquoted quotes that can say absolutely anything in the same "text space" as text that has to be rigorously true. Quotes should always be quoted, to distance ourselves from their truth value. But even quotes that are unquoted, if I should reluctantly accept their existence in the world in general, have an air about them that seem like the article or book author to a certain extend agree with the unquoted text or find some sort of truth in them (like in the beginning of chapters in a book), and that would be quite problematic here on Wikipedia. The example above (China/India) is a good example of a controversial quote where quotation marks are really important (we can't place ourselves on one side of a conflict). So I'm really curious about the reasoning. --Jhertel (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I personally agree that quotes in articles should be identified with quotation marks, but there is a specific Manual of Style edict against it (see MOS:BLOCKQUOTE). I think that some people prefer the cleaner aesthetic of text indented, but not surrounded in quotation marks. At least we can use quotation marks outside of a blockquote! If you search Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style for cquote or similar, you'll come across many long and rather rambling discussion with no consensus for change. Klbrain (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW the admonition against the quote marks was snuck into the rules long ago by a somewhat-fanatical editor, who hates them with an intense and burning passion and spent many years and much energy over many discussions to have them removed, and used the wording in the rules (which he had snuck in contrary to proper Wikipedia procedures (pointing to a discussion which had not even remotely shown consensus to do that)) as an argument to disallow them (many people are inclined to follow the rules).


 * After more than ten years of strenuous effort he finally managed to get a discussion which gave a clear consensus (of the people who happened to have seen and participated in that discussion) to remove make the quotes illegal, and MOS:BLOCKQUOTE was then edited to clearly disallow the quotes.


 * So yeah a lot of people are sad about it. To be fair, a number of people are glad also. Anyway, as with many human endeavors, a single person who is ruthlessly and tirelessly determined on an objective can often achieve it. It is what it is and there's nobody willing to make a Wikiecareer of fighting about it anymore. I'm not. We've got an encyclopedia to make and curate.


 * Jhertel if you want to take the initiative to make an effort to reverse it, I'll sign on and give advice, but I've spent scores of man-hours that I'm never getting back on the issue... It's just not a priority to me anymore.

Herostratus (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 November 2020
Number one, somebody added a blue line to the left of the quote. I believe this was added on May 6 2020 by User:Izno. The edit summary was "per tper" whatever that means. There was clear consensus to remove decoration for the template and make it identical to the HTML blockquote tag. Unless there's a different discussion you can point to. Objectively, I don't like and previous discussion have show only a tepid approval of the line option.

Number two, could you fix the documentation which has the long-deprecated quote marks. It's wrong and misleading. That part I could do, but prefer not to mess with template elements at all. Thanks. Also both of the above may apply to Cquote also. Herostratus (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have adjusted the documentation note at the top of the page. That documentation also appears at Cquote. As for the gray line to the left of all blockquotes, that was recently added by WikiMedia developers without consultation and in contravention of the English Wikipedia style guide. The English Wikipedia community is working on a way to remove it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have already complained about the addition of the bar in the appropriate places. ;) --Izno (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's kind of... not excellent. Sheesh if User:SMcCandlish hears of this I'm afraid he'll pop an artery. Say what you will of User:SMcCandlish, ee'll certainly have the energy, skill, and desire to get right up in the developers' faces if anyone can. Herostratus (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My arteries are unpoppable, having been reinforced by decades of caffeine abuse. Anyway, yeah this "blue bar" thing is a definitely a sudden MediaWiki software problem (the devs doing stuff without thinking it through, yet again), which affects every instance of, including inside templates. The resolution of it (at least as a local en.wikipedia matter) is now mostly being discussed mostly at MediaWiki talk:Common.css (and there's also Phabricator discussion of undoing it as the server-software level).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 18 November 2020
The example given at the top of the page still shows the large pastel quote marks. They are wrong and misleading and need to be removed (and the odious, but correct, pastel line on the left put in).

Pretty sure what is happening here is: the decision was to keep the large pastel quotes if this template is used outside mainspace. Thus the large pastel quotes can still be used in the Signpost, and as desired by editors in essays, rules, etc.

Well but of course this template page is not in mainspace, so the large pastel quotes will (misleadingly) show in the example (and the pastel line on the left apparently won't). Interesting conundrum, but I'm sure you can fix it. I mean you could just add demospace=main I guess. That would remove the large pastel quotes from all instances of the template. But I actually don't think anybody would care. The Signpost people might, if they use it. Just make a new template for them or something. But of course I leave the details to you guys.

As is usually true, this applies to Cquote also. Herostratus (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So the prominent note at the top of the documentation explaining that the template should not be used in article space, and that if it is used there, it will not render with the curly quotes, was inadequate? Assuming that the answer is yes, I have added an explicit example of what this template looks like in article space. Is that clear enough? – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * (placed after the below due to chrono-synclastic error) I mean, I guess, since first of all it's in thousands of articles. People have been using it since like 2004 because they wanted the curly quotes in their articles. Those were removed, but the template's still in use in many places. That could be changed with a bot I guess, but I don't know. I continue to use the template in article space, because I'm used to it and it has the fields I want, it doesn't violate any formatting rubric (since the large pastel quotes are now suppressed), and because I figure that quotes might be put back in future. Since everyone who used the template (before the recent change) formatted their work with the quotes in place, you'd have to figure they feel the same. A bot changing Cquote to Quote would make it impossible for the large pastel quotes to ever be restored to the articles (without huge manual effort).


 * That's a... constitutional type change and I'm not sure that's even allowed. I'd oppose such a bot.


 * As to the admonition in the documentation, phht. I believe it's an archaic remnant from before the change. This isn't the Army where everything not mandatory is forbidden. There are a lot of rules here and I generally try to break three before breakfast. A lot of people do; we've got an encyclopedia to write, after all.


 * But thanks to the fix. Hmmmm... I mean, apparently when the large pastel quotes are added, the pastel bar on the left doesn't appear. Can't you use whatever code apparently suppresses that in the mainspace version, thus removing the obnoxious and unwanted bar that was not put in by an RfC? Or if not, could you maybe overwrite it with a white bar of the same size and location? I hereby request this. Herostratus (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * If something needs to be fixed in the template documentation, that doesn't pertain to the "blue bar" thing covered in the thread above this, and if someone doesn't beat me to the template documentation updating, ping me about it later (like after a couple of days; I'm kind of swamped in something else right now). PS: I agree with Jonesey95 that the intent with all these decorate quotation templates is to permit them to continue doing whatever they were doing (giant quote marks, colored boxes, whatever) outside of namespace, but only emit the same blockquote markup as when used in articles. That was the RfC result, anyway (I think it was within the last year-ish).  That said, I have no idea at all if the documentation of these templates was updated to be consistent with this decision and with actual behavior of the templates (nor whether any of these templates was missed during code updating to implement that).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think you are correct in your thinking that the admonition against using this template and Cquote in article space exists only because the template used to contain decorative curly quotes. Now that the template hides the curlies in article space, we can probably remove that sentence from the documentation. In fact, I have been bold just now and removed that sentence from Quote/doc/boilerplate. How else can I be of assistance today? – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's great, thanks. No I'm good.


 * To clarify what I was saying above, say there's an RfC next year or whatever where it's decided that we like the large pastel curly quotes after all. That's why the instances of the template should remain in place -- and new ones be permitted to be added -- even though at this time its output is basically identical to Quote. Herostratus (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Optimize for mobile view
On your phone this template may looks extremely narrow. To improve the visual appearance on mobile view, I created TemplateStyles to this template. But in order to make this template works as expected, you need to add class parameter into Template:Blockquote. -- Great Brightstar (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * what exactly would you like done? Can you implement your changes in the template sandbox first? Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 08:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, I think you haven't seen the sandbox page on your phone, so I'm show you what I implemented in the sandbox while I saw with mobile view: https://postimg.cc/sBwsQdJn -- Great Brightstar (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done When making edit requests via a sandbox you need to explicitly say "My changes are in the sandbox" or us TEs will get confused. Anyway, thank you for your contribution! User:GKFXtalk 22:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Izno (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Subsequent fix
After the last change, I've added missing rquote code in the sandbox page to illustrate the visual appearance between desktop and mobile view, the change is in line 2. I hope this change would be adopted in the main template page. -- Great Brightstar (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , you should consider requesting template editor rights given the frequency with which you seem to be making edit requests. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)