Template talk:Talk quote inline/Archive 2

Potential merge candidates
It has been suggested at TfD that Qq should be merged into this one. Other quote templates are also being discussed on that page. Opinions are welcome! —PC-XT+ 01:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC) 01:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Removing the italics option
Should we remove the italicize-quotation option from this and any similar [i.e., quotation-formatting] templates? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Having just discovered that you've deemed my preferred style "weird" and now seek to strip it from the template (tantamount to renominating gi for deletion), I'm disappointed that you didn't return the courtesy (by notifying me). You stated that this style is "running rampant all over Wikipedia", but you haven't cited any examples. In how many articles have you observed it? And what sets this error apart from any other mistaken use of a talk page style (including tq's default format) in that namespace? Lastly, on what do you base the claim that this style's use (in its intended function) constitutes "visual shout[ing]" and the implication that this serves as "decoration"? Its purpose is to visually distinguish quoted talk page messages (very different from encyclopedic quotations) from replies thereto, thereby facilitating proper comprehension (as I've done since long before this template existed). I realize that you personally prefer using a serif typeface. I find this insufficiently distinct in most cases, but I've never labeled it an "abuse" or sought to force its elimination. —David Levy 08:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC) That's understandable, but I'd have expected you to examine tq's short revision history to determine when and why the italic option. Nonetheless, I'm not suggesting that you purposely ignored/disregarded that information. I don't remember at all (or why it was called that), gi = green italic much less am I playing some kind of long con on you. The thought didn't cross my mind. As I noted below, I don't question your sincerity. (And even if I did, that particular suspicion would be preposterous.) As for your preference for the italics, add to User:David Levy/common.css, and for you it'll always be italic and never serif (unless inside a larger block formatted that way explicitly for some other reason). Thanks, but I'm not interested in customizing my viewing of talk page messages. I simply want to continue using the formatting that I believe best conveys the intended information contained within in most of my replies (as I've done since long before you created this template). Note that I'm using your preferred style (which I believe reduces my messages' readability) in this discussion because I don't want it to seem as though I'm deliberately finding excuses to use mine (out of spite or to prove some sort of point). The very fact that we're using a and then overriding it with an inline   is "user-hateful" and pretty much an abuse of CSS I don't pretend to possess your level of knowledge regarding such matters. I deferred to your expertise when you proposed a setup and to remove an attempt to incorporate a distinct class (which, presumably, was malformed). If said coding is "user-hateful and pretty much an abuse of CSS", why did you participate in its creation and provide no indication that anything was wrong? (unless a request to add the class to MediaWiki:Common.css was discussed and rejected in favor of using inline style; In the TfD discussion to which I linked, I suggested assigning a distinct class to gi (and eventually did so). Had you recommended that it (or something else) be added to MediaWiki:Common.css, I'd have pursued that approach.  Instead, you  that "the CSS class is important to retain (we only need one, not two)".  I assumed that  was the proper implementation. There don't seem to be any reasons to object to the serif font; I don't object to its use.  I object to the elimination of the italic alternative, which I regard as more suitable for use in most of my talk page replies. that style isn't operator-overloaded for emphasis and other purposes, And that's an excellent reason to not make the italic style the only one available.  In the occasional instance in which the retention of emphasis is needed, I use tq's default style instead. No one seeks to revoke that option. nor mentioned as something to never do in quotations, As you know, that advice applies to articles. I understand your argument that talk page content might be imitated therein, but Wikipedia's talk pages are jam-packed with stuff that shouldn't be carried over to the encyclopedia proper. nor correlated with a negative trend in quotation formatting in articles, No such correlation (or even the existence of such a trend) has been demonstrated. What sets this apart is that italicization of quotations (inline and block) keeps happening,
 * Yes. Rationale, as proponent: MOS:QUOTE and MOS:ITALICS make it clear that quotations are not to be italicized simply because they are quotations. No notable external style guide (Harts's Rules, Chicago Manual of Style, etc.) recommends such a weird style, either.  But it's running rampant all over Wikipedia.  The only known source of the idea that italicizing quotations is "Wikipedia style" is the use of italicization as an option in this and a few other quotation templates.  While many of them are not intended for article pages, they are seen frequently enough, apparently, to give this incorrect impression of how Wikipedia wants quotations handled.  Many editors do not read all of the MOS, much less its subpages, and are clearly unaware of the "do not italicize quotations" rule.  In the uncommon case that a quotation does need to be italicized, e.g. because the original source had it that way for in-context emphasis not just decoration, or because it's not in English, this can be done manually with   or  , respectively.  Any other italicization of an entire quotation is the abuse of emphasis to visually "shout" at the reader. PS: This is not about whether MOS applies to templates intended for non-article pages, but rather whether we should keep a dubious "feature" of such templates that is leading, as an unintended consequence, to basic MOS rules being ignored in articles. If some means of visual differentiation besides the default provided by this template is needed, another option can be added that doesn't conflict with MOS expectations, e.g. a different color or font. Also, it mimics  (what is quoted may not need such attention, but simply be there for reference or clarity), and it also conflicts with italicization for other reasons (which is quite frequent) in the material being quoted.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * yes Per MoS guidelines. I disagree with "because the original source had it that way"; per MOS:QUOTE "in most cases it is not desirable to duplicate the original formatting." --  Gadget850talk 11:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I meant in cases of emphasis, not purely decorative formatting, e.g. "Kirk shouted ''". Though I suppose, even as I just did in that example, the correct markup is  or , not plain italics.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes for any templates used in article space, since MoS would apply. For talk space, it boils down to allowing more styles than are available in article space. I'm not sure how much of a problem this is, or how firm the policy is behind this change, but since this would not eliminate italicization, only change how it is done, simplifying templates in the process, I could see supporting it weakly. Otherwise, it is getting close to a matter of opinion. I don't think a mass change should remove italics from talk page quotations, just change how it is done in code. —PC-XT+ 17:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC) 09:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC) —PC-XT+ 19:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC) 22:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Technical note: At very least we could use the same template trickery that various XfD templates use, to have some kind of "The italics parameter is deprecated; please don't use it" note appear in preview mode, and deprecate it in the documentation. That would leave the extant italicized cases alone, while addressing the issue I'm raising (with Tq in particular, at least).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. This is a style template, and there's no style reason for the option. Having it around just tricks people who don't know style into thinking it's important. Lagrange613 03:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. The template should not make over-italicization appear to be a normal option. In exceptional cases where italics are appropriate, they can still be added. Reify-tech (talk) 05:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes Doing this as a routine practice makes no sense and tends to give over-emphasis.  DGG ( talk ) 07:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * SMcCandlish: In 2012, Template:Gi (which I created) was nominated for deletion on the basis that it duplicated Template:Tq's functionality. I noticed that you (the latter template's creator) hadn't been notified, so I did so (despite not knowing what your position would be).  You suggested a merger (with both styles retained).  I supported this solution, which was carried out.
 * That's personalized beyond the level that works for me. I don't even recall that TfD; I work on zillions of templates, and they come and go, their coding specifics come and go, and it's all a Third Pillar matter to me. I don't remember  at all (or why it was called that), much less am I playing some kind of long con on you. Heh.  As for your preference for the italics, add   to User:David Levy/common.css, and for you it'll always be italic and never serif (unless inside a larger block formatted that way explicitly for some other reason). The very fact that we're using a   and then overriding it with an inline   is "user-hateful" and pretty much an abuse of CSS (unless a request to add the class to MediaWiki:Common.css was discussed and rejected in favor of using inline style; in that case, people would have to override it with the inverse of the CSS code I just gave you, to get rid of the forced italics, and frankly only Web developers understand   – even most people who know enough CSS to change the class appearance in their common.css would be stymied, and many who are techies but not Web techies mistake   for the opposite of its meaning, because it seems to read "NOT important".  Anyway....)  There don't seem to be any reasons to object to the serif font; that style isn't operator-overloaded for emphasis and other purposes, nor mentioned as something to never do in quotations, nor correlated with a negative trend in quotation formatting in articles, and the objection to italics isn't a personal preference one, so the comparison seems inapt in multiple ways. What sets this apart is that italicization of quotations (inline and block) keeps happening, while no one is copying Tq's green and serif styles for article quotations; i.e. the answer to your question is tautological: It's distinguishable in this discussion because it's distinguished in actual practice.  Addressed the rest in other posts.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't even recall that TfD; I work on zillions of templates, and they come and go, their coding specifics come and go, and it's all a Third Pillar matter to me.

while no one is copying Tq's green and serif styles for article quotations; Just as it would be impossible for me to prove that no one is copying the italic style for article quotations, it's impossible for you to prove that no one is copying the serif style in that context. Neither of us is capable of checking more than a tiny fraction of the encyclopedia. Nonetheless, I understand that you've encountered only the former deviation (with a frequency that I still seek to determine), and I don't doubt that it's the more common of two (at the very least). Why do you suppose that is? If, as you postulate, editors are applying italic formatting to article quotations because they've encountered it on talk pages, why isn't the same thing occurring with serif formatting? In my view, the obvious explanation is that italic formatting is significantly easier to achieve via MediaWiki markup – with only a simple pair of apostrophes needed to start or stop. And how else is that character commonly used? As a straight single quotation mark. Is this the the confusion's actual source? I don't know, but it strikes me as more likely. (Of course, I haven't seen evidence that said confusion – irrespective of its origin[s] – is common.) —David Levy 19:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Thus far, I've found eight instances (between November 2012 and September 2014) in which he removed manual italic formatting of quotations, which he apparently assumes these templates inspired. If this is the basis for his claim that "it's running rampant all over Wikipedia", I can't help but feel that the initial respondents were misled. (I'm confident, however, that SMcCandlish is acting in good faith and didn't intend to deceive anyone. And perhaps I've overlooked other examples.) For the record, here are the eight relevant revisions that I spotted: •  •  •  •  •  •  • Note that in instance #2, the italic formatting appears to have been accidental; someone paired single quotation marks (apostrophes) instead of typing proper double quotation marks. —David Levy 10:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC) That depends on what one considers "important". I regard the option as "important" relative to the template itself (which I don't regard as important in the context of Wikipedia as a whole). Are there problems associated with italicizing quotes, even potential ones? Those are two very different things. Practically any template has the potential to cause some sort of problem, even if we count only those that are foreseeable. Potential problems can be valid considerations, but they don't automatically override all others. We don't disagree on whether it's conceivable that someone might see italic quotation formatting on a talk page and imitate it in an article. We disagree on the likelihood of that occurring and the extent to which the option adds utility. —David Levy 19:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC) I found eight instances, spanning a twenty-two-month period. Did I miss any, or are those eight the basis for your statement that the style is "running rampant all over Wikipedia"? Do you disagree that a typical RfC participant is likely to interpret that description as a reference to a far greater quantity? "I've seen no evidence" is a handwave here; You've asserted that a specific problem exists. I'm privy to no information supporting such a conclusion. I don't question your sincerity (and given our long history of positive interactions, I hope that you don't question mine), but I question your assessment's accuracy. without a great deal of pointless effort there's probably no way to gather WP-wide evidence of how often quotations are italicized, Your rationale isn't built on the hypothetical possibility that a problem exists or might develop in the future; you claim that there is such a problem. and there is no procedural requirement to waste that time before making a common-sense decision to not use a weird, useless style quirk when it style is being wrong mimicked in articles often enough that we're having a conversation about it. We're discussing the matter because you now regard the style (the inclusion of which you as "an overall improvement to the template, because it [allows] differentiating the text for color-blind users in more circumstances") as "weird" and "useless" and believe that it's being "mimicked in articles" (to the extent that it's "running rampant all over Wikipedia"). The former opinion is subjective (and you're entitled to change your mind), but it's reasonable for others to inquire as to how you arrived at the conclusion that the problem is widespread and attributable to the templates in question. Thus far, I've seen evidence of neither. Eight discoveries over the course of a twenty-two-month period is an extremely low rate, and your assumption that this handful of errors arose due to mimicry of talk page messages appears to be pure conjecture. —David Levy 23:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Examples would be appreciated, as would an estimate of how many articles containing this error you've encountered in a given period. the case for the italics was a accessibility one, that turns out to be wrong, as addressed in elsewhere in the discussion. As I noted, you're entitled to change your mind. What bothers me, I think, is your assumption that the italic formatting option is obviously worthless and ridiculous, as anyone can plainly see. Whether you were right or wrong in 2012, it clearly isn't absurd for someone to believe that its inclusion makes sense. It's not a style recommended by any style guides, least of all our own. Talk page content in general is massively contradictory to the MoS, a guide applicable to the encyclopedia proper. I said "The only known source of the idea that italicizing quotations is 'Wikipedia style' is the use of italicization as an option in this and a few other quotation templates." I'm making an correlation argument, not a certain causation one (I did say something more causation-implying below, and have corrected it). Thanks for that. I think causation is very likely, but there's no reasonable way to prove it. Well, there is, actually: Remove these non-essential italics and see if the incidence of italicized quotations in articles dwindles. We've yet to determine the current incidence (or even an approximation thereof). Don't need to prove it, though. As I said above, it's really a matter of common sense: Do we gain anything important from using italics? No. Then don't. This is an example of the attitude with which I take issue. In your view, the question of whether the italic formatting option's inclusion adds significant value isn't even worth asking (except rhetorically, as repeated above). As far as you're concerned, that it doesn't is a given. Are there problems associated with italicizing quotes, even potential ones? Yes. Then definitely don't. Addressed in a separate reply. If some uses were dependent upon italics ("see the italicized part above...") we don't necessarily need to care - any template can have its style changed, or be entirely deleted, at any time, Of course it can, but that doesn't mean that it should (or that related consequences are inherently justified). When considering the modification or deletion of a widely used template, we weigh the benefits against the detriments. If I were convinced that the italic formatting option's inclusion is causing a significant problem, I would agree that the benefits associated with its removal outweigh the detriments. You haven't supplied evidence of such a problem (and you criticised me for requesting it). so we can't depend on trivial formatting they provide, and generally most of us remember that. There it is again. You label the italic formatting "trivial" (as though the matter isn't up for debate) and imply that those who relied on its inclusion behaved foolishly. (Keep in mind that we're discussing an option whose addition to tq you proposed.) Old discussions aren't reviewed in detail that often, and in a few cases where the change would render a "see italicized quote" reference invalid, the intended content won't be that hard to figure out anyway. That's a valid argument as to why such a detriment is outweighed by that of retaining the italic formatting option...except that you've yet to demonstrate the latter's existence. (But see also "Technical note", above, in reply to PC-XT.) Noted. —David Levy 19:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC) And as noted above, you for the italic formatting option (related to an accessibility issue) in 2012, when you advocated that it be incorporated into tq via a merger with gi. —David Levy 23:10/23:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC) In 2012, you noted that the italic formatting option's inclusion would "allow differentiating the text for color-blind users in more circumstances (e.g., you could switch to the italic style when quoting something that already has serif in it due to or whatever, or use the serif style when quoting something that already has italics in it".  How is that statement inaccurate?  —David Levy 19:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC) I wasn't aware of such an accessibility issue.  Heretofore, my understanding has been that the template's class serves to identify its nature to screen readers and the like.  —David Levy 02:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC) I haven't used quotation marks because that isn't a widespread convention in the relevant context (block quotation of Internet messages – whether appearing in e-mail, on Usenet, or on the Web) and because I'd never encountered any indication that their absence reduced accessibility. —David Levy 16:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC) I'm confused as to why you're citing the Manual of Style (with which talk page content needn't comply, as you noted below). Quoting a talk page message is very different from quoting someone in an encyclopedia article. —David Levy 16:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC) On what basis is the use of hard line breaks "generally to be avoided"? What do you mean by "does not format the paragraphs with the correct line spacing"? I seek only to insert a line break (and I don't know what spacing you regard as "correct"). —David Levy 20:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Again, I don't "intend to have a block quote" (in the sense that you mean). Using does not format paragraphs correctly (see next point). That would be relevant if I intended to "format paragraphs". As noted above, I seek only to insert a line break. See also WP:UBLIST and WP:PLIST on deprecating its use in infoboxes in favour of plainlist for accessibility reasons. That would be relevant if I were creating infoboxes (wherein the "accessibility reasons" pertain to semantic markup unrelated to my talk page messages). (Manual line breaks may also have unexpected behaviour in some browsers for users with the "justify paragraphs" option selected; I'm not sure.) I'm not aware of such an issue. If one exists, it should be addressed at the MediaWiki level. Paragraphs made using HTML markup, indented lines or inserting blank lines in wiki markup insert padding between each paragraph – less than a whole line, but noticeable. When I want to include said padding, I use one of those methods. In this instance, I seek only to insert a line break. Using hard line breaks does not do this and does not render correct HTML formatting to recognise separate paragraphs. And if I intended to create separate paragraphs, that would be a problem. Incidentally, I've been told that omitting the leading asterisk (from a message appearing amid others that contain it) breaks a discussion's formatting for screen readers, so I added it to your reply. I also removed the subsequent blank line, which is said to have a similar effect. —David Levy 14:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 *  Point of fact: There are zero instances of this template in article-space. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not surprising, considering "tq" is short for "talk quote". Note this proposal also applies to 'similair templates'.  09:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'm referring to quotation-formatting templates generally.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Including those used in articles? Are you aware of any that apply italic formatting to quotations?  If so, it should simply be removed; no new consensus is needed for that.  —David Levy 23:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering whether SMcCandlish encountered/detected any of the templates in articles and removed them. I see no apparent mentions of this in his edit summaries.
 * I never suggested anyone was using Tq itself in articles, so I'm not sure why you'd waste time looking in my edit summaries for me removing Tq from articles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't. I looked for summaries related to the removal of italic formatting of any kind from quotations (and found only the eight linked above).  Indeed, you didn't mention tq itself appearing in articles, but I might have missed some relevant revisions, so I noted the possibility (instead of interpreting the aforementioned "zero instances" as evidence that such a problem never arose).  —David Levy 23:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A song by Styx from Paradise Theatre is coming to mind. ;-)  Maybe you have far more efficient means of combing edit summaries than I've figured out, but it sounds like a huge amount of effort for something that's really a matter of common sense: Do we gain anything important from using italics? No. Then don't. Are there problems associated with italicizing quotes, even potential ones? Yes. Then definitely don't.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Do we gain anything important from using italics?
 * Also, I wouldn't be removing quotation templates from articles, or they content wouldn't be marked up properly; at most, I'd change the template used or the options used with it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I assume that if you were to encounter an inappropriate quotation template transclusion in an article, you'd replace it with something suitable. —David Levy 19:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have talk page guidelines relating to quotes with italics? I have previously heard it argued that MoS doesn't apply to talk pages. —PC-XT+ 01:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * SMcCandlish acknowledged that the MoS doesn't apply to talk pages. His proposal is based on the belief that editors are seeing italicized quotations on talk pages and mistakenly assuming that the style should be used in the encyclopedia (and then doing so).  I understand the logic behind this concern, but I've seen no evidence that the formatting error in question is even occurring on a non-negligible scale, let alone that it stems from such a misunderstanding.  —David Levy 02:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your own digging in my edit history shows me correcting it in random instances. "I've seen no evidence" is a handwave here; without a great deal of pointless effort there's probably no way to gather WP-wide evidence of how often quotations are italicized, and there is no procedural requirement to waste that time before making a common-sense decision to not use a weird, useless style quirk when its style is being wrong mimicked in articles often enough that we're having a conversation about it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your own digging in my edit history shows me correcting it in random instances.
 * Yes, there were many other instances. I encounter it enough to have "WTF? Why is this happening all the time?" reactions. When I do more than a couple forms of trivial cleanup on an article, I use an edit summary like "misc. cleanup", "minor tweaks", etc., so I rarely mention that correction specifically, usually only after I've exasperatedly encountered it numerous times the same day.  Yes, I think it'll be interpreted as a greater quantity, and it is a greater quantity. It does not seem to be concentrated in any one place (i.e., it's not one or two editors doing it, or we'd find it clustered in articles about amphibians or French monarchs or whatever.  I don't mean just you and me personally when I speak of us discussing the matter, I mean the entire discussion, which is rapidly making our subdiscussion moot.  All opinions are subjective, or they're not opinions.  The utility argument isn't very subjective, though; the case for the italics was a accessibility one, that turns out to be wrong, as addressed in elsewhere in the discussion.  Even "weird" is a subjectively phrased cacophemism for an objective observation I made earlier: It's not a style recommended by any style guides, least of all our own.  I said "The only known source of the idea that italicizing quotations is 'Wikipedia style' is the use of italicization as an option in this and a few other quotation templates."  I'm making an correlation argument, not a certain causation one (I did say something more causation-implying below, and have corrected it). I think causation is very likely, but there's no reasonable way to prove it.  Well, there is, actually: Remove these non-essential italics and see if the incidence of italicized quotations in articles dwindles.  Don't need to prove it, though.  As I said above, it's really a matter of common sense: Do we gain anything important from using italics? No. Then don't. Are there problems associated with italicizing quotes, even potential ones? Yes. Then definitely don't.  If some uses were dependent upon italics ("see the italicized part above...") we don't necessarily need to care - any template can have its style changed, or be entirely deleted, at any time, so we can't depend on trivial formatting they provide, and generally most of us remember that.  Old discussions aren't reviewed in detail that often, and in a few cases where the change would render a "see italicized quote" reference invalid, the intended content won't be that hard to figure out anyway. (But see also "Technical note", above, in reply to PC-XT.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, there were many other instances.
 * Thanks for the explanation. If people are using this template in articles, it's misuse of the template, not a problem with italics. If article templates allow italics, though, it's against the MoS. I'll clarify my !vote to exclude talkpage-only templates, since I'm not sure how many templates this applies to. —PC-XT+ 09:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)But see my "Technical Note" above, in
 * My understanding (which SMcCandlish can correct if I'm mistaken) is that the RfC pertains specifically to talk page templates (including Template:Qq, from which he the italic formatting option shortly before initiating the proposal).  Any article template intended to italicize quotations contradicts the MoS and should simply be changed or nominated for deletion.  —David Levy 13:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The RfC pertains to quotation templates generally. Italicizing quotations is essentially a style someone just made up here, it's likely confusing people into italicizing them in articles, and it doesn't really serve any legitimate purpose.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You've presented no evidence that the error is common, let alone that it's attributable to confusion stemming from exposure to talk page messages.
 * Which was a mistake, in favoring italics in particular. All that was needed was something, anything, besides coloration, since some people are color-blind. We already have that "something", in the form of the change to serif font, so any accessibility rationale for the addition of the italics is moot. It actually causes accessibility/usability problems because it's not really distinguishable from semantic emphasis (it should be, but almost everyone uses  (resolves to ) to italicize for emphasis here, especially on talk pages. (I make a point of using, myself, except when using non-emphasis italics, e.g. for titles of major published works.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Which was a mistake, in favoring italics in particular. All that was needed was something, anything, besides coloration, since some people are color-blind. We already have that "something", in the form of the change to serif font, so any accessibility rationale for the addition of the italics is moot.
 * Hi, David Levy. A friendly reminder that it's recommended to use quotation marks when quoting someone else, even when using the tq template.  Not using quotation marks is itself an accessibility issue for anyone who cannot see the formatting at all.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 01:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The template's documentation currently indicates that the use of quotation marks is "recommended when inline quotation is used". (I should note that this is my wording, which I based on common usage and past discussion.)
 * See WP:COLOUR: "Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information. Especially, 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. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information." Is there any reason you don't use quotation marks when you use the template?  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 09:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As noted above, color isn't the only method used. In addition to the serif or italic style, a distinct class is specified.
 * Note that tq does not format as block quotations (compare talkquote). Note also that italics are not a substitute for quotation marks when quoting material (see WP:MOS).  The reason that this template does not insert quotation marks is that it cannot automatically detect whether to use single or double quotation marks depending on context.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 15:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * By "inline quotation" and "block quotation", I'm not referring to HTML markup; I'm referring to the distinction between placing the template directly alongside other text ("Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy; he hath borne me on his back a thousand times; and now, how abhorred in my imagination it is!") and placing it on its own line(s), as I did above. I'm not aware of any online communication medium in which it's customary to append quotation marks when quoting the message to which one is replying.
 * I'm confused why you wouldn't use the correct talkquote template for intended blockquotes, then. Also, using hard line breaks  is generally to be avoided; using them to place tq on a separate line as a faux block quote does not format the paragraphs with the correct line spacing, for example.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 19:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "intended blockquotes"? Again, I wasn't referring to HTML markup.  The tq template provides the formatting that I prefer to use in most instances.
 * "What do you mean by 'intended blockquotes'? Again, I wasn't referring to HTML markup." I mean that you intend to have a block quote despite not formatting them correctly.
 * "On what basis is the use of hard line breaks 'generally to be avoided'?". Using  does not format paragraphs correctly (see next point).  See also WP:UBLIST and WP:PLIST on deprecating its use in infoboxes in favour of plainlist for accessibility reasons.  (Manual line breaks may also have unexpected behaviour in some browsers for users with the "justify paragraphs" option selected; I'm not sure.)
 * "What do you mean by 'does not format the paragraphs with the correct line spacing'?" Paragraphs made using  HTML markup, indented lines or inserting blank lines in wiki markup insert padding between each paragraph – less than a whole line, but noticeable.  Using hard line breaks  does not do this and does not render correct HTML formatting to recognise separate paragraphs.
 * —sroc &#x1F4AC; 08:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I mean that you intend to have a block quote despite not formatting them correctly.
 * It appears this is not as much of an issue as I originally thought, but there are some technical advantages to simplifying templates by removing more or less redundant options like this, so I haven't said no. —PC-XT+ 19:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In the past, I would have viewed the technical simplification aspect as a compelling rationale. Nowadays, MediaWiki's conditional functionality has advanced to the point at which the coding difference is trivial (and any technical advantage is negligible).  And given the italic formatting option's longstanding use, its removal would cause collateral damage to some of its transclusions (e.g. messages in which editors identify text by noting that it's italicized).  I believe that we should be reluctant to edit talk page templates in a manner with the potential to alter preexisting messages' semantics, particularly in the absence of evidence that the current setup is causing an actual problem.  —David Levy 20:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Right. The coding is basically trivial. I think talk pages should be preserved as much as possible, within reason. I think all comments using italics should still use italics after any kind of conversion. —PC-XT+ 22:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Now that SMcCandlish has replied, I've replaced the article quotation template part of my !vote. —PC-XT+ 22:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Point of inquiry: Do we have a hard count of the use of  with this template? What about other quote templates? I agree that quote templates should not automatically italicize, unless it were part of a series of formatted quote templates, eg tqb, tqi, tqbi, etc. but I'm having trouble seeing the problem with just an option, without some demonstration of misuse. VanIsaacWScont 03:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong NO. There needs to be a non-serif option that can be employed in cases where it is useful, such as to distinguish from nearby uses of other templates using serif fonts (e.g., xt for examples) or where the font appearance may be significant (e.g., where subscript/superscript characters are quoted are appear differently in serif fonts). The tq template is reserved for quoting users on talk pages, so why does it need to comply with the MOS on not italicising quotations in article space?  At the very least, there should be a non-serif option, even if not italicised. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 01:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Non-Talk talk pages
Is it acceptable to use this template on non-Talkspace discussion pages, like AFD discussions? Or is it meant exclusively for pages with the word “talk” in the namespace? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 08:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * (Remove rfc tag) This template can be used on any page where discussion is taking place; all talk pages and any Wikipedia page used for discussion (ie. the Village pumps).  08:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I probably should have included a note about removing the RFC tag, because I was planning to remove it after the first informed response, so thanks for saving me the trouble. If anyone comes across this and disagrees, please re-add it along with your post. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 09:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is regularly used on noticeboards. I've updated the documentation to indicate this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Font size
Could a parameter be added which would allow the editor to adjust the font size ? Mlpearc ( open channel ) 18:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

color too bright (warning me in green???) And why the font change?
The current green color (#008560) is way too bright. I say. To me, it looks like a warning color (while being green...). Darker = better. As a talkpage quote, it will stand out still. . Oh and why the font change? -DePiep (talk) 00:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You can quote me on this: I even dare saying: a touch of grey bg? -DePiep (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Non-Compliant Colour
Just a heads up per this partical revert, #008560 is not WCAG AAA Compliant (details), per WP:COLOR. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 22:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Did you read the discussion to which I linked? Additional considerations exist.
 * The template's purpose is to distinguish quoted messages from adjacent replies (standard black text). Using a shade of green more similar to black impedes this function for people with and without visual impairments.  The current color (which is AA-compliant for small text and AAA-compliant for 18pt+ text) was carefully selected as a suitable compromise.  —David Levy 02:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I did. W3C compliance was not a requirement. We should add that requirement now. re more similar to black impedes: no, that's stretching that point way too much. WP:ACCESS wrt this also means, 'never by color alone'. So the color change should be (and correctly is) supported by other effects, font change in this case. btw, WP:ACCESS is quite relevant. The RfC cannot overrule this. -DePiep (talk) 07:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As with every other Wikipedia guideline, WP:ACCESS "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." It isn't an inviolable law to be followed without regard for context or unintended consequences.
 * no, that's stretching that point way too much
 * What do you mean? This isn't a hypothetical scenario that I pulled out of thin air; it's an issue that arose in the past.  I experienced it personally.  The use of a shade of green more similar to black made it difficult to distinguish the quoted text (the template's purpose), even with the use of a different typeface.
 * I take accessibility very seriously. Sometimes, its assurance entails analysis and discussion instead of indiscriminate adherence to a blanket standard.  —David Levy 14:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Where can I look at the wikitext of the template documentation?
For example, with this one, when I click on view source I get this:



I'm sure the source is somewhere else, but I can't tell from looking at this code where to look. FYI, I'm not planning on changing the documentation, I just want to copy parts of the code to my user page so I can easily re-read those parts I find most helpful. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As it says at the bottom of the page,, the actual documentation is at Template:Talk quotation/doc, for editing or copying. Many templates now follow this convention of including a /doc subpage -- this is what documentation expects. DES (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Broke
Uhh... hey and, whatever you all just did seems to have partially broken the template. See this edit where I used it twice. The first time just displayed "Example text" while the second time it worked as normal. No idea why it would do this, but apparently it is. Just FYI. Timothy Joseph Wood 14:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wasn't our edits, it was the formatting of your reply - you put an equals sign into the text. You used  For each reconstruction, the raw data has been decadally smoothed with a σ = 5 yr Gaussian weighted moving average , which is basically saying assign the named parameter For each reconstruction, the raw data has been decadally smoothed with a σ the value of 5 yr Gaussian weighted moving average, just like you might use  .
 * What you need to use is either 1 at the start of the text, or use = when you use an equal sign. For example:
 *  For each reconstruction, the raw data has been decadally smoothed with a σ = 5 yr Gaussian weighted moving average 
 * For each reconstruction, the raw data has been decadally smoothed with a σ = 5 yr Gaussian weighted moving average
 *  For each reconstruction, the raw data has been decadally smoothed with a σ = 5 yr Gaussian weighted moving average 
 * For each reconstruction, the raw data has been decadally smoothed with a σ = 5 yr Gaussian weighted moving average
 * Cheers. --  Alex TW 21:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, today I learned. Timothy Joseph Wood  23:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:Talkquote which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit request
When I closed this Move request I wasn't aware this template is TE protected. So please Admin or Template editor should help and move this page to Template:Talk quote inline per above discussion. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 15:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|TALK

TemplateStyles
I have added WP:TemplateStyles in the sandbox. I made some other changes that I'd like to see if anyone disagrees sharply with:


 * 1) Changed the span to a q element. I think this shouldn't be disputed.
 * 2) I added the quotation marks as CSS. This causes the quotation marks to be the same color as the rest of the inline quotation.
 * 3) Removed roman option. This was the literal only place it is used. (Someone wishing to turn off italics external to this template should turn those off external to this template, IMO; internal to the template it serves no purpose.)
 * 4) Renamed   to  . This is presently used in two user CSS pages at User:AlanM1/common.css and User:Sroc/vector.css; courtesy : you will be able to remove the !important declarations in your CSS files when you change the selector in your CSS files.

Users can review Template:Talk quote inline/testcases to verify.

We can tweak or back a change out if someone disagrees vehemently. I'll push this live sometime this weekend otherwise. --Izno (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * We need to be careful with that [q]. In many browsers it auto-generates quotation marks, and these will vary by language or other preferences at the user-agent end, and these quote marks do not copy-paste in most browsers, so it'll end up producing mangled material. I'd been thinking for several years now about implementing an inline quote template using this element, but suppressing the before and after auto-quotes, so that the semantic value of the element is retained without the problematic behavior.  Now that we have TemplateStyles this will be easy to implement (i.e., not filibuster factory to deal with at the site-wide CSS page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Template:Talk quote inline/styles.css? :) --Izno (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable in this case, since it's for talk pages. In articles, we need to suppress the auto-quotes completely.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

tq & pb not playing nicely
When in an unindented paragraph, and talk quote inline follows text that follows a paragraph break, it starts a new line. Examples (in code):

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. Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.

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.Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi.Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.


 * 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.Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi.Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.

Can this be fixed? —  fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  17:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is most likely caused by : The TemplateStyles extension generates invalid markup in some contexts, and that markup is then "fixed" by the parser by (effectively) inserting an extra paragraph break. I suggest the use of TemplateStyles on this template be rolled back until the WMF devs get around to fixing this (AIUI, they're just planning to have the parser stop fixing the invalid markup, rather than something more involved / actually correct). This problem is likely to affect any template with an "inline" content model and that uses TemplateStyles inside a . --Xover (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment / tip for accessibility
If you disable Web sites from using custom typefaces, the only way to see this template's effects is the green color. If you also have trouble seeing that color, or use high-contrast mode (removes text colors), this template often has no visible effect.

So, if your Web browser supports CSS, you can put quotation marks around the text by adding the following to Special:MyPage/common.css (replace the 《/》 quotation marks with other ones (“/”, «/», etc.) if you want): Enjoy! —&#123;&#123;u&#124;Goldenshimmer&#125;&#125; (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 17:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

q= does not work
The text says &#124;q= or &#124;quotes=yes adds quotation marks around the colored text. but "|q=" does not work. Maybe it's a typo and "|q=y" was meant or it used to work, but it doesn't anymore. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * sorry to take so long to respond; I don't usually watch this talk page and evidently, no one else does either. I noticed that the yes works in the /doc page, and I tested it on another talk page. Seems to work okay now. Do you still see a problem with it?  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 13:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Add sitelink to Wikidata item

 * Please replace the contents of Template:tq with {{subst:Talk quote inline}} (to avoid disruption, even for a few seconds), link it on d:Q112199474 and revert your edit on Template:tq to restore the redirect. According to d:Wikidata:Notability this is how it's supposed to be done. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ I don't see a good reason to mess with this here.  If Wikidata wants to add this on their site they should do so - if they are having a problem because it is currently a redirect they should fix that on their side as well. —  xaosflux  Talk 14:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Xaosflux, Wikidata doesn't want this, I do. Bawl uses this to determine which quote template to use. (in the future other scripts like ConvenientDiscussions or DiscussionTools might just follow) This is for our benefit, not Wikidata's. While I do 100% agree the instruction from Wikidata to projects to go break and unbreak their redirects is just plain moronic, this is just how things are now. In this case it's easier to comply with the lunacy and do it their way. I've lost count of the number of fights over stupid things I'm involved in. If this doesn't get done, inline quotes with my script (and any future script that acquires the template name for tq from Wikidata) will use the full Talk quote inline. Not a total disaster, but not as neat. Sigh, can't have everything I guess.. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Alexis Jazz do you have a phab open for why wikidata items won't allow pointing to remote project items that are redirects? It seems like that is where they are broken? —  xaosflux  Talk 15:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Xaosflux, d:Wikidata:Notability says "It is permitted for a sitelink to point to a redirect (although the software intentionally makes this difficult)", since they broke it on purpose I'm not expecting a fix from their side. <span id="Alexis_Jazz:1654701097602:Template_talkFTTCLNTalk_quote_inline" class="FTTCmt">— Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems like it is hitting some validator (as it outputs) MediaWiki:Wikibase-validator-sitelink-conflict. It looks like in their notes they don't really want redirects there:
 * "Sitelinks to redirects should typically not be created unless (a) there is a substantial section about the subject on the target page of the redirect, reflecting all or most of the information in the Wikidata item; and (b) there is good reason not to merge the two corresponding Wikidata items."
 * What is the "good reason" this should be done, seems like "Bawl" should be able to work around this? — xaosflux  Talk 15:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Xaosflux, how? Hard code what should be the contents of that Wikidata item? (if there's another solution, I'm all ears) That's not a list I'm particularly interested in maintaining, this is the kind of thing Wikidata was made for, storing data centrally to be accessed from multiple projects. I admit that technically my Wikidata item might not be covered by their notability policy (not 100% sure), but if anyone complains (so far, nobody has) I'm counting on d:Wikidata:Use common sense.<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>Phab from 2013: phab:T54564. There's a complaint from 2017 about it taking so long! <span id="Alexis_Jazz:1654702868547:Template_talkFTTCLNTalk_quote_inline" class="FTTCmt">— Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Alexis Jazz programmatic fallback, use Q112199474, if it doesn't exist use Q11394737. I don't see anything at Template:Talk quote inline/doc that using the full template name is inappropriate? — xaosflux  Talk 15:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Xaosflux, Bawl already does that. Not every project has a shortcut anyway. According to Special:Search, there are 52,982 pages that use tq and 54,005 that use Talk quote inline which includes all use through several redirects. Special:Search/hastemplate:"Talk quote inline" insource:"Talk quote inline" yields only 251 pages. Saying that 99% of the use of this template is through its redirect wouldn't be some extreme exaggeration, it would be a very reasonable guess. Of course, if you're willing to move this template to tq that'd solve my problem too. <span id="Alexis_Jazz:1654704022916:Template_talkFTTCLNTalk_quote_inline" class="FTTCmt">— Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I got a feeling most of the usage is people invoking the shortcut, bots/scripts shouldn't care about extra characters though. I'd like to see if we can get any traction on the wikidata side (where your real problem is) — xaosflux  Talk 16:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ┌────────────────────────┘ Xaosflux, automated scripts and bots don't have to care, but Bawl inserts the template in a reply window where the user will see it. The source is just easier to read and navigate with short template names. If phab:T54564 would move forward that'd be great, but I don't think I can hold my breath over a task from 2013 with 90+ subscribers getting resolved. <span id="Alexis_Jazz:1654705826641:Template_talkFTTCLNTalk_quote_inline" class="FTTCmt">— Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I've requeued this in the ER queue in case some other admin wants to push it forward. I don't think this is the best way to deal with this high-profile page to fix a wikidata shortcoming, but someone else may. —  xaosflux  Talk 17:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Had to do this many times – it is what it is (for nao) – – and ✅.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;,  ed.  put'r there 15:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


 * FYI: T54564 got solved! — xaosflux  Talk — Preceding undated comment added 09:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

This template is not intended for use in articles
What does that mean exactly, because I did find this template in an article (and "tpq", which was used there, is *very* self-documenting) jae (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)