Template talk:Cquote/Archive 1

message: Please don't modify the look and appearance of the template without consensus. If you think it's ugly, remove it from articles you don't want it in. If you want to remove it entirely, then put it up for VfD. -- Stbalbach 22:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a reason I created this template, and that was to create a style editors may choose to use for quotations. It's not perfect, but it's everyone's preference to the style they use, however. — CuaHL ☺ 23:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Editors choose to use the template because they assume it won't change, or will have a say if it does. -- Stbalbach 01:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this template is being used in the wrong places: it is fine for pullout quotes (also called drop quotes), an editorial device used mostly in magazines to give prominent exposure to a key phrase in an article; but people are using it for block (extended) quotes in encyclopedic articles. There, the enlarged quotation marks look out of place; the situation gets worse when editors use redundant quotating devices like setting the whole quotation in italics or adding quotation marks, or even both.The customary way to set such quotations, especially in a scholarly work, is to offset the quoted material by setting it in one or two ems from the left margin while using the same typeface (albeit sometimes one point smaller) and linespacing as the body text.The Wiki formatting command  does all of this well, though it does not reduce the type size. Is there no Wikipedia template for this sort of block quote? I think one would be very useful. Jim_Lockhart 11:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. As I've commented below, having different types of quotes for articles is bad policy. It detracts from the article itself and serves no purpose other than to make the encyclopedia seem disorganized and hodge-podged. I mean, seriously, soon we'll have categories for quotes: :Category: Articles that use cquote template, :Category: Articles that use quotation template, :Category: Articles that use italics quotes. Bad, bad, bad. 66.229.182.113 17:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Look and appearance of template 

message: I just wondered if this template may look better if the quotation marks were black rather than blue? Just a stylisitc point, of course. Adasta 08:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Light blue looks good in younger-folks articles, while Black would look good in more serious articles. Perhaps we need cquote-black and cquote-blue; or, a pass a command-line parameter for the color {cquote|color|quote} -- Stbalbach 21:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but what the hell does that mean? This is an encyclopedia. To make distinctions between "younger-folk" articles and "serious" articles is a slippery slope. While the idea of having a color parameter seems reasonable, it only leads to inconsistencies between articles, which in my opinion, isn't  beneficial. 66.229.182.113 17:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the purpose of Wikipedia was to look exactly the same we wouldn't have this template. There are over a million articles and this template is used by less than two-thousand, this template is an extreme abnormality. In fact, most templates are abnormalities. Wikipedia is not consistent. Style issues are decided by editors in article talk pages. It sounds like you don't what multiple colors and want to enforce that on other people if they like it or not.  I suggest if that's the case you establish consensus and make it a part of the Manual of Style. Good luck on your style wars, I can think of better ways to spend time at Wikipedia. -- Stbalbach 01:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The reason we don't use multiple styles for different areas of the encyclopedia is to avoid stupid style wars and concentrate on writing an encyclopedia.  The style should be set site-wide and should look good in all articles.  This template shouldn't even exist.  We already have one for s. — Omegatron 04:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a link to back this up? Sounds like this template and :Category:Quotation templates should be speedily TfD'd -- in fact, having no style (or one style) is a style (like the Amish dress code) and those who say that  should be the only quote template are engaging in a style war. That is the paradox of style (for an excellent treatment on this topic see The Economics of Attention : Style and Substance in the Age of Information) - discussions of style on Wikipedia are never going away and the MoS recognizes that there will always be style issues on a per-article basis to deal with. -- Stbalbach 12:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Black quotation marks

message: right|200pxFor small quotes and large resolutions, this template looks a bit unwieldy. I think it would look better if aligned to the left, so that all copies of the left quotation mark image line up.  -- Run!  15:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alignment

message: Is it possible to make the quotation marks non-clickable? As they are released into the Public Domain (they are quotation marks), they needen't be linked, and in fact distract from the text should someone try to copy them. Would it be better to perhaps use colored and different fonts, perhaps through a  style? I looked at the possiblity of using , but found that the only way to make an image not link to something else would be to link it to the same page, which is just annoying and pointless. There really is no reason for these to be images, so if anyone knows a CSS hack to make the images non-clickable or thinks that they should be text, it'd be great. Thanks, Mysekurity [m!] 02:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I took a shot at it before (not remembering I had used only  as opposed to , making it not work in the Template: namespace), and gave up. I tried again, and I think it works perfectly. The images have been graciously released into the Public Domain by Cuahl, and therefore don't need to be linked to the image description page. This makes it much more usable, and doesn't treat text decoration as an image. YAY! -Mysekurity [m!] 02:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It's possible with CSS.  I started doing it at , but the quote marks were removed. — Omegatron 13:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure  is a CSS hack. If you have any suggestions to improve the template, by all means, please do. Thanks, Mysekurity [m!] 00:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's possible to do with legit CSS, as demonstrated over at Template talk:quotation. — Omegatron 23:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Would it be possible to use a large-sized text span containing the quote characters, rather than an image at all? Then you could avoid the image linking issue. -- Bovineone 06:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Template:CquoteTxt. heqs 15:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unlinking the images 

message: When printing an article with these quotes, the images will look very pixelated. Please use SVG for these kind of things. 82.139.85.48 13:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) for images 

message: Would it be possible to get an optional field for attribution of quotes? The extra line space looks rather unwieldy when giving authors of quotes.
-- Sasuke Sarutobi 22:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. I found that I had the template had broken a page because I attributed a quote in the third option space. Because the parameters are undefined, the template broke. I propose that it should be modeled in the style of :Template:Rquote. —Down10 T / C 23:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attribution of quotes 

message: Generally quotations are set in a blockquote, or are italicized, or are set off with quotation marks. To use all three is overkill. Why isn't it enough to simply use a blockquote? -Will Beback 22:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Style

message: It looks like there are undocumented second and third parameters. Maybe having to do with width and height? Someone who understands the template should document them. --teb728 05:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. Like, if I want to use the 4th and 5th parameters, but keep the 2nd and 3rd parameters as "default", what are the defaults? In other words, how do I use the 4th and 5th parameters without mucking around with the 2nd and 3rd? -- Stbalbach 14:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could always use , as I've done in Edgefest. Hopefully the template won't be changed or else that'll break. Of course, it'd be better if named parameters were used... –Dvandersluis 13:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second and third parameters 

message: After recent edits to the template, it seems to produce an extra blank space below each inclusion (with Firefox, but not with IE). My knowledge of template coding is too scarce to figure out what's causing it. heqs 20:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does this in Safari, as well. — BrianSmithson 18:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I fixed it. Kirill Lokshin 03:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Extra space at bottom

message:  =  doesn't work. --Babub(Talk|Contribs) 09:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't work with IAST template 

message: What is the purpose of the following parameters.  When should they be used?  (why on earth pixel dimensions!?)  What is the difference between "origin" and "source"—does origin refer to place, author, publication, or something else? Can we see examples of the template with the various parameters in use?  —Michael Z. 2006-07-28 03:01 Z
* quote width in pixels
* quote height in pixels
* Origin of quote
* Cited source
:Please, does anyone know how to really use the other parameters?  I just came here looking for the same thing. —Mets501 (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried, as best I can to document what's there.  Catherine\talk 18:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing documentation 

message: I'm playing with a new version as well, that has the options in a different order, uses named parameters, and some other tweaks.  — Catherine\talk 18:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I think I've got it working nicely now -- see  and its talk page.  It's very similar to this one, except it allows named parameters (so order of parameters doesn't matter), and moves the width/height params to the end where they can be easily omitted.  Didn't make the tweaks here since I didn't want to break existing uses.  Do you think the new one's better?  Worth migrating to?  — Catherine\talk 19:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it!  I think we should migrate to the new one.  What do you think about changing the author and source of the quote to a larger font (so that it's the same size as the quote)?  It gets hard to see and is often important. —Mets501 (talk) 12:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, format is easily changed; I adopted the small from .  So what's the best way to migrate?  If the new one were to become the standard, should it become "cquote" (instead of "cquote2"?)  And if so, what's the best/quickest way to update all the existing uses?  — Catherine\talk 18:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Best way to migrate is using the new name for the new template forever (cquote2 — or whatever you like for the new name), because during the transition phase you need to have the two templates anyway and some uses of the old template are best kept forever (talk pages, archives and the like). I have some experience in migrating templates: I did the settings for AWB for the big move from  to  et al. Once there is consensus for the move, I would be willing to help with my AWB fork. This migration here is a bit more tricky than the book reference → cite book move because here are unnamed parameters involved, which are generally a pain to maintain. But this might be a good occasion to expand the MWB code as needed :-). cquote is currently included on 1,798 pages. --Ligulem 14:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd welcome some bot help; < 2000 is not too bad and I think the new template will be much easier for people who encounter it in articles to decipher.  "Cquote2" is kind of awkward to remember.  Anyone have a better suggestion?  "Squote" for "simple quote"?  "Fquote" for "fancy quote"?  "Aquote" for "a quote"?  ;)   — Catherine\talk 18:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Names, names... How about "marked quote"? "quote in marks"? "quotemarked"? "in quote marks"? "mquote" :). Does anyone know what the "c" in "cquote" stands for? However, "fquote" looks like a good candidate. --Ligulem 21:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the "cquote" is for "centered quote", compared to "rquote" which is aligned to the right. I think "fquote" or even "fancyquote" -- or both, with the right redirects -- is probably my favorite, but I'd wait for others to weigh in. — Catherine\talk 22:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Width and height in px?  There is no reason that should ever be used.  We already have a template for quotations with parameters: . — Omegatron 15:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I don't think they're used very often, and I'm not sure why they were put there in the first place.  Since the "big quotation marks" is a very graphic-designy look, I guess it's nice to be able to scale the size of the marks to the size of the quote, but it hardly seems necessary for a standard template.  That's why I moved them to the end in the new version, since in almost all cases they can just be left off.  — Catherine\talk 18:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New version: Cquote2