Template talk:Cquote

message: I think the June 2, 2012 edit by Killiondude that added "display:block;" should be undone as now all quotes that use this template in articles are showing up on the left side rather then the center. This doesn't look right and for that reason I think that edit should be undone.--Dom497 (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: . Back to the drawing board — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got to think that them not being centered is a bit less damaging than them being completely useless altogether.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above statement, especially given what I said about Chrome's usage above. Killiondude (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Screenshot would've been helpful. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK can we get display:block put back on? Dom497's complaint is minor, as it is described it basically means they're not centered. Meanwhile Chrome users get this. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undo 

message: ­This redirect needs Rcats (redirect categories) added.  Please modify it as follows:
*from this... 
 #REDIRECT Template:Centered pull quote
*to this...
 #REDIRECT Template:Centered pull quote
Template  is a shortcut for the  template, which is itself a shortcut used to add categories to redirects.  Thank you in advance! – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 20:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --Redrose64 (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 02:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rcats needed 

message: The following editors are invited to recollect their own involvement in a discussion regarding this template's misuse and to provide comments here:
User:Edokter User:AnonEMouse User:Gadget850 User:Plastikspork User:Cuahl User:GeorgeMoney User:Tariqabjotu User:Circeus User:Kwame Nkrumah User:Ligulem User:BanyanTree User:SPUI User:Heqs User:Irvine St User:Omegatron User:Mzajac User:Patrick User:MSGJ User:Seancdaug User:Stbalbach User:Mysekurity User:CatherineMunro User:Skalman User:Zaghaghi User:Bjankuloski06en User:Mr. Billion User:Konstable User:Kingboyk User:CBM User:MZMcBride User:Nabla User:Philosopher User:AuburnPilot User:Smith609 User:Kaldari User:Killiondude User:CJ User:Fernando S. Aldado User:Fitch User:Morpheios Melas User:Kirill Lokshin User:DeansFA User:Berria User:Borgx User:Ral315 User:Harryboyles User:RockMFR User:David Fuchs User:WOSlinker User:Waldir User:Eloquence User:Thumperward User:Emijrp
The  template is not supposed to be used in article space. I remember a very divisive discussion about this fact, when a very good faith user opened a  because of its rampant misuse. I stumbled across an example today, and notice from this special page that the misuse is creeping back. Instead of saying "This template shouldn't be used ... use ", why not add syntax to the template code that defaults it to  whenever an #ifeq: switch matches it to article space? It seems like a best solution.--My76Strat (talk) 04:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The documentation should clearly say "don't use this in article space".  Wikipedia is not a magazine, and doesn't need giant redundant text  to draw your attention to the page. — Omegatron (talk) 04:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why pull quotes should be styled differently than regular quotes. Nothing in the Manual of Style supports this distinction. Either this template should be allowed for both types of quotes or neither. Personally, I think this template looks more "professional" than , which is just an ugly box and looks rather amateurish from a design perspective. So I guess my opinion would be to allow it for either type of quotation in article space. Kaldari (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that mean you are for or against the fat quotes? --  Gadget850 talk 21:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I quite like the fat quotes, but it is long past time that we stopped treating quotations in articles as some sacrosanct expression of editor individuality. That means that something has to give here, and the plainer quotation style has won out in terms of editor mindshare. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's fix this 

message: These are some objections and queries above, so let's discuss that here.
A pull quote "is a quotation or excerpt from an article that is typically placed in a larger or distinctive typeface on the same page, serving to entice readers into an article or to highlight a key topic."
Thus, the quote is already in the article content and is placed in the pull quote for highlighting. The template documentation states: "This template should not be used for quotations if they are not repeated elsewhere in the main text". In practice, this is never done. It is simply used as a quote block with the fat quote marks.
This is a layout technique used by journals and magazines. Along with bylines, kickers and decks. I really don't think it reflects the professionalism of Wikipedia. --  Gadget850 talk 19:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The documentation should clearly say "don't use this in article space".  Wikipedia is not a magazine, and doesn't need giant redundant text  to draw your attention to the page. — Omegatron (talk) 04:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why pull quotes should be styled differently than regular quotes. Nothing in the Manual of Style supports this distinction. Either this template should be allowed for both types of quotes or neither. Personally, I think this template looks more "professional" than , which is just an ugly box and looks rather amateurish from a design perspective. So I guess my opinion would be to allow it for either type of quotation in article space. Kaldari (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that mean you are for or against the fat quotes? --  Gadget850 talk 21:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I quite like the fat quotes, but it is long past time that we stopped treating quotations in articles as some sacrosanct expression of editor individuality. That means that something has to give here, and the plainer quotation style has won out in terms of editor mindshare. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Use in articles

message: Applicable guidelines:
* MOS:QUOTE:
** "Styling of apostrophes and quotation marks. These should all be straight, not curly or slanted."
** "Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks (and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the  template, which are reserved for pull quotes)."
* MOS:QUOTEMARKS: "... we use quotation marks or block quotes (not both) to distinguish long quotations from other text" 
** This template does not use , but it replicates the offset style and it really should be updated to use .
--  Gadget850 talk 13:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Guidelines

message: Add <includeonly> tags around "Insert the text of the quote here, without quotation marks." Apteva (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Include only

message: One of the reasons that this is used for quotes instead of for pull quotes is that our examples show it being used for quotes instead of showing it used for pull quotes. The way to fix that is to at least in the first two examples, show that the quote already exists in the text, like this. Apteva (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples

message: Could someone add "line-height: 1;" 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) 02:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. It's not dead center, but a big improvement (see section above). -- User:Edokter  08:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You could reduce it even further. 0.5 seems to work well. The cells have generous padding on them, so making the line-height less than 1 doesn't pose any text-overlap problems (until you get really tiny, like 0.1). Kaldari (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I get partly obscured quote marks below 1em with single line qoutes. -- User:Edokter  23:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Still doesn't look right (in Firefox on Mac OS X, anyway).  The quotation text is above the giant quotation marks, when the quote is short (as it should be - pull quotes are not block quotations).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Also happening in the Chrome browser.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixing the line-height 

message: The documentation reads:
::* NOTE: This template should not be used for quotations if they are not repeated elsewhere in the main text. The Manual of Style recommendation is:
::** For visually distinctive quotation, use  template.
::** For long quotations, use the HTML  element, such as through the use of the  or  template.
MOS:Blockquote actually discourages the use of this template, saying:
::Format a long quote (more than about 40 words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation, which Wikimedia's software will indent from both margins. Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks (and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the  template, which are reserved for pull quotes). Block quotations using a colored background are also discouraged. Block quotations can be enclosed between a pair of ... HTML tags; or use  or .
Assuming the MOS is kept more up-to-date than this template documentation, shouldn't this be updated to say:
::* NOTE: This template should not be used for quotations if they are not repeated elsewhere in the main text. The Manual of Style guidelines for block quotations recommend formatting block quotations using the HTML  element or the  or  template.
I have also replaced the red colour with bold formatting, per MOS:COLOUR ("Do not use color alone to mark differences in text: they may be invisible to people with color blindness").  —sroc 💬 04:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this template's documentation should be kept in synch with the guideline (not vice versa - hardly anyone ever watchlists these templates, and tweaking them or their docs cannot be used to circumvent the broader consensus-building processes at major pages like MOS).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated MOS guidelines in documentation? 

message: Just a heads-up: In case you haven't seen it, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 October 11 has several templates that may possibly be good candidates to merge with this one. Comments are welcome. :) —PC-XT+ 08:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible incoming merges 

message: I've created a version of this template, in its sandbox, which uses the correct semantic markup, . This affects the padding, which needs to be adjusted. Or is there a better way to do this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditch the table. Nesting a blockquote inside a table is bonkers. -- User:Edokter  13:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; how would you then align the quote marks (my CSS is rusty)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably using :before and :after, as was done with the Typography refresh, but though out better this time. That should make any quote-formatting code redundant. -- User:Edokter  21:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you do that, please? I'll watch and learn. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll start tomorrow. It requires some CSS in Common.css. -- User:Edokter  23:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it disturbing that time and effort is being made to shore up a template we mostly do not need, and which is being abused on tens of thousands of mainspace pages, making concessions for it at Mediawiki:Common.css, when most legitimate requests for classes and other handling at that interface page get filibustered. We have better things to do that lend extra legitimacy to something that is only being used correctly about 0.1% of the time.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blockquote 

message: Anyone else find the closing giant quotation mark to be a bit too high?  It's too high in Chrome/Chromium on Mac OS X.  I haven't broken out my virtual machine collection to see if this is a consistent issue, but given that it's all done with CSS I'm pretty sure it will be.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Better check anyway. It was put in to accomodate single line quotes. Without the tweak, the quote would end up too low. -- User:Edokter  22:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vertical tweak 

message: I know these templates are low priority, but editors might peek at the code for ideas. ... isn't passing tidy — only phrasing/inline elements are allowed inside . I tweaked each template to use just , make tidy happy, and set a better example.
* Template:Pull quote/sandbox to Template:Pull quote
* Template:Reduced pull quote/sandbox to Template:Reduced pull quote
* Template:Quote frame/sandbox to Template:Quote frame
* Template:Quote box/sandbox to Template:Quote box
Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 11:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: Would you mind making it clear what the difference is between each of the sandboxes and main templates? You can use Special:ComparePages if you would like. Thanks! Izno (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

text: Thanks. Feel free to reactivate the edit request next time. I'll take care of these now. --Izno (talk) 11:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

text: --Izno (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pull quote templates edit request on 6 April 2016 

message: It undermines the style guideline that this formatting, especially the large quotation marks, is supposed to be reserved for pull quotes if the app uses the style for text in blockquote tags. I'm using the WP beta app on an Android phone. Sorry all I can do is point this out here! At least right now, I don't know how to notify the app team, & I likely won't be able to follow up on this. Thanks, Geekdiva (talk) 08:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  This template's text formatting used for block quotes in WP app 

message: *1) Move "Template:Pull quote" to "Template:Cquote", and move "Template:Reduced pull quote" to "Template:Rquote". (These pages already exist as redirects).
*2) Change the documentation for . Remove this material from the beginning of the documentation:
::
:and replace it with this:
::
*3) And make similar changes to  to match this.
*4) And make the following changes to MOS:BLOCKQUOTE (which is the "Block quotations" section of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (MOS)). Change this sentence
::
:to
::
Herostratus (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: *Support as proposer. Herostratus (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The necessary changes to the MOS are included in the RfC, and the RfC is prominently advertised at the MOS talk page. It'd be impossible to implement proposal points #1 - #3 without also implementing #4, so this objection is moot, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: But it won't be an MOS violation if the proposal is accepted -- see point #4 of the proposal. If then proposal is not accepted, then the template should arguably be deleted. Problem is, that has been attempted three times. A fourth attempt would also likely fail, leaving us with the present non-optimal situation. Herostratus (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: The legitimate concern (i.e., not "I wanna decorate!" or – much worse – "I can use this to browbeat readers with cherry-picked and politicized quoting to steer their interpretation") that leads some editors to favor there being some alternative to , the standardized block quotation template, is that our present formatting of block quotations may not make them easy enough to distinguish from regular text (sometimes just on particular devices, or in particular layouts).  
Seek consensus at WT:MOS to  stylize block quotations, consistently and site-wide.  It's actually fairly common in off-WP style guides to recommend a font change (usually slightly smaller text), not just indentation alone, to set off a block quotation from regular prose, and we could take this approach here. I'd been thinking of proposing this myself for some time, probably applying a 90%-or-so font size and/or a very slight background tinting, barely noticeable and well within WP:ACCESS limits.
Please note that previous proposals for -mild stylization, at MOS, Village Pump, and elsewhere (e.g. italic, colored vertical bar similar to how dispute/cleanup templates looks, giant quotation marks, splashy color, borders, etc.) have previously all failed.   Previous attempts to just let chaos reign and permit any random stylization people want to apply to quotations (i.e, sporadic "down with MoS!" activism) has also been shot down again and again, at multiple venues, and has led to the deletion of various instances of "my new quotation styling template" stuff.
I would support a reasonable proposal in the sort of direction I outline above, in the right venue, and I'm sure many others would, too, given how frequently "block quotes aren't distinct enough on Wikipedia" is offered as a complaint, or as a rationale for abusing pull quote templates.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also support a reasonable proposal to more adequately - yet as subtly as possible! - distinguish quotes from body text.  Which is one reason I've long longed for a much more universal implementation of demi-bold weights in common typefaces ... but perhaps that's not gonna happen this year, lustrum, decade, ...  Without such a feature, I don't have any better suggestion than this rather ugly one: to use italics (and to flip its use back to upright for text already italicised).  Please, editors, give some thought to better ways of distinguishing block quotes without creating visual vomit.  And encourage others to do likewise!  yoyo (talk) 08:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: We'd never get consensus to italicize, since it's generally interpreted as fairly strong emphasis (i.e., it's very subtle, and we've already had years of problems with editors randomly italicizing things between quotations marks, largely because new editors get confused about the difference between "..." quotation and ... wikimarkup, and inexperienced writers get confused about things like titles of major works in italics and or minor works/sub-works in quotation marks.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative suggestion

message: An RfC which also envisions changes to this page is here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Proposal to stop supporting pull quotes. Herostratus (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice of external RfC 

message: I have added an optional  for Arabic quotes.  see here for an example. Frietjes (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Right to left quotes 

message: Please redirect Template:Centered pull quote to Template:Cquote, as at the moment it is a double redirect and breaks its use. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Cabayi (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 19 January 2017 

message: Documentation is not showing up. I note that the name of this page and its documentation name was changed in January 2017. Whether this broke it and its been like this since, I don't know. The name of the page and its doc page match, I think ("Template:Cquote" and "Template:Cquote/doc"), so  should automatically bring in the doc page. The problem could be in  but I can't see why just this page would be affected. At any rate, edit request is: fix this please, thanks. Herostratus (talk) 08:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Question: The setup of the documentation looks ok to me from a quick look at it, and it's showing up ok.  Have you tried a WP:PURGE, as it could be just a bad cached copy?  Murph9000 (talk) 09:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Showing up here, too. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh, you're right. It's showing up now. Ohhhh.... someone blanked the page today. It was rolled back but I must have picked it up. Nevermind, sorry. Herostratus (talk) 09:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 11 May 2017 

message: Despite being a blockquote, this template does not utilize the  element. On top of that, this template uses tables in the year 2018! (CSS has improved leaps and bounds and should make the necessity of this zero) This is bad for accessibility and is unsemantic. Perhaps this was done so the enclosing quotes could be selected, but those are actually redundant to the block formatting, per the Manual of Style:
 
So not only are they gaudy, this template is specifically called out for overuse by our own Manual of Style.  Opencooper (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not semantic and other issues 

message: Please change template call  to  to avoid the redirect. The call to that template is transcluded in more than 35,000 articles through being called in this template, so that unnecessary redirect has to be followed every time one of those articles is viewed. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 27 September 2019 

message: I've been pinged several times but have stayed on the sidelines because you guys are just too verbose. I'll say this:
*I do think {cquotes}'s big curly quotes look tacky and it's hard to see where they'd ever, on due consideration, be appropriate (we're talking about articles here, not project space). As I mentioned earlier I reject the idea that it's never appropriate to highlight or feature a particular quotation, though I think this is best done in a quote box floating to the side.
*I urge that Herostratus's warnings about strongarming editors on such matters be taken seriously.
EEng 02:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Not another proposal for an RfC

message: "bgcolor" for instance doesn't seem to do anything. "qcolor" is entirely obsolete. Don't know about the other params (beyond the basic params, which work), but they probably don't and anyway used very seldom and maybe never.
  
The extra params (beyond "quote", "author", and "source") can probably be removed from the documentation. Or, fix the code to match the documentation -- I think that's useless and possibly negative, but anyway one or the other, your choice. 
Also applies to , as always. Herostratus (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some params don't work, documentation says otherwise -- fix one or the other please 

message: The mobile view generally inject display: block property to tables make them scrollable on your phone screen, this is especially gives benefits to larger one. However, if this template include very short phrase, the template would be shortened, and shift to left. To fix the display issue, I used display: table property in the sandbox page, after submit my change, the template is properly displayed on the test cases. You can open the test cases on your phone to reproduce, or alternatively you can open mobile version of the test cases in this Responsive Website Tester. -- Great Brightstar (talk) 04:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now:  Not sure about display:table. Due to some gross "width: 100% !important" CSS in Minerva, it still takes up the whole page width, instead of small and center, like the desktop skins. I've been meaning to get rid of the table layout altogether, and I think what I'm doing will accomplish what you're looking for as well. See testcases for what I have so far. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a good idea, thank you. -- Great Brightstar (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enhancement for mobile view 

message: Author versus speaker: need a parameter for both. As follows: 
Representative example: 
"I killed a man in Reno" — speaker, in Johnny Cash's "I Walk the Line"
… and obviously not … 
"I killed a man in Reno" — Johnny Cash
Anticipating any casual objection that "the text constituting the value of the parameter can simply explain the relationship [to sentients, such as humans], so why bother?": Answer: The distinction really should be properly parameterized for machine-readability for ontologic purposes. Johnny Cash is indeed the author of the quote, so "author=Johnny Cash" is true, but he is obviously not the speaker. One can just imagine the machine learning datasets that might miseducate machines (for example, things such as a Google Answer Box, perhaps) into misapprehending that "Johnny Cash is an example of a murderer" and that "James Hetfield is the one who lost all his limbs". Can someone fix this? Thanks, Quercus solaris (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: {cq} isn't isn't supposed to be used in article space so such nuances aren't worth bothering with. EEng 10:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It is used about 36,000 times in article space, but I agree with  that this is a distinction that is not worth noting. Where do we draw the line? When we display a quotation from a fiction book in the voice of the author, we do not imply or assume that the author necessarily believes or practices what is in the quotation, and any reasonable AI would not draw that conclusion either. Or when we quote Corey Lewandowski as saying "Trump is self-financing his campaign, so we don't have any donors", no reasonable person or AI would assume that Trump actually self-financed his campaign. A quotation is just a quotation (unless it's not, exactly), and brains are still needed to understand them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, sloppy of me: I meant it's not supposed to be used in article space. Those uses should be purged. EEng 18:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is a talk page discussion that addressed that, and the result was to hide the decorative quote marks in article space. I don't think the template is objectionable in article space at this point. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Who says it's not supposed to used in article space? I use it all the time. I mean the documentation starts right off with "The template appears as follows in article space: Lorem ipsum dolor sit...", why would it say that if it's not OK to use in article space? Later on down in the documentation it does say the MOS recommends -- recommends -- to to use the HTML  tag or the  template instead. I only do the former when I'm writing in 1993, and  is not an improvement I don't think, so for my part it's not suggestion worth following. Herostratus (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

text: Should I mention that the actual lyric is "I shot a man in Reno"?--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Author versus speaker: need a parameter for both