Template talk:Quote
We switched to this smaller format ~ 1 week ago. Original is @ {{bigquote}} - Derik (edit summary)
- Why so ugly, then? [It doesn't even look smaller to me, because the font is bigger & monospaced] - SanityOrMadness 20:41, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
- What I said before, plus the note that the English language doesn't use single-guillemots in my experience, preferring inverted commas... - SanityOrMadness 15:06, 21 March 2009 (EDT)
You know, I vastly prefer how this looks to the original quote style. THAT gets lost in the profile text, especially when the double-break isn't used. The light-shaded box sets the quote apart nicely, and makes the font change work better. The only things I'd fix are replacing the brackets with quote marks, and right-justifying the attribution text. I say we go with this. --M Sipher 15:51, 28 March 2009 (EDT)
The guillemots are negotiable... I guess. :( The appeal (to me) is the way they allow you to stick quotes inside of the template without looking skin-crawling-ly wrong.
"Oh please!"Megatron is outraged to be struck in the face but Optimus Prime doesn't have time for his vanity, "Protection"
| “ | "How dare you!" "Oh please!" |
” |
—Megatron is outraged to be struck in the face but Optimus Prime doesn't have time for his vanity, "Protection" | ||
(actually looking at that, I have an urge to adjust the spacing-offset on the first character... right now it's reverse-indented a half space, but i think a whole-space would look better, because the line-starts would line up.) -Derik 02:04, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
- I was thinking that multiline quotes would look thusly:
- Then it wouldn't matter if they were guillemots or quotes (But you'd need to have different arguments on the template. I didn't get as far as working out the best way to do that) --abates 02:32, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
- *shrug* Yet this solution still means no quotes inside. If you ever wanted to quote a passage from a book that included both speech and narration, it'd look weird. (I dont' insist on guillemots-- but they ARE a legitimate quotation mark, and there are benefits of having an 'embracing' quotation mark that doesn't conflict with content it contains.) -Derik 03:30, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
One very big vote against
I'm not going to lie; I am utterly baffled that this {{quote}}/{{bigquote}} controversy exists at all. The colored box is ugly, the monospace font is ugly (especially with the mix of non-monospace quotation marks), it occupies no less space than the so-called "bigquote", and I see absolutely no point to having two different quote-templates anyway. To my mind, there is only one time the quote template should ever be used, and that's in the article intro. And that should be a single line by the character in question, no more. Called-out quotes don't belong in subsections, and the "Quotes" section works just fine without any calling-out. I vote for making this template look like {{bigquote}} again and then deleting {{bigquote}} altogether. - Jackpot 04:07, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
- What he said. Hooper_X 12:35, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
- Well, I like using quotes in subsections, particularly if their personality is considerably different in that section compared to the rest of the article (eg Cartoon Blaster versus comic Blaster, IDW Furman G1 Megatron, Cartoon Grimlock Vs Every other version of Grimlock). However, I hate this coloured box nonsense. I want the quotes to go back the way they were before.
- Yeah, I admit I'm a little confused as well. Why not just make the blue background the at {{bigquote}} instead? -- SFH 14:05, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
