Template talk:Quote box/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Right-align source?

I'd very much like to see the source line in these boxes aligned to the right. That strikes me as a standard method for extra distinction between quote and source. Scartol • Tok 16:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

broken

{{editprotected}} At some point relatively recently, this template became broken, I believe, in all instances ending with |}} (see preceding #Attempting_to_center). What happens is the entire quote fails to show up, which is sort of troublesome. Heads up. (and why on earth is this template admin-only editable?) ¦ Reisio (talk) 10:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason the template is protected is because it is high risk template, and the reason it is a high risk template is because it is transcluded in about 1,500 articles. This means that unlike an article, where an instance of vandalism is isolated just to the article, if this is vandalized, the vandalism affects all 1,500 articles transcluding the template. I'm sure you'd agree that it would be bad if suddenly 1,500 articles displayed a bunch of giant curse words, a defamatory attack or a shock image, to name a few possibilities. In any event, placing an edit protected request on a page without suggesting the solution is often an ineffective method because the number of users who monitor the category the template places a page in is not large. I would gladly make the edit, if I knew what the fix was. For that reason, it might be better, in conjunction with the above template, to post at a more centralized forum that the template is broken, how, and ask for someone with template coding skills to take a look. I suggest WP:VP/T and Wikipedia:Requested templates.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can vandalize well over 1,500 articles without having to go through a template, and if I could edit this, I could fix it myself. In long, just as many people can still vandalize just as much, but the number of people who can now fix this template is reduced to a fraction, and in the meantime the template still gets broken on countless pages. ¦ Reisio (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This is fixed in the sandbox. Needs synced. I broke this by allowing unnamed parameters - note to self for future: unnamed parameters must be nested inside named ones or trailing pipes will break things. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix Chris—implemented. Reiso: if you knew how to fix it, then your request was incomplete. For future requests (as the edit protected template indicates), you should ask for the specific change by describing exactly what needs to be done, i.e., quoting the present code, and then setting forth the change, or posting to a sandbox as Chris did. As for your post above, do you truly not understand the monumental difference between the normal activities of a vandal, who can only normally vandalize one article at a time, and the ability to, by a single edit, deface 1,500 articles simultaneously through a transcluded template such as this one?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't add that template, someone else did. ¦ Reisio (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

FWIW I sympathise with Reisio's position here, being one of the most active non-admins in templatespace. This template was fully protected after only one edit from a user who these days wouldn't even be autoconfirmed. Dropping to semiprotection (at least until such point as it's vandalised again) would be a service to non-admins working in templatespace. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I sympathize as well. However, while I would love to not have to go through the bother of locking my door at night, I also must face the reality that where I live, that is not a pragmatic option.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You also happen to be the only one with the key to Reisio's house, and mine. Full protection is a draconian action regardless of how many transclusions a template has; it's healthy to question exactly where that line should be drawn. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

So post to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and/or Wikipedia talk:Protection policy and/or Wikipedia talk:High-risk templates, referencing this discussion and setting out your reasons that Wikipedia:Protection policy#Permanent protection and Wikipedia:High-risk templates should be modified. Note that I think that even if you make headway in general, it is unlikely to be changed with regard to this template because of the high number of WP:BLPs a template such as this one is transcluded on. For my part, I do not think this should be unprotected or be lowered to semi-protection because I think the possibilities for damage outweigh the benefits, and because this is very much an example of the type of high-risk template the current policy and guideline are geared to address.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You have all the answers, don't you? I, personally, am done wasting time in Wikipedia talk:. ¦ Reisio (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Lovely. Good day sir.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"ah yes. Don't even bother addressing existing policy, its rationale, the very real concern it addresses. Just get huffy and run along."
I did address existing policy. You're the admin, you should do something about it — instead you act like a mere bureaucrat, waving people to the proper forms. It's for the very reason that I have addressed policy (via Wikipedia:-space talk pages) and been ignored by useless bureaucrats like you over and over again that I don't bother anymore.
This issue is a(nother) perfect example: The admins have all the power, don't let normal users fix things, & sit on their butts DOING NOTHING.
For the very same reason you are useless here, you are useless there; and I am powerless either way. ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Eliminating invalid style

{{editprotected}} The current code has invalid style "align:right" within <span> for sources. This version of sandbox will fix the problem. Please replace the code with it. --fryed-peach (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Will it change the visible output at all? Skomorokh 19:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You can see the visual changes at Template:Quote box/testcases. --fryed-peach (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Skomorokh 02:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Please check it's working as intended. Martin^msgj 08:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Broken again?

I think the quote box might be broken on Phil Hartman. At least, I can't see what's wrong with it - it seems to be used right, but it encloses the entire rest of the article in the box, rather than just the quote. Can anyone else verify this, and work out why it isn't working properly? Robofish (talk) 03:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The article uses {{quote box2}} and includes an unclosed <div> to align the source. This should never have worked, and is not needed since the salign parameter is intended for this purpose. A recent fix to {{quote box2}} has exposed this issue that seems to have been cut and pasted across several articles. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 09:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

merge

Per discussion at Template_talk:Quote_box2#State_of_the_sandbox and Template_talk:Quote_box2#Re:_merge...:

{{editprotected}} Please copy the contents of {{Quote box2/sandbox}} into {{Quote box}}. the 'onlyinclude' tags can be deleted, and the documentation template should be placed inside 'noinclude' tags. This will allow a merge of the three quote box templates - {{Quote box}}, {{Quote box2}}, and {{Quote box3}}. I can complete the merge after a bit of AWB work is done, and I will update the docs as needed. --Ludwigs2 07:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

revert

That last revert to the old version is a problem - it is bound to break Quote box2 and Quote box3 which are now redirected through here. can you self-revert, and then point to where the template is not working correctly so that I can fix it? as I said, this revert is going to be a lot more disruptive than the change. --Ludwigs2 23:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Reverted recent changes; broke template display in some places

I have reverted to the version as of March 2, 2010. The major change of March 13 broke the template's display at least in {{Creation}}, a high use template at the help desk (see here. That template is substituted so all versions of it that included this template throughout the archives were broken. I wish I had taken a screenshot before the fix to show you what it looked like, as now that I have reverted here, it's displaying fine so I can't reproduce the mangled display. In any event, I will inform all those involved in the recent change.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ludiwgs noticed the change and has informed me he will work on the fix so I have reverted the reversion. For the moment, the broken display should be viewable here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

well, I see the problem. this is a well-known (to me at least ) issue with the tidy extension - when it encounters indents is tends to break divs by tossing in spurious closing div tags. the problem disappears if the initial indent colon is removed, which I will fix on that particular page (since it's a floating div anyway, the indent is unnecessary). The only question is whether this is a serious enough problem that we should undo the change completely. we also have a sandboxed version based on tables which won't suffer this problem (I'll need to check if it's up-to-date; I'm not sure if made the last few tweaks to it that I made to the div version). the question is which way we want to move on it. thoughts? --Ludwigs2 23:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

A fix of {{Creation}} will not fix its many past uses, which were all substituted. Is there any fix for the code to quote box itself other than undoing the recent merge?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

well, the merge would have had no effect either way on templates that were subst:ed - the template contents for those would be hard-coded into the article page, and it wouldn't change after that regardless of how we change the tempalte. This will only affect the active template used in this construction:

:{{quote box|...}}
::{{quote box|...}}
        and possibly
*{{quote box|...}}
#{{quote box|...}}
;{{quote box|...}}

The software parses the template into HTML, then place the HTML in the Definition List block that wikimedia uses to creates indents (and lists). HTML Tidy sees a <DL><DD><DIV> construction this produces and inserts a closing </DIV> tag as soon as it encounters a carriage return. I could fix the template to eliminate all internal carriage returns (easy enough, though it would make the template code really hard to read) and that would probably solve the problem. or we could substitute the table-based version of the template, which wouldn't have this problem. I'm just trying to get a sense for how extensive the problem is, so we can determine the best approach. --Ludwigs2 00:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Well the question really is, is this problem seen in other places? If it's just {{creation}}, I suppose we could leave this as is and I could trawl the help desk and new contributor's help desk archives and find all past versions and fix them, though I'm imaging it's been used at least 100 or so times in other places. Not a task I relish (or I could just leave the past versions broken of course). Let's be on the same page: When I said it was substituted I was referring to {{creation}}, meaning there's no way to track it, but quote box was always transcluded inside of that template since it was added a few months ago (which I guess I could fix now with <includeonly>subst:</includeonly> for the quote box inside of it). So there's no way to fix the HTML Tidy issue?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC) I just did that subst: fix to creation but it places too much code so I'm just leaving it transcluding quote box--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah!, I think I understand now. {{Quote box}} is included inside of another template or templates which are themselves substed onto pages. well, ok, there are four possible solutions:

• remove the leading colon in the templates that are substed so the problem doesn't spread, and use AWB to search likely pages for :+{{quote box and delete the leading colons.
• replace the current div-based version of the template with the table-based version that's available (this might be easiest - they are equivalent. The div-based version is cleaner, but the table-based one won't have this problem). the version is at {{quote box2/sandbox t}}
• delete the internal line-breaks from the current version (the problem happens, I think, because tidy gets confused by line-breaks; the template should work fine without them, though I'd need to test it)
• wait. I added to an outstanding bug report at bugzilla, so the problem may get resolved on its own.

what would you prefer? --Ludwigs2 00:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think everything's resolved. I fixed the template (or at least I think I did) as soon as I saw your fix to the one substituted template in the archive, so there should be no more problem with future uses of {{Creation}} (I tested it and it worked fine). As for fixing past substituted versions, the only pages to search are the help desk archives and the New Contributors' help desk archives and this search seems to work, so finding past versions doesn't look like it presents a problem. Also, the number of past versions to fix is really trivial (I thought it would be much more) because quote box was only added to the template a few month's ago. My time sense had it added far longer ago so I thought there was an order of magnitude more of them. I'll go fix them now. Thanks for the explanations!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Folks, on behalf of help desk regulars, thank you for fixing this! – ukexpat (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This still appears to be broken in some articles, please see bugzilla:21989. Nakon 02:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Alpha Phi Alpha suffers from bunching, which pushes the last quote box into the references section; see WP:BUNCH. The sidebar appears to have been added since the bug report. I'm running Windows 7, FireFox 3.6, screen 1600x1200. If I start at the base view and zoom out two levels, then the quote boxes and images move down the page— I think this is a known issue with FireFox; I know table cells get mucked up on zoom out. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 03:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

wow - a lot of stuff on Alpha Phi Alpha. I'm tempted to wade in and reorganize things to make it work better. for instance, I think a lot of those images can be shifted to a gallery section at the bottom, which would loosen up the page a good bit, and some of the quotes could be moved to the left. do you think anyone would mind if I did that? I don't think the out-of-position quotes is a function of this template, but something more serious with the wikipedia rendering of the page. --Ludwigs2 03:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I really think this is just HTML throwing up because of all the elements— infoboxes, images, quote boxes and tables —stuffed onto the right side of the page. Some of that stuff seems to have no connection to the article (like the image of the Alpha Phi Alpha delegate’s pin from the 1940 Pan-Hellenic convention). This should be discussed on the article talk. Are there any other articles with this issue? The bug was reported on 1 Jan 2010, so I do not see the connection to the updates. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 04:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I left a note in talk there - if it gets no response I'll make the revisions and see what happens. honestly, I have to say that I like reading pages like that - pages about good things, where people are agreeably enthusiastic about the subject. it makes me feel good about the world (in a slightly embarrassing way...) --Ludwigs2 05:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Folks, it's still borked, last time I substd {{Creation}}, the rogue : was back. Thanks in advance for looking at this again. – ukexpat (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This occurs because you typed the following:

:{{subst:creation}}

adding a colon before the substituted template breaks the template. don't do that! --Ludwigs2 16:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

[Wipes egg from face] Oops, yes I did thank you. But in my defence there is a lack of consistency among the help desk templates - some are coded to indent, others are not - time to fix that I think. – ukexpat (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

well, if you point to some examples, I'm happy to do some revisions. as a rule, the only templates you can indent safely are small (single-line transclusion) templates or templates based on tables. I've been futzing with this problem recently, and that problem is built into the parsing routines - intents and lists close tags peremptorily. I'm not sure quite why this excludes tables, actually. but at any rate, let me know... --Ludwigs2 20:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The - before the authors name & alignment?

Up until a few days ago, there was an automatic "-" before the authors name with this template, and now it is gone. In addition, I believe the authors name was in the center (or right) below the text and not flushed to the left as it is now. Why is that? I believe the former way was aesthetically superior to the present, as now it is hard to distinguish the author and quote (which are both aligned the same and with no "-" preceding the author's name).   Redthoreau -- (talk) 10:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

we merged a number of overlapping templates, and there were bound to be some minor differences in the resultant defaults.

that being said, there is a long-standing stylistic issue about how quote boxes should look, and this is as good a time as any to resolve it. maybe we should do a quick straw poll? --Ludwigs2 15:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

straw poll on source formatting

this is the way the template looked prior to the merge. the hyphen was added automatically

—a source of some sort

this is the way the template looks now. no automatic hyphen

a source of some sort

this is another option. automatic hyphen, slight indent from left alignment

—a source of some sort

this is another option. slight indent from left alignment with no hyphen

a source of some sort

this is another option. left alignment with automatic hyphen

—a source of some sort

this is another option. left alignment with automatic hyphen, graying of source text for emphasis

—a source of some sort

this is another option. right alignment with automatic hyphen, slightly larger, grayed text for emphasis

—a source of some sort

What should the formatting defaults be for the source element. common disagreements seem to involve whether to use automatic em-dash or double-dash leads, and over whether the source element should be left, right or center justified, or left justified with a 2em indent, or etc. feel free to propose anything else if I've missed something. --Ludwigs2 15:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I would support an automatic double dash "—" before the name, with the quote aligned on the left and the name either indented a few spaces like on the Template:Quote or far right like on the Template:Quotation.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that the last version of the template looked the best. We need a dash too. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

there shouldn't be any major differences between the last version and the current version (with the exception of possibly some minor formatting) - are you seeing a difference?

also, your revert has likely broken a number of templates across wikipedia which were redirects through the QB2 and QB3. can you undo that please so that we can talk about whatever problem you're experiencing? --Ludwigs2 23:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added a number of samples of different source CSS at right - there's a large number of variations we could use, so if you have other ideas let me know, and I'll see if I can implement them. the ultimate question, of course, is which do we want to use as default. comments? --Ludwigs2 17:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I like 1 the best, with 3 running a close second. Thanks for these examples together, I thought that I would hate something like 3 until I saw it. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm partial to 3 as well, but not so big on 1. let's see if we can get a few comments from others. --Ludwigs2 19:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I like 1 the best. In addition, why wouldn't there be a space between the dash and the name?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Out of interest, why is there no "right alignment, no dash" proposal? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think it looked better when the source was right aligned with a dash. anemoneprojectors talk 19:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I just made a sampling of possible arrangements - there's a large number of permutations on the basic theme. maybe what we need to do with this discussion is take it up over at wp:MOS - the Manual of Style people live and breathe for this kind of debate. --Ludwigs2 20:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If you take it to WT:MOS you'll get yelled at for using the wrong kind of dash. ;) Anyway, it would almost certainly be better to adopt whichever format is currently most popular across a random sampling of deployed quote boxes (including the 2/3 variants) so as to minimise disrution. But really, this is just arguing over the colour of the bikeshed now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

well, it's looking like there's a general preference for 1, with 3 as a possible contender. I'm not so clear on the 'dash' issue: should we include it automatically, or leave it for users to add at their whim? I could go either way on it. the only consideration in my mind being that if we include it automatically there will be no way for people not to have a dash, unless we add overly-cumbersome code to give the option (I resist adding a new parameter and associated code just to give the option of adding a single character ). --Ludwigs2 16:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

In my view, the dash should be standard and mandatory per mos.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

adding some minor coolness

{{editprotected}} based on the discussions at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#New_toy_to_play_with:_Gradient_background and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Two_more_toys, can the following lines be added to the template after line 11? That would be in the first style declaration, between the 'background-color: ' and '{{{style|}}}' lines.

   {{#if:{{{shadow|}}}|{{box-shadow|4px|4px|6px|#A0A0A0}}}}
   {{#if:{{{rounded|}}}|{{border-radius|8px}}}}
   {{#if:{{{gradient|}}}|{{gradient|{{{startcolor|#faf5ff}}}|{{{endcolor|#ddcef2}}}|{{{orientation|horizontal}}}}}}}

Cry "Havoc," and let slip the dogs of war.

William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene I.

That would add a few aesthetic tweaks to the template, as demonstrated at right. we could add more flexibility to the tweaks, but it's probably better to leave it a bit limited to maintain a consistent look. I'll update the docs if the edit is made. --Ludwigs2 17:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I support the box-shadow. But the gradient as background of text causes readability issues, so it would be best to do only a minimal use of it. Like in the headers, or such. But it would really hurt to use it as background of major blocks of text. Plus, Wikipedia will begin to look like a Christmas tree, which is what you want to avoid from a design point of view. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Style Test

Testing what this looks like with a separate style applied to the header.

Someone, Somewhere, Somewhen.

I had reservations about the gradient myself (I think the shadow and corner roundings are good, though). the question is how to limit it? Mind you, there's a free-form styling parameter for the template, so we could leave off the gradient as a predefined option but mention it in the docs as a possibility that should be used sparingly. --Ludwigs2 19:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm unsure about what is being requested. Please reactivate when you have decided what to do. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

IE8 and below do not support any of these features; IE9 Beta supports radius and border, but not gradient. Radius and border will fail gracefully, but gradient will result in a fill of the first color, which may result in unintended effects. As of June 2010, IE is used by 47% or our readers.[1] ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

well, then we could go ahead and implement it without the gradient. I think the radius and shadows are distinct improvements (enough so that I'm almost tempted to suggest they be made default), and so long as they fail gracefully we can use them and let IE catch up to the rest of the world in its own time. --Ludwigs2 17:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Good choice, I was about to suggest the same approach. I support the border and radius. I'm also tempted to suggest they be made default. Actually, it would be better to keep Wikipedia's design consistent, and keep one default design. But such a default change would require more consensus, so the optional solution is probably the best as a first step. Dodoïste (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about this: it feels a little bit overdone, like it's using the features just for the purpose of using the features, without a clear aesthetic goal. Don't get me wrong: they're awesome effects that are worth trying out, but let's try out a few ideas before jumping on the gaudiest combination of new features. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 04:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I seen issues with consistency and aesthetics. We would have quote boxes with round corners and infoboxes and navboxes with square corners. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 05:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is a question of standardization (personally, I could see something like quote boxes and alert boxes with rounded corners and shadows, infoboxes with rounded corners only). If you're truly worried about consistency we could post something over at the pump about creating new style standards for new CSS features and upgrade everything if that is the consensus. Or we could just start here and adjust other templates as we go along. maybe we should set up a test page with a bunch of common elements on it and see what it looks like? --Ludwigs2 16:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of a test page. Standardization is definitely important—the ambox (one of the first big standardization projects) was a huge breakthrough when that was introduced, and that required a bunch of testing and discussion on the aesthetics where we debated some of the variations. I'd advocate a light touch: for example, <5px corner-rounding that smooths out edges without being obvious. I'd suggest moving this back to the Village Pump for now, but I don't particularly mind as long as people know where to find the discussion. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 05:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely important to standardise and centrally control (via CSS / transclusion) things like border-radius, as inconsistency there will be very obvious and unprofessional. — Pretzels ^Hii! 19:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

That is a good idea. Another possibility is to add classes, to make this opt-in. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 05:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

okay, I've set up test cases here - Template:Quote_box/testcases. the first is standard, the subsequent ones show variations. sorry if the pages seem cramped - the {{lorem ipsum}} template is dense, and each section has a lot of templates tucked into it.

I don't suppose it would hurt to class this, but it's such a small change that it would be easy to add directly to the template(s). whatever is more efficient server-wise, I suppose.

my favorite is the 'Rounded shadowed quotebox, rounded infobox, shadowed alert' one. I don't like the way navboxes or alerts look with the rounded edges, and I don't think navboxes or infoboxes should get shadowed. I could take or leave the rounding on the infoboxes. but I like the rounding on the quotes, and I like the way the shadowing brings out the quotes and the alerts. (I'm also indifferent on the 5px/8px thing). if there's anything else that needs to be added to these test cases, add it in or let me know, otherwise I'll post this back over at the pump tomorrow. --Ludwigs2 06:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't like any of these features at all. The current style is better than any of the alternatives in that test case. Those features make the site look like a cheap Powerpoint presentation rather than a professional encyclopedia. Just my opinion. Please leave it as is. —Noisalt (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

This is an admirable endeavour but I fear you're overusing the features in your examples. Here's another go, matching the Vector skin. — Pretzels ^Hii! 19:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Style Test

Testing what this looks like with a separate style applied to the header.

Someone, Somewhere, Somewhen.

Pretzels, this is a magnificent use of gradients, I love it. :-) The header is great too: its readability is improved, and it looks more like a quote header somehow. This example is getting nearer to a design we can actually adopt. Dodoïste (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

well, even given my natural aversion to subtlety, I'll confess that this does look good. --Ludwigs2 02:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Change request

Could someone make a small change to allow different colored borders? The line needing change is in the first div section.

Current line

border: {{{border|1px}}} solid #aaa;

Proposed change

border: {{{border|1px}}} solid {{{border_color|#aaa}}};

Thanks,
--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Do we really have a consensus that this template is intended to be infinitely customisable? IMO the most likely outcome here is less consistency in articles and more time spent tarting up user pages. What's the use case here? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 20:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I am hoping to allow the background color to match usage on user pages where the border will match colors of the users page. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 03:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Center floating?

Is there possibly no way to make a center alignment floating? Rsteilberg 21:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsteilberg (talk • contribs)

Use at end of section causes next title to vanish

The Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing#Example_approaches_to_discussing_with_other_editors section closes with this template. If nothing else is done it blanks the following == See also == title. I've kludged the article to avoid the problem, but if someone who knows something about code can figure out the problem, it would be appreciated. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Quote box creates a floating div— when the box is full width the heading is under the box. Adding |align=center disables floating. You could also use {{-}} after the box.

{{quote box|{{Lorem ipsum}}}}
===Header1===

{{quote box|align=center|{{Lorem ipsum}}}}
===Header2===

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.

Header1

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.

Header2

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

PS— I added some missing <code> tags on that page. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

PPS— Upon reflection, {{quotation}} might be better for this purpose:

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.

Header3

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix and the tips. I would've never figured it out; you had me buffaloed at "floating div". Best regards, and thanks again, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Layout problem in IE

Hi. There seems to be a problem in IE with the quote box overlaying adjacent text and messing up the layout. See:

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Biorhythm&action=historysubmit&diff=434271326&oldid=432620613

86.179.117.174 (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed Inline quotes are not in a box per WP:MOSQUOTE. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)}}

where can I find a list or key of wikipedia's background color codings?

I have used many quotes on the article Kingdom Tower, they were the first quotes I did, the ones in the impact section I stole from Final Destination and just changed the words and author, but the other quotes are bland off white backgrounded. The color coding seems to have no linearity or make any sort of sense to me so it's hard to just guess codes. BTW today Kingdom Tower is a DYK so I needed the answer like an hour ago, but thanks anyway because it'll be more stuff in the future. Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

1. F9F9F9 is the the color of the left sidebar and the article background is #F8FCFF. See web colors and list of colors for more.

Please ensure that the result will be readable by people with color blindness, and those with visual disabilities. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines recommend a contrast ratio of at least 5:1 for text — use this Contrast ratio calculator to help determine if the colors you choose will be visible to everyone.

Please do something here: mixing blue, buff, pink and green quote boxes seems more appropriate for a circus article. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Cannot Supersede Quotebox Styling With Custom Common.css

i've been trying to customize the look of the quotebox on my common.css, but it seems that the individual style definitions that are given via wiki markup always supercede the custom css - which pretty much defeats the purpose of a custom css, and is quite frustrating
only the div inside the .quotebox can be modified, but not the quotebox itself

i think a good solution for this would be to have 2 different quotebox classes:
1) normal 'quotebox' class that serves all purposes for regular quoteboxes that are adaptive to differnt css styles and dont need to convey a certain appearance
2) a special 'customquotebox' class, that would act similar to the current 'quotebox' class but itself being superseded by common.css, this one shouldnt be the regular one to use for most cases, only when a certain style is wanted to be displayed - eg: like in color templates etc.

then it could be as simple as using two different {{quotebox}} {{customquotebox}}, just like {{quote}} and {{quotebox}} presently.<br /> and the user could choose in their custom common.css, to customize '.quotebox', and leave '.customquotebox' to allow it to display specific styles, or to simple override it with a custom definition in common.css --veritas te liberabit (talk) 05:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

putting a dash before the source

The mock-up at the top of Template:Quote box shows "--the source". Should the template automatically insert a dash (right now it does not) or should we continue to write source=—the source when we want a dash? Outside Wikipedia, having a dash is commonplace, so its absence looks odd to my eye. —rybec 02:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It's vs. its

There is one instance in the template where "it's" should be changed to "its". Lou Sander (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The documentation section (in green) is not protected. Just click on the edit there and fix it. Templates are often protected, but protected documentation is very rare. --  Gadget850 ^talk 14:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Request

I think it would be helpful if a border color parameter was added to this template, since it already has a background color parameter. — Confession0791 ^talk 01:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Use |style=, for example |style=border-style:solid; border-color:#ff0000 #0000ff;. --  Gadget850 ^talk 01:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Two different Quote Boxes - opinions...

We have two different types of quote boxes in this section. I have seen the top quote box variation on several pages:

“ We assume that Skylab is on the planet Earth, somewhere.
Charles S. Harlan, Skylab mission controller ”

...but the template described for this page demands the lower quote box style:

We assume that Skylab is on the planet Earth, somewhere.

Charles S. Harlan, Skylab mission controller

I haven't seen the top template page style yet, only used in the articles. I believe that the first one is easier on the eyes, and appropriate for non-scientific articles and styles. The second I believe would be appropriate for scientific issues. Is there a history of this issue? Comments please? Dinkytown talk 21:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

References

fontsize glitch

I've noticed that this template displays differently based on if the "fontsize" switch is present but left empty or if it's not included at all. I see that the documentation claims the default is 88% and the field isn't necessary, but this doesn't appear to be true. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I see the problem and it applies to all the parameters. I have a fix for fontsize in the sandbox and will work the others. --  Gadget850 ^talk 10:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. If you did not include the parameter, the it went to the default; if you included the parameter but the value was blank, then a blank passed to the CSS and it inherited the body CSS. --  Gadget850 ^talk 13:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Chris Troutman (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

@Gadget850: why did you remove salign? Frietjes (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

fixed version in the sandbox. Frietjes (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hi Gadget850, I noticed today that the position of the sources had changed from left to right in some quote boxes, and came here to see if there had been a change. I've therefore reverted some of your edits, because I don't know how to isolate the one that made the difference. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Just noting that I see the page is protected, so I hope I'm allowed to revert in the way I did. I'm not sure of the rules about templates and protection. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: see above, instead of rolling it back, you could just do this (sync with sandbox version). Frietjes (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I worry about editing these things in case I break them completely. :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

understood. there are actually more problems with the updated version, with colours being parsed as list items (requires this fix or similar). Frietjes (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I see you're a template editor. If you know what you're doing, unlike me, perhaps the protection could be changed to let you edit it. You could request it at RfPP, or maybe if no one objects here Gadget or I could change it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

yes, I could fix it in a few seconds if the protection level were reduced to template editor ... Frietjes (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I see you asked at RfPP and it's been done. Thanks for offering to fix it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

yes, should now be fixed. Frietjes (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Font parameter

Two of the examples use the "font" parameter. It's not listed as one of the parameters and it seems to have no effect:

| font = Times

Might want to take those out. I would, but I don't have permissions to edit the template. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed them, but for future reference template documentation is usually transcluded from /doc subpages (e.g. Template:Quote box/doc), which are almost never protected. If you see the standard green documentation box, you can probably edit the documentation without an admin's help, and the documentation box includes edit links for that purpose. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 14:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much! — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Mobile

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to request this. The quote box width when viewed on Official Mobile English Wikipedia needs to be forced to 100%. This is a highly used template, so this issue needs to be fixed. BaldBoris 06:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

We're doing a pass over style issues right now and are noticing this; note that on desktop the use of percentage widths like '25%' is horrible as well if the window size is small; nobody should ever be setting a width like that because it's not really usable at various sizes. Template may need some cleaning to discard this parameter so people stop abusing it? Anyway.... we'll see if we can force something. --brion (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok we're putting in a quick fix: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/138389/1 --brion (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Feature request: multiple quotes

Hi guys. As a biographer and whatnot, I love {{quote box}}, and it's one of the best layout templates I've seen. I am converting all relevant quotes to it. Can we please add support for multiple quotes per box? I have a frequent need for that, like quote1= (which can be a synonym for quote=) and quote2=. Thanks. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 00:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Collapsible option

I just added |tclass= and |qclass= to make this work, but it would be good to be able to just say |collapsed=true and have the three necessary classes added automatically. any objection to making this work or alternative suggestions? Frietjes (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Interaction with floating images

I had to do this to keep the quote box from spilling under the image. any other ideas? Frietjes (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be the only reliable way to resolve the problem, as far as I can tell. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

{{Stack}} would probably have fixed it as well. But it now uses a naked <div> and styling which is not the best method. --  Gadget850 ^talk 22:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

See the talk page for the article in question. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

thank you. indeed stack would work since it wraps the object inside a table. Frietjes (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Dashes

SMcCandlish, I noticed on an article I added this to that it suddenly had two dashes, so I've reverted the recent changes. Sarah ^(talk) 21:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You're edit-warring through protection. How many editors will have to remove the dash manually because you've added one here? We don't know. Having the template-editor right doesn't mean you can revert over objections. Pinging Mr. Stradivarius. Sarah ^(talk) 21:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Please do not accuse people of "editwarring" just because you don't understand something. Like the fact that I commented out the auto-dash you objected to, and simply undid the slopping mass-reverting you executed on all the other template improvements. All you needed to do was comment out the dash.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The point of protecting a page is to secure stability. So if you edit through protection and you're reverted, you should go to talk and explain. Please explain the changes you made. Sarah ^(talk) 22:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I did go to talk and explain. That's why there's a subthread about the issue you raised.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Fixing the dash issue

This template, alone among the block and pull quote templates, was not auto-supplying the dash before the author. Consequently in some (not all) uses, various people have manually inserted one. These will need to be removed so the template can auto-insert one consistently with the other templates. There are three ways to do this, all kind of a pain in the butt:

1. Just have this template generate the dash, and let people fix the double dashes in each article as they run across them.
2. Remove all of them first, at the risk that people who don't understand what's going on revert a bunch of them, and we end up with double dashes anyway when enabling it in the template.
3. Replace all the in-situ dashes with a temporary template that does nothing but insert a dash; then simultaneously turn on the auto-dash in the quote box template (it's commented out for now) and blank the temporary dash template; then subst and delete the empty temporary dash template.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Better yet, add the dash in the template and use Module:String#replace to automatically remove manually inserted dashes. We might need some dedicated logic to catch things like —, but it's definitely doable. We could also add a tracking category to detect pages with unwanted dashes and then remove them before removing the dash logic from the template if we don't want it to be a permanent thing. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Curly quotes

In the Mary Howitt example in the template docs, is there a reason that curly quotes are used instead of straight ones? The Manual of Style generally discourages the use of curly quotes. Nick Number (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

As there have been no responses, I went ahead and replaced the curly quotes with straight ones. Nick Number (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Citations and signatures

Apparently, usage for the location of citations in quote boxes with signatures in them is very inconsistent; sometimes it's at the end of the quote itself, and sometimes it's at the end of the signature. What do you think? I think it should be at the end of the signature; the person and source that may be included are of obvious relevance to the citation itself, and it should thus come after them when included. Such usage would also make usage for this template consistent with that for {{quote}}, and I see no reason to draw a distinction between quote boxes and block quotations in general. Esszet (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Pull quote examples

Would it be okay if I rewrite the examples in the documentation to be pull quotes? Right now they're all blockquotes, and might be confusing editors into thinking this template is okay for blockquotes. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Not advised in articles? Huh?

This page states, "This template can be used for block quotations (long quotes set off from the main text). However, this use is not advised in articles."

So while this page states that this template can be used for block quotations, it's also advising against doing do? What pages is it to be used for if not for articles?

For some articles, especially television and film articles, the quote box is preferred in certain instances because it saves space and is less distracting. Having the quote on the side with a box also allows for more of "choose to read this" feel instead of "do read this" feel. See its use in this section of the Avatar (2009 film) article or in this section of the Captain America: The First Avenger article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Setting two short quotes in the one quote box

Does anyone know whether it's possible to have a quote + source followed by a second quote + source all set inside the same quote box? I'm sure I've seen this happening in a couple of articles, years back, but there's no mention here in the template documentation. Maybe it's only possible using a different template ... Any help would be much appreciated (because I'm utterly useless with templates). Many thanks, JG66 (talk) 06:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I suggest to include this in Category:Box templates

85.245.161.25 (talk) 11:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

List display bug

Example 1

• foo
• bar
• bas

Example 2

• foo
• bar
• bas

Each of the above examples includes a list. Only in the second case, when the list is preceded by a <br>, does the list display correctly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Not semantic

Hi, in order to properly reflect HTML semantics, this template should contain a blockquote instead of a generic div. This is important for accessibility purposes as for reusers of content. Opencooper (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Fix for html5-misnesting bug

If you add a newline after the </div> in }}</div>{{#if:{{{author|{{{source|}}}}}}{{{2|}}}{{{3|}}}|, you will be able to remove the html5-misnesting error being reported in https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:LintErrors/html5-misnesting&namespace=0. SSastry (WMF) (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Done, thanks. I was wondering what was causing that one in quote box. --Izno (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

TemplateStyles

I've prepped the sandbox to make use of templatestyles. This should eventually help with this problem. Anyone see a remaining problem ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry TheDJ, but this [2] screwed something up, as seen at User:EEng#Museum_of_Distorted_Quotations_Taken_Out_Of_Context. Everthing's left-aligned now. EEng 03:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  Nope, it was left aligned before too (You can take the old revision of the template, edit it and then put your userpage in the "Preview page with this template"). It's just that before the quotes would hug the sides of the box, now they hug the sides of the content being quoted (Which actually seems more correct to me) —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  TheDJ, I can't preview as you suggest because this template is protected, but there's no question something's wrong now. At least two things have changed:

  • the source line is now left-aligned despite salign=right, and
  • if quoted=yes then the first and last lines of the quoted material have screwed up interline spacing; I think maybe the type of fatquotes has changed as well though I'm not sure.

  There may be some platform dependency involved (I'm on Chrome under Windows 10) but you need to trust me on this and revert. SMcCandlish, help me out here. EEng 11:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  The linter that Mediawiki uses changed about a month ago, and all kinds of stuff is "breaking", though what's really happening is that broken/quirk code is actually being interpreted more strictly. The general solution is to re-code things differently, with stricter markup and more specific CSS. As for this exact issue, I'm not sure what to tell you, other than it's safer to use inline CSS to position things that to depend on a template's CSS (and how MW interprets it) remaining the same forever; so, you probably want to use a styled div to get your layout exactly "so".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  You're not talking to me, are you? I don't want the layout exactly "so", just the template to behave as documented i.e. when salign=right then the source is right-aligned, and so on. So please, can someone revert and do whatever they were trying do again, but more carefully? EEng 12:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  |salign=right is working for me. to align the quote within the box, |qalign=center is also working for me. Frietjes (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  There may be some kind of container interaction problem. Centring with CSS is notoriously nitpicky, and stuff that used to work doesn't work so well, in every context, after the linter changed (just in most contexts). It will likely take some trial and error to figure out under what circumstances it behaves differently now. It's not going to just be this template; it's not like it has implemented some unique centring method with complex JavaScript; it's just CSS, so any container using similar CSS is going to do similar things in the same context. We just need to figure out what the context is and document it and how to work around it (like we have with other issues, e.g. block quotations not indenting when to the right of a float image, and other such bugs (see section at {{Block indent}} about this kind of thing, and another whole page of rendering bug issues about description lists, linked off of MOS:GLOSSARY.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  Well it's all a great mystery, since in the last 1/2 day the alignment problem has fixed itself (despite that there's been no change to this template) but the line-spacing problem remains. EEng 02:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Broken bullet list

I've tried to use this template with a bullet list at Redneck Revolt#Views, in order to set off a list that would break the flow of the prose if it appeared in the article body. Ten elevenths of the list looks good, but the top bullet isn't showing – instead of a bullet it's just an asterisk. This seems to happen even if I put a line break or two before it. Can this be avoided? Or, alternatively, is there another similar template that would be better suited to a list? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Arms & Hearts: This problem occurs because template parameters have leading and trailing whitespace trimmed automatically. Thus your first bullet-markup asterisk is being evaluated as if it weren't at the start of a new line. The easiest workaround is to use something like {{ulist}} to generate the list. I'll apply that to the example momentarily. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 18:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Great stuff! Thanks for the very speedy reply and fix. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)