Wikiquote talk:Templates

Spacing between quotes
This seems inconsistent. Should there be single or double line spacing between separate quotes? I'm specifically referring to poetry here. I can't see anything in layout guides, but please point me to the right place, if it's there. Tyrenius 22:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know of anything that specifically spells it out, but the templates all show just a single line between quotes, which is the convention I have always followed. ~ UDScott 23:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think double looks more attractive. Also with poetry as in John Betjeman where there are two stanzas quoted, there is a double space between them, so to then have a single space between quotes looks odds. By double space I mean two carriage returns, i.e. a space, as opposed to one carriage return, i.e. text continues on the next line, so it would be more accurate to say should there be a space or not? Tyrenius 23:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with double-spacing for poetry and have been in the habit of using it for poetry and drama. There's no inherent reason, it would appear to me, why poetry and prose need be spaced alike.  We already have the practice of separating film dialogue with dividing lines, which is an acknowledgement that they otherwise tend to look cramped and run together.  Prose forms blocks of print which can be fairly easily distinguished from each other in bulleted form, but the shorter lines of dialogue and verse don't separate as well when using the very same format. Perhaps dividing lines would be the solution for pages of poetry and drama; but I'm inclined to feel that double-spacing looks even better for them.  It also deals rather more attractively with the distinction, as Tyrenius has mentioned, of spacing between quotes versus spacing within quotes with two stanzas.  - InvisibleSun 00:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Dialog separation by half-width lines came about after months of wrangling with many different attempts to provide separation within the various constraints of Wikimedia software (vintage 2004-5; see Talk:Television shows/Dialog formatting, Wikiquote talk:Templates/Archive, and Wikiquote talk:Templates/TV shows for some of the history). Poetry has similar problems. I am generally against using excess whitespace to solve a semantic problem like quote separation, but agree that our standard system is less than desirable. I would recommend investigating the use of the new Poem Extension ( ), as Aphaia has suggested elsewhere. We could possibly tweak its CSS style to produce a useful presentation with a minimum of kludgy edit-time work. Furthermore, if this can be made to work, we might be able to revisit all the annoying dialog kludges. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The Poem Extension looks very handy for setting out poems, but doesn't solve the problem of separating quotes. Doesn't the half-width line take up just as much space anyway? A bit of extra space is more aesthetically attractive, gives quotes room to breath, rather than having them pile on top of each other. It is also the most obvious and natural solution. Tyrenius 01:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the half-width line takes less vertical space while providing a clear division between segments. I'm thinking a bit of  CSS tweaking could provide adequate separation without pushing the subsequent source lines away from their associated quote. I know I said elsewhere that I'm concerned about too much CSS work by too few Wikiquotians, but if we get this right once, it can probably last us a long time without ongoing maintenance. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Tyrenius: If the Poem extension tags its output with a unique CSS class (I don't recall any more whether it does), then it's trivial to add a bit to the common style sheets that says "stuff in this class gets a little bit more trailing space". In general, a bit more semantic markup would do Wikiquote good (and would also enable experimentation with different display styles).  Jeff: I would probably fiddle with the bottom rather than the top, to avoid odd-looking results when the previous paragraph is a heading.  121a0012 01:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So right now how should poems and divisions between quotes be done? Tyrenius 02:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you can work out the kinks with the poem extension (I still don't think it looks right when there is a bulleted list of quotes), that would be fine. One other thing that I usually do to separate stanzas is to use , which gives a better looking line break than two carriage returns does. ~ UDScott 11:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the problem with  is that it generates a div element, not a span element. This appears to be incompatible with use within the ul.li elements that wiki bullets generate. In fact, in one test, I found that:
 * bizarrely creates an empty element,, then proceeds to close the list, and then displays the kludgily formatted "poetry". There are complications here that clearly weren't anticipated by the developers working on  , probably because no one here gave them any input. (I wasn't even aware they were considering it, let alone implementing it.) I suppose the next thing to do is to file a bug report to get this fixed. Or completely change our formatting strategy (given that poetry can be quoted in any article genre). I suspect the first will be easier to accomplish. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * bizarrely creates an empty element,, then proceeds to close the list, and then displays the kludgily formatted "poetry". There are complications here that clearly weren't anticipated by the developers working on  , probably because no one here gave them any input. (I wasn't even aware they were considering it, let alone implementing it.) I suppose the next thing to do is to file a bug report to get this fixed. Or completely change our formatting strategy (given that poetry can be quoted in any article genre). I suspect the first will be easier to accomplish. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) There doesn't seem to be a consensus on this at the moment. I tried , but it didn't seem to do anything at all (not recognised as a command). I got a bit muddled earlier: double spacing is actually 3 carriage returns (2 for the spacing and 1 to start the line of text). I think horizontal lines between poetry quotes are aesthetically unattractive, particularly between short quotes, as the page becomes full of lines. I've done a test page: User:Tyrenius/Poetry spacing. Between quotes, there's hardly any difference between no space and single space. The indented bullet point creates more space above itself than just a normal carriage return. I go with InvisibleSun on using double spacing as in John Betjeman. Compare 2 version of the same article, John Baine, with double spacing and single spacing. Surely the double looks better, separates the quotes clearly, and is easier to read, as opposed to the big block of text which results from single spacing. Different browsers may of course give different results: I am using the latest version of Internet Explorer. Tyrenius 02:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This issue has come up again, with respect to the page for Cat's Cradle (see Talk:Cat's Cradle). We did not seem to arrive at a consensus in the above discussion, so I'm raising it again. Where do we stand on this issue? ~ UDScott 21:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ibid and other formatting problems
moved from Village pump

The use of the Latin term ibid (for ibidem, "the same place") is one that I feel should be heavily discouraged for Wikiquote, because not all users will immediately understand the term, and even those who do can sometimes fail to observe its use on a page and the breakup of proper citations can easily result. I have just corrected one article where a user had gathered "ibid" comments into their own section, apparently taking this as a "source".

I also feel that the practice of placing citatations in footnotes rather than long established norms here of either in-line or in section headings should also be discouraged. The use of footnotes makes sense on Wikipedia to preserve the narrative flow of articles, but here it does not. Here they can be a major inconvenience for the reader, preventing an immediate grasp of the dates and citations of statements quoted from being observed directly from their placement on the page, and very often the inconvenient jumping from quoute to citation could easily result in a misreading or a confusion of sources.

I also feel editor-created "category" headings within an author's page should be discouraged, especially for sourced quotes unless there seems to be a general agreement that the subject probably warrants some separation for that particular author. I do not feel it should be commonly used and that normally a straight chronological presentations of quotations or sections should occur. Even with unsourced quotes a "categorization" rather than a sourcing of them should be discouraged. Mahatma Gandhi is one page that comes to mind, as one with many quotes that have been heavily "categorized" by editor-perceived "subject", and all too little sourcing has been done. I hope to be able to do a little more work on at least a few of the pages that I am aware have these formatting or organizational problems sometime in the next week. ~ Kalki 03:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Kalki that ibid is unwise at Wikiquote. We have no formal requirements (yet) for ordering quotes, so we cannot assume any order that would allow us to provide a full source for the "first" quote and then use ibid, which assumes a specific order. We have a tendency to forget, or not to even realize, that anything we add to an article, including order, may be changed by someone else later, often with good reason.


 * Under our formatting system, individual quotes are separated, so there is not prose to interrupt with source information. (This is not only unlikely to change, but will probably become more pronounced over time, as we come up with ways to establish (or simulate) atomicity of quotes and set off quotes and sources.) However, there is some good reason to use some of Wikipedia's footnoting in some circumstances. Each source line should include as specific a citation of the passage as possible — e.g., edition, publication date, and page (or at least chapter) for books; episode title and number/airdate and scene for TV shows; etc. — to make it reasonable easy for editors to verify and correct quotes. If there are many quotes from a single work, this becomes quite cumbersome. A brief description of the source (e.g., "Midnight (1989), p. 125") followed by a full footnoted citation can reduce this burden. This system is flexible enough to be used either with or without headings for the individual works (with headings, one need only cite the page after the first entry, ordering by page), but it is prone to some of the ordering problems mentioned above. I agree with Kalki at least that it is overkill for many situations and is not sufficient for our sourcing needs in one way especially: we absolutely must make proper sourcing clear for each quote. As I've said elsewhere, Wikiquotians should feel in their bones the need to include sources with every quote they add. Adding full source information under each quote makes it easier for editors to absorb that principle. Therefore, footnoting has both uses and problems, and it should probably be used sparingly at most until we develop our sourcing practices more.


 * Finally, I also agree that categorization people's quotes by topic/category is bad. As logical as it may seem, it is far too prone to ambiguity, subjective interpretation, and POV problems. Chronological and per-work ordering is inherently NPOV and should be used wherever possible. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * When unsourced quotes have subdivisions by topic, as on the H. L. Mencken page, it tends to leave the impression that these quotes have already been dealt with. They've been labeled and placed on a shelf; no further need to work on them.  It blurs the distinction between sourced and unsourced.  Since an unsourced quote has not even been established as belonging to the person whose page it is on, it should be left in alphabetical order until someone manages to source it. Related to the problem of footnoting is the practice of editors who link to pages as a substitute for naming sources.  It assumes that we will find the sources of quotes by following the links provided.  The obvious problem with this is that links can eventually become broken or inoperative.  Links shouldn't be a replacement for sourcing in articles.  Their purpose is to allow readers to see the text from which the quote is derived. It not only bolsters the credibility of the sourcing but lets readers explore the text.  - InvisibleSun 22:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

So what do we use instead of Ibid? Do we have to repeat the title of a work several times, or do we make a subsection for each work cited more than once? Both seem rather cumbersome.--Poetlister 20:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I generally use a subsection if there are going to be four or more quotes from the source (perhaps whatever convention we want to use should be put into the template?). Otherwise, I use a shortened source description for the second or third time a source is quoted from, with the full source cited the first time it is quoted from. ~ UDScott 20:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Anime and manga articles
Aphaia and I have been talking over at the Village pump after another user and I had an edit war about whether or not character names from anime and manga series should be spelt in the English format (given name, followed by surname) or in the original Japanese format (surname, followed by given name), and we've come to the agreement on using the English format, followed by the name's kanji and romanji in paranthesis (example: "Naruto Uzumaki (うずまきナルト, Uzumaki Naruto)" ). Also, we're adding to each section so pinpointing one specific section in a link is a thousand times easier than having to go to a certain article, and copy and paste the header. Is there any way someone can incorporate this into the project page for me? Thanks in advance.

Oh, and as an added note, this might work for other Japanese-related articles as well. If you want, you can say that instead of limiting this to just anime and manga pages. Thanks again! // Decaimiento  Poético  20:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Translations in film
The current format for translations is this: * Foreign language quote. This dose not fit well into films. How should conversations be translated? Here's a proposal: :character1: (...foreign language quote...)
 * Translation: English translation
 * Author and source
 * Translation: English Translation
 * character2: (...foreign language quote...)
 * Translation: English Translation
 * Author and source

--Steinninn 00:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why isn't it simply:

* Foreign language quote.
 * Translation: English translation Author and source
 * --Steinninn 01:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't prefer to use ref in Wikiquote. It reduce the easiness of reference to the author, specially in a large articles. I think the current format is better in this regard. As for film, your suggestion is interesting, but who is the "author" of film?   --Aphaia 15:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No brackets in section names.
I applaud your intent but I think you're going about it the wrong way. If not the wrong way most certainly the backwards way. Would it not be prudent to first alter the templates which explicitly include square brackets in section headers? See Templates/TV_shows as a prime example. That might be why an increasing number of pages are doing it. -- Greyed 03:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedias who
Does wikiquote have anything similar to wikipedia's who? It would be needed IMHO. 193.166.138.183 10:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We do now: see Template:Who. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change
The current format is


 * quote
 * source

which produces 2 bullets. I think it would be nicer to just bullet the actual quote as in


 * quote
 * source

What do you think? 84.253.244.62 15:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)