Template talk:Quote

Problems with links

This quote box apparently does not function with links included? Any clues? Including references is a standard part of quoting.--Ashcraft - (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2012 (PDT)

Can you show where it does not seem to be working? Thanks. ~ Webster (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2012 (PDT)

I put a few examples on the sandbox page...--Ashcraft - (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2012 (PDT)

Test

I made a test and apparently it works:

E. Either you live by faith or you are a rational thinker.test link

hugs!

Luiz Alexandre Silva 09:55, 24 June 2012 (PDT)

My clue is: We must include the "www." before the url address. See the Help:Sandbox page. Hugs, Luiz Alexandre Silva 12:48, 24 June 2012 (PDT)

Solution

The examples on the sandbox all use {{cquote}}, so I thought at first that that might be the problem. On further consideration, however, I'm pretty sure it's an issue with using the equals sign in the text. Mediawiki interprets that as an assignment of parameter value, unless it's hidden somehow, such as by putting it in reference tags. Also, you can override it by assigning the quote content explicitly as the first parameter:

• {{Quote|Edit this page link: http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=Template_talk:Quote&action=edit}}
• {{Quote|Edit this page link: <ref>http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=Template_talk:Quote&action=edit</ref>}}
• {{Quote|1=Edit this page link: http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=Template_talk:Quote&action=edit}}

{{{1}}}

Edit this page link:

Edit this page link: http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=Template_talk:Quote&action=edit

The first example tells Mediawiki that we are calling {{Quote}} with a named parameter, "Edit this page link: http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title" with the value "Template_talk:Quote&action=edit", and no unnamed parameters. Since {{{1}}} does not reference a defined parameter, it's treated as plain text, and displayed as the apparent intended text in the div box. ~ Webster (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2012 (PDT)

Alternative styles and indenting

This template (then called {{to quote}}) started life as a template specifically for quoting TalkOrigins claims in articles responding to those claims, but then became a more general quote template. The problem with this is if we want to include quotes in such response articles that are not quotes being responded to, but third-party quotes supporting the response, then the two sorts of quotes are indistinguishable.

The documentation mentioned that this template should be used only for quotes, as "future modifications will likely describe the contents of the box as being a quote". I don't know what the author of that had in mind, but after six years, it hadn't happened. However, a strict use of HTML means that it identifies the structure of documents, by identifying different types of text, such as headings, body text, and—relevant here—quotes. So it seems proper that this template use HTML <blockquote> tags rather than the generic <div> tags around the quotes. This, at least in a minimal sense, fulfils the stated intention of describing the contents of the box as being a quote.

By default, text contained within <blockquote> tags is indented, as this is a common way of formatting quotes in printed documents. So this suggested a minimal way of distinguishing between two different types of quotes. The {{to quote}} template could be changed from a redirect to this template to calling this template with a parameter set to have no indent, whereas "normal" quotes can be indented.

The problem is that many quotes that should (by this logic) use the {{to quote}} template actually use the {{quote}} template, so, until they are all fixed, there is going to be a mixture of indented and non-indented quotes on such pages. However, as the only difference is an indent, hopefully this won't look too odd.

Philip J. Rayment 23:05, 3 October 2012 (PDT)

Since we have response articles for more than just Talk.Origins, perhaps we should come up with a more generic name than {{to quote}} for quotes from anti-creationist sites. I think it would also be good to have a stronger differentiation than just a lack of indentation. ~ Webster (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2012 (PST)

No issue with another name, assuming you or someone can think of a suitable one. Styling is not really my thing, so I've no issue with a stronger differentiation either, except for my point above about it looking odd if and while we have a mixture of templates that should be the same style. Philip J. Rayment 04:54, 28 December 2012 (PST)