Template talk:Blockquote

Intended use?
What is the relation between this template and Quote? What is the intended use case? –LPfi (talk) 09:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I remember a discussion about trying to change the looks of "quote" to this template, but not many users liked this looks, so I rather created a separate template. And there was also the concern that quote may mess up some of our userpages (also, it's hard to get the markup on mobile). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I worry that we will have some articles using this template and other pages using quote. If we are to keep both templates, what template to use where should be documented. Layout of articles should be consistent. On user pages, layout is up to the user, so if this is for use in user space only, I don't care much, but then it should perhaps be moved to User blockquote. Anyway, intended use should be documented. –LPfi (talk) 10:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is currently used in any articles, it's just being used in discussions when it doesn't look appropriate to use quote (after the ridiculous result at User talk:82.3.185.12). Quote still does the job for that. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Why wouldn't it have been better to edit the "quote" template? You could still move this to that template. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * This is too simple, it doesn't do what quote does. And if you really need &lt;blockquote>, then this is better, as the other template will change from time to time. to reflect our preferences, and there is no guarantee about what it will look like. –LPfi (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks. What are the differences in function between the two templates? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * This one just puts &lt;blockquote> tags around the parameter. quote has parameters for author and source also, and handles the layout of putting all three on the page, not relying on how the browser handles the tag (we should perhaps use the blockquote tag in that template also, for screen readers, but we still want more control). –LPfi (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm still not convinced I fully understand the difference, but I'm OK with understanding this much. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Still one more try: the blockquote tags (which this template inserts) just tell the browser that the paragraph inside them is a quote. It does nothing to specify layout, and the author and source have to be specified separately. The quote template specifies the layout, perhaps also telling the browser that this is a quote (it should, I didn't check). –LPfi (talk) 04:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Because the other one was quite centred which works for articles. Perhaps see Retiring abroad. If we used this template, I can't imagine how it looks. But quote doesn't really work well in discussions. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I understand now, but could I see an example of this template in action? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * This template is currently used in the pub. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. I don't think I'd want it to become standard, but if you want to use it, I don't feel it has to be deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd actually prefer to use the plain markup (with ), but it's quite hard to get that on mobile. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the mobile interface for Wikivoyage is not very good. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Also hard to get the ' markup on mobile as well, but that's what the support and oppose templates now do. But we still don't have a vk nor a vd template which I would want to create for the same reason. Only thing that's stopping me is the criticism that I'd get from doing that. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What do those stand for? My association with "vd" is "venereal disease"... Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure, but I presume the commons template means "voting keep" and "voting delete". You know Commons much more than I (to the point, where you've got more edits there then I have on all WMF projects). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Such shortcuts are problematic, as those not knowing them cannot make the connection between the vote and the corresponding wikitext. They also clutter the namespace: is this the most important use for that abbreviation? I'd be fine with a voting delete outputting "delete" for use by mobile users, or a boldface, also handling the markup problem. –LPfi (talk) 09:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * To be honest, if I could, I'd be doing it right now, if it were not for the discussion about my templates in the pub right now. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, probably a good idea to keep a low profile on template creation until some consensus is reached and the dust has settled. –LPfi (talk) 11:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, probably a good idea to keep a low profile on template creation until some consensus is reached and the dust has settled. –LPfi (talk) 11:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)