Template talk:Q

Terrible
This template is terrible. I'm not sure where the underlying form is, but wherever it is:
 * (a) I, personally, would argue against use of the pedantic and  format at all.
 * (b) Failing that, the format should be able to be toggled from one format to the other.
 * (c) Regardless of the community consensus on the above, neither should display by default. Neither one should display for most entries and whichever (or both) should be available only in situations (such as classical Latin quotations) where there is a real possibility of confusion whether a date might refer to  or.
 * (d) Regardless of the community consensus on the above, the current formatting is atrocious. It's fine that the date to display in bold but there's no reason for the era to do so and certainly no reason to use FULL BOLD CAPITALS for it. 403 CE is fine; better still 403  (not that should display at all by default).

— LlywelynII  08:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, most of the initial languages coded to use this template are classical languages, e.g. Ancient Greek, Latin, Old Armenian. Hence, the distinction between BC/BCE and AD/CE.  Personally, I don't have a strong preference between the two, but CE/BCE do seem to be more common in professional academic publications.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

year
The year= parameter does not work for me. --Vahag (talk) 10:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This happens only with languages that have an own Module:Quotations/xxx/data, such as Module:Quotations/hy/data. --Vahag (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Problem with anchors
I'm linking to Herodotus Histories 1.19.3 in, but the section title doesn't work. It tries to link to the anchor el:s:Ιστορίαι (Ηροδότου)/Κλειώ, when the actual anchor is el:s:Ιστορίαι (Ηροδότου)/Κλειώ. Could this be fixed? — Eru·tuon 23:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed. DTLHS (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Display forms
In cases where there are multiple citations from the same work, it would be nice if there were another possibility for form that removes the date, and perhaps also the author. For instance, in a full list of occurrences of in the Iliad and Odyssey at Citations:ῥοδοδάκτυλος, the list would look neater if 800 BCE – 600 BCE,  and perhaps also, only displayed for the first quotation from each of the works. I'm not sure what the parameter(s) should be named, though. Maybe ibid.? Though if that was the parameter, it might make more sense if date, author, and name of work were removed. — Eru·tuon 21:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

RFM discussion: February–May 2016
differs only from which is confusing and should be remedied. The name is short enough, especially for a template that isn't used that frequently (compare ). —CodeCat 21:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Using as the full name is OK as long as the change quote -> blockquote is accepted (although that should have been RFM'd). However I'd suggest  as a shorter alias. Benwing2 (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I oppose this renaming. For starters, has only been here for one month and is a redirect (to ), whereas  has been here since December 2013 and is a true template. I use  all the time in Ancient Greek entries, which language has (as far as I'm aware) the most well-developed Quotations data module of any language on this project.  is much more useful than / and this project as a whole would benefit greatly from its increased use in entries for languages other than Ancient Greek. If this confusion needs to be remedied at all, move  to  or such (though I don't know why  isn't convenient enough). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh look, already exists! In that case, either delete  or leave things as they are. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. - -sche (discuss) 04:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per I.S.M.E.T.A. For the record, was created by Daniel Carrero on 28 January 2016‎. A recent vote showed general preference for short template names; this goes in the opposite direction. Using AWB, I find  transcluded on 1488 pages. Note that  was recently renamed to  by Dixtosa, on 28 May 2015‎. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Like I.S.M.E.T.A., I constantly use to give examples of Ancient Greek words. — Eru·tuon 17:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. I would be OK with getting rid of both and forcing the use of  and .  Saving a few keystrokes results in confusion and illegible wiki markup.  - TheDaveRoss 17:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. per ISMETA. — JohnC5 19:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. --WikiTiki89 19:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Opposite of TheDaveRoss: it's fine to move this unhelpfully named template to something more descriptive but short forms should be maintained. — LlywelynII  20:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Enosh (talk) 12:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Ancient Greek data
I don't know who entered the data for Ancient Greek quotations, but they haven't been researched very carefully.
 * Could you provide any more information? — JohnC5 16:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

RFC discussion: April 2016
As seen on Донецкая Народная Республика, this template adds "CE" after recent dates. This is possibly because it was initially designed for use on entries in ancient languages that were spoken a few hundred years on either side of the start of the common era. However, "CE" is unnecessary on more recent dates (and POV, as "AD" would also be: let's not wade into that issue when we don't have to); it should be suppressed. In general, the template is poorly named and the introduction of yet another quotation template with a different style was a questionable move. - -sche (discuss) 18:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I accidentally changed a load of these from to  as it has the same title, apart from capitalization as . For which I apologize but I have no idea that this existed. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it's so confusing for and  to mean different things. As for "CE", I think we should use it for all dates before 1500, and drop it for those after. I don't see a POV issue with it, in fact the whole point of CE is to avoid POV issues, but regardless, as long as it is tagged with the CSS class , we have a preference to change it to display AD. --WikiTiki89 15:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no non-NPOV way to refer to the eras; AD/BC is one POV, CE/BCE is another one. I think 1500 is too late to stop labeling years; I'd use it only up till AD 999. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree on both points, particularly that 1500 is too late. I'd stop it even earlier than 999, personally, but I can live with adding the label up to (and stopping at) 999. In my opinion, the ideal would be if the labels were only applied to (or could be shut off for) specified languages: that way we wouldn't have an Old High German entry with quotations from 997 and 1002 where one was labelled and the other wasn't. - -sche (discuss) 02:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have added an AD_limit variable of 999 to Module:Quotations/date validation. DTLHS (talk) 04:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Misnested tags
This template causes misnested  tags, and it seems to do it without regard to the language code. Please fix it. This single fix will solve about 40% of the misnested tags lint errors in Wiktionary! —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As the most recent major contributors. - TheDaveRoss  23:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you suggest what should be done, specifically? DTLHS (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not the OP here, but based on what I can read, line 152 inserts  but line 183 inserts  (they should be other way around), while the transliteration under line 159 inserts  but never closes them. S URJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 23:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Edited. DTLHS (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I am still seeing errors in Lint, which is either caching or I have still missed something. I may take a closer look tomorrow if nobody else does so before I can. S URJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 23:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * DTLHS: That seems to have taken care of it; the error is gone from the pages I checked, viz: biocolyta, caput (2), cuisine, datum. Thanks!
 * Surjection: Thank you for your support for DTLHS to fix it. LintHint shows the errors are gone, so now we just have to wait for the system to process everything, unless you want to do a null edit on hundreds or thousands of pages.
 * I strongly recommend LintHint, and to make it work in items not on the main article namespace, see instructions at Wikipedia:Wikipedia talk:Linter, under "Well, the following steps should work". But LintHint wouldn't have helped much to fix this error, because the real action is in Module:Quotations, and LintHint does't work in modules.—Anomalocaris (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The template is bad
See saporus with:
 * d. 1164, Hugh of Amiens, Dialogorum libri VIII 1241A, (as cited in "saporus", Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources):

category
Give nocat please as in other quotation templates, needed at where the Punic term is in an Ancient Greek text but the page is not a page of Category:Ancient Greek terms with quotations. Fay Freak (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. I finally got to this after seeing this discussion. — Eru·tuon 09:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

url
Well the template is not that bad, but of course I don’t like that some parameter names are needlessly different to the quotation templates I use more often; and it does not support url so one adds urls with ugly hacks. Fay Freak (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Borken
I tried to fix the citation in haud (for whatever reason, it appeared as empty on a saved page, and as bad argument #1 to 'lc' (string expected, got nil) in the preview), and the info about data modules is false. Neither Plaut. nor  'Plaut.' , nor even ['Plaut.'] redirects to Wikipedia. I had to look around and find a working example, and it's necessary to use  . 89.64.69.83 20:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)