Template talk:quote-book

Compliance with WT:QUOTE
It was mentioned that this doesn't comply with WT:QUOTE. If this is the case, and if it matters, hopefully someone can point out the problem; I know that it's no worse than what I or many other editors produce by hand, and at least any problems can be cleaned up in a single edit rather than hundreds. -- Visviva 06:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Feedback
I love this template. It reduces the strain of having to focus on how to properly format the quotation. With this template, I just fill-in a questionnaire, kind of. --Daniel Polansky 08:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * How can this be made to give a better result than appears at Citations:Ucalegon? DCDuring TALK 00:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * By using |indent2=*:, as mentioned above. H. (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But still better, of course, would be a test for the Citations namespace and adding proper indent automatically. Which technician is up to this? H. (talk) 09:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Done; probably not the ideal solution but it should work for now. Will need to fix this for other quote-x templates also. -- Visviva 15:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Volume parameter needed, chapter output wrong
Often large works are divided into volumes, a parameter for this is needed.

Furthermore, often chapters only have a number, in that case, the output of the template is strange. One should distinguish between chapter-title= and chapter=. H. (talk) 09:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For chapter numbers, you can use section=Chapter 4, which I'll grant you is a bit backwards. Will add volume parameter shortly, along with some others; I had simply been treating it "volume X" as part of the title, which is fairly common practice IMX but certainly not ideal. -- Visviva 15:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Done now (some time ago). -- Visviva 14:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "section=" does not work at this time. DCDuring TALK 16:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Display of year vs. year published
Shouldn't "year_published" be displayed a the head of the citation line in bold rather than "year" (as the documentation defines them) for translations? Or perhaps the documentation should be changed so that "year" should be the year of the translation, and "year_published" the publication of the original. DCDuring TALK 20:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:reference-book
—Ruakh TALK 18:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Italics
I think that the quoted text would be better presented in italics. --Jerome Potts 18:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

year_published, year ordering
When both are present, shouldn't the year published come before the year? The current ordering seems misleading for translations- for example:



The actual translation was created in 1794, which seems more important for scortation (an English entry) than the date of the original Latin. Nadando 21:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

more commas
This template produces an extra comma after a date, eg at [[atheist]] it produces "1997 July 6,, Studies in Doctrine: Understanding Doctrine" where the ideal format is "1997 July 6, Studies in Doctrine: Understanding Doctrine". This occurs only after a month or a month-and-date is given; it does not occur if only a year is given. It is possibly related to the comma bug mentioned early on this talkpage. - -sche (discuss) 19:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It has to do with the author= stuff being broken. I'll see what I can do. &mdash;Internoob 02:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash;Internoob 02:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! - -sche (discuss) 03:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :/ ~ Robin 08:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Some suggested changes
Hi, could the following changes be made to the template?


 * There should be a comma before the word editor (that is, "George Crabb, editor"), as shown in the example below.
 * Instead of "edition 2nd", the template should indicate "2nd edition".
 * When the parameter pages is used, the template should display "pages" rather than "page".



Smuconlaw (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅. If any entries used the wording "edition 2" (rather than "edition 2nd"), this change alters them to "2 edition", which is suboptimal but tolerable IMO. - -sche (discuss) 23:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Not sure how common "edition 2" is – I would have thought it is much more common to use an ordinal number. Smuconlaw (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Why is "year" not one of the first paramaters? and other related questions
I'd been putting "year" before anything else in this template, and I just realized that it doesn't work that way (at least not anymore--I'm fairly sure I was able to do that in the past). What I mean is that I was writing, but that now returns "(Can we date this quote)" and the author ended up being ignored (but not all the time), for some reason. Instead, it seems that I have to put the year further back in the template, which makes absolutely no sense, considering that it's what displays first in the actual output.

To see an example, see this revision of "klatawaw", where I just noticed it. I'm fairly certain that it displayed properly when I created the page, so I'm curious to know what the problem is now, and why "year=" cannot be entered as the first paramater (and why one of the authors didn't show up).... Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It's because there was a typo in the template. Here is the original template:
 *  
 * If you look carefully, before "page=204" there are two pipe characters instead of one ("||"). Thus, the first pipe character was interpreted as the first unnamed parameter ( ), which is for the year. Since no value was given, the template interpreted this as a failure to provide the year. Currently, the unnamed parameter takes priority over any value given for year, but I will fix this to prevent such accidents. Also, see the changes I've made at the klatawaw page. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I think that extra pipe was do to a misinterpretation by me of how the template worked. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Chapter after name of work?
The current placement of chapter seems awkward to me, shouldn't it be after the name of the work? For example:
 * Year - Author Name, Title of Work, chapter # ...

The order should be related to the importance of the information, and surely the title is more important than the chapter or page number. - TheDaveRoss 14:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the aim was to align our templates with . Also, I believe many citation formats place the chapter in front of the title. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * While I am generally in favor of consistency and adhering to broader standards, in this case the standards seem wrong. We also deviate in other ways (such as putting the year first) to accommodate our particular needs, this seems like a place where that is appropriate.  I think I prefer keeping the author and title together, and then adding the information about location of the word within the work in increasing order of specificity (Volume, Part, Chapter, Section, Page, Paragraph/Stanza/Line) or similar. - TheDaveRoss 15:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can start a wider discussion at the Beer Parlour? — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

WTF
What's going on here??? Why do they all say today's date beside each year? I didn't arbitrarily add that date and when I press control F, I can't find the keywords "27" anywhere in the wiki markup. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Use the year parameter if you don't have a specific date. DTLHS (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The date parameter makes use of the wikitext function to format dates. If one only specifies a year, the function adds to it today's date. Don't ask me why, but that's how it's programmed to work. As DTLHS mentioned above, if only specifying a year, use year. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Categorisations
Should this template add to categories, e.g. "X terms with quotations"? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The template doesn’t recognize languages at the moment, and I’m personally not sure how to do that as I’m unfamiliar with Lua and the language module(s). I support the idea if someone is willing to work on the template. — SGconlaw (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * you don't need them. You just need to make quote-meta use quote. See User:Alexis Jazz/Sandbox and User:Alexis Jazz/Sandbox/qm for example. (see for the example in action) You need to add " |language =  " to quote-book and fuck quite a bit with quote-meta. Indentation is a bit broken in my example, so you'll need to fix that. I got rid of the brackets=on rubble, only 91 pages use it anyway and it seems to be utterly useless. Alexis Jazz (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The parameter brackets is intended for less common cases where the quotation is provided to illustrate a term other than the entry which sheds light on the entry, or where the entry is a mention rather than a use. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * On the rather small number of pages that use it I just find it confusing and strange. I suppose the functionality could be kept, but I stripped it because it was difficult enough to make it work as it is. Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Then you would need to add language parameters to all existing uses of first. DTLHS (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Rather than use which is formatted differently from the other   templates, I think it would be better if a free-standing language module were created that could be used in different templates. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please explain what you mean, that doesn't make sense to me. DTLHS (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant that it would be useful to have a module the sole job of which is to convert language codes into categories. Such a module could be invoked from within any template, and would generate an appropriate language category, e.g., if the template contained a line like " ", the module would then generate " ". Having such a free-standing or independent module would be useful, as it could then be used by many different templates. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * See Module:languages. DTLHS (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, let me look into that. — SGconlaw (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think does what you want. — Eru·tuon 06:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * that would possibly be better, but who is gonna do that? I just offered something that appears to work with the advantage of actually existing. Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this would be well within the capability of editors like and  who have worked on Module:usex. It's a question of whether they have the time and inclination to work on it at the moment. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess, but that's only 8 templates. Any non-English main entries that use them indirectly should be checked/have parameter added. (could maybe be done by a bot?) Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No it's not 8 templates, it's every page that uses those templates. DTLHS (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No it's just 8 templates that use quote-meta directly. Any page that uses one of those 8 templates needs to be checked, but only has to be changed if the quote is not English. This should probably be done anyway regardless of how this is tackled because quotations now either use quote-... and can't possibly be categorized or they use quote-..., omit the "passage" and are followed by quote which is kinda stupid. Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, to ask a more fundamental question, what is the purpose of having categories like "English terms with quotations"? It doesn't seem very useful to me. — SGconlaw (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * To find lemmas without quotations, like a maintenance cat? Alexis Jazz (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I have updated, and  so that they now provide for language categorization. The parameter lang with an appropriate language code must be added. I will eventually roll this out to all  family templates and update the documentation pages. — SGconlaw (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that every entry that contains // is not categorized to "...terms with quotations". Could you fix this? --YukaSylvie (talk) 00:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The parameter lang and the correct language code needs to be manually added to at least one  template on each entry page. I don’t think this can be done by bot because it would be hard for a bot to determine what language a particular quotation is in. — SGconlaw (talk) 01:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the work guys. Now that the language param is added, is it possible to make use of automated transliterations as in, etc. for languages where it's possible? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ideally the entire quote rendering portion of this template would be replaced with . DTLHS (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * what are automated transliterations? — SGconlaw (talk) 02:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Examples at Template:ux/documentation or :
 * This part Policejskije ogorodili seredinu šossɛ́ na goráx, vslédstvije čevó begléc byl na vole. is generated automatically. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, so. Let me look into that. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

columnurl and multiple doi

 * I have seen articles like this, a single entry in a dictionary having a DOI, while the whole book has DOI too. We probably could use a entrydoi. In an example in Talk:إهليلج not even the book DOI displays though for a reason I don’t now examine.
 * We probably need columnurl. is an example of column links being coded but it uses section because apparently with column and columns no link is made, which is why it has tedious if statements.  Fay Freak (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems a bit excessive to provide both DOIs. I'd just use the most specific one. Yes, I can add columnurl if it's thought to be useful. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I have posted the issue here because related or all discussions are here, but as I see you have updated quote-book but not cite-book, don’t forget to update, which I could use for , , (the last one if I knew a formula to calculate the URL from column numbers, maybe you are better with it). Fay Freak (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, I couldn't remember where this conversation took place. Thanks for reminding me. I've added columnurl to and  already, and will update the other templates and the documentation pages shortly. As for calculating the URL from column numbers, provide me with some sample URLs on the template talk page and ping me there, and I'll see if it's feasible. — SGconlaw (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I have also added column, columns and columnurl to and updated all the documentation pages. — SGconlaw (talk) 06:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Categorizing entries into Category:Requests for date


Hey. You seem like a helpful, willing, hard-working, non-judgmental and knowledgeable user. Would you mind fiddling with Template:quote-book so that things can be categorized into, for example Category:Requests for date/Milton? --XY3999 (talk) 12:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * sorry for the late response. Could you explain a bit more? What about just using ? — SGconlaw (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Quoting both an original and translation
I'd like to be able to combine all the information, but don't see how that can be done gracefully. In the first case, if you read it naively, it seems to imply that Garnett translated the journal Sovremennik, which is certainly not the case. The second way has fewer problems, but I'd rather have the original year more prominent than the year of the translation (and I'm not sure use of  is legitimate for this purpose). Any advice on the best current practice for this case will be much appreciated. — Mudbringer (talk) 07:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I saw redoing the quotes and wanted to get in on the action. Most of my problems have already been mentioned, but I'd like to embed a quote from a Turgenev story I found for отдавать себе отчёт that I've tried out two different ways, to see what concrete advice might result. The first way shows year, book title, page # and url for the original, and the second way gives that data for the translation:


 * hope you don't mind that I've relocated your comment here, as it is not directly related to . My suggestion would be to use the original parameters to refer to the work in the original language, and the second set of parameters (title2, location2, publisher2, and so on) to refer to the translated work. See the template description page for instructions. — SGconlaw (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the help. Here's the best I can do so far:


 * That's pretty good, I think, but the translator appears in the wrong place. I tried to use  or   but those didn't work. Is there any chance that could be made to work? — Mudbringer (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realized that’s something I haven’t fixed. Will work on that soon. By the way, you don’t have to add brackets around URLs as these are already added by the template. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ OK, I have added translator2 (trans2 and translators2 can also be used). — SGconlaw (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Thank you so much. Mudbringer (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I tried using the second set of parameters (title2, location2, publisher2, ...) to specify a translation. It doesn't work at all well if you don't happen to specify location2. The requirement for location2 is very strange; can this be fixed? Benwing2 (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I was looking for a way for the template to be able to recognize when a second work is specified without editors having to explicitly indicate newversion each time, and came to the conclusion that at a minimum editors would indicate the imprint information of the second work (especially if it is a newer version of the first work, e.g., "Original Work, London: First Publisher, republished New York, N.Y.: Second Publisher, 2019"). In what circumstances would it be appropriate not to give at least the imprint information for the second work? — SGconlaw (talk) 10:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The example I encountered was on калёный, where the location wasn't available in the info given. Luckily I was able to find it on the Internet, but that's not in general the case. Why not make it work if newversion= is given regardless of any other info, and if not check for any of title2, translator2 or location2? Benwing2 (talk) 12:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry, the correct entry is разноплемённый. In that case, the location2 is ancillary info. In any case, I went and implemented my suggestion in, hope it's OK. Benwing2 (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That’s a good suggestion. (Also, the usual practice if the place of publication can’t be found on a site like http://www.worldcat.org and is really unknown is to indicate “[s.l.]” (Latin for “no location”: sine loco).) — SGconlaw (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That’s a good suggestion. (Also, the usual practice if the place of publication can’t be found on a site like http://www.worldcat.org and is really unknown is to indicate “[s.l.]” (Latin for “no location”: sine loco).) — SGconlaw (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Supposing the translation is the last
I don’t know that all would harmonize with cases when one quotes a translation in a foreign language and gives the original data (which is not the entry language, but the underlying text) too, and then translates oneself. The case discussed is Talk:kalsarikänni and shown on. In case this is forgotten. Or another case, where one quotes non-English translations of editions of texts: I would perhaps quote, for Spanish entries, Banqueri’s words, which translates ibn al-ʿawwām, and then translate the whole, hence implement a middle layer in to show the Spanish text, if  had it only, so first Arabic then Spanish then English for Spanish entries, because why not if I have it all. Also one needs to be sure that the lang worklang parameter stuff displays and categorizes correctly. I am just saying. You might be at the point where you want to ditch this template and make a new template for the now “complicated purposes”. Fay Freak (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Frankly, if it is really necessary to present information in such a complex way (and I very doubt that that is necessary in many cases), it would be better to code the quotation manually using wikitext than to try and create a template that would cater to such an uncommon circumstance. In the example you have just given, for instance, if you are using the work in a Spanish entry, I'm not sure there is much point in indicating the original Arabic text. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

named part
See умудриться. In this case the non-formatted entry looked like this:
 * 2013, Светлана Александровна Алексиевич (Svetlana Alexandrovna Alexievich), Время секонд хэнд (Second-hand Time), part 2, О чужом горе … (On a stranger's grief …)

I'm not sure how to specify both the part number and name and have it look right. Benwing2 (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I usually put the name in parentheses after the part name, like this: part 2 (On a Stranger’s Grief). — SGconlaw (talk) 03:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * How to then specify the translation of the section? There's no trans-section AFAIK. Benwing2 (talk) 05:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My suggestion would be part 2 (Время секонд хэнд [On a Stranger’s Grief]). — SGconlaw (talk) 09:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

pen name
What's the current practice for specifying pen names? Would it be worth to add a template parameter? – Jberkel 07:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I've just been putting [pseudonym; Mary Ann Evans]. I suppose we could add an additional parameter to generate that, if it was felt to be desirable. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that would be good, or at least mention the convention you use as a guideline in the documentation. – Jberkel 09:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Linking to Wikisource
Hi there,

i wish there were a nice interwiki link feature, such as to Wikisource : See this edit and its result : i had to hack my way to link to the WS page, was unable to use the url or chapterurl parms without a full url. (My contributing to Wikisource makes me favor it over external urls such as Google Books.) &mdash;Jerome Potts (talk) 10:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For chapterurl or pageurl you can also use : The Apple-Tree Girl, 7 chapterurl. But I agree, we should have built-in support for Wikisource, ideally with special tooling to import citations. – Jberkel 11:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you much for this tip ; i now edited that page to make use of it, and it is better ; however, only the chapter number gets linked, not the full string "chapter nn", which i would prefer, since a single- or double-digit number provides a very short link, not so visible (admittedly marked with an external link arrow) (So i made sure to use the longer roman numeration). &mdash;Jerome Potts (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "only the chapter number gets linked", not sure if this is deliberate, for pages we create links including "page", "page NNN". ? – Jberkel 09:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I assume it was intentional; as far as I recall the template was always like that, even before I started working on it. (Note the change in my user name which took place some time back.) — SGconlaw (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Add ts= support
Can the ts= parameter be added to the template as in 𒃵𒂷? فين أخاي (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Use tr or transliteration? — SGconlaw (talk) 04:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Transliteration is different from transcription. فين أخاي (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure of the difference, but would there ever be a situation where a quotation would require both a transcription and a transliteration? If not, it may be simpler to update the template. (Also pinging for information.) — SGconlaw (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I can add this. Sgconlaw: The ts= param was added for certain languages (e.g. Tibetan, Akkadian) where the written form differs significantly from the pronunciation, and there was a desire to indicate both. Before this was added, there was a lot of back and forth as to whether e.g. Tibetan should transliterate according to the written form (which approximates the speech of 600 AD) or the spoken form. Sometimes there are huge differences between the two, e.g. the letters in དབུས spell out dbus but are now pronounced [ʔyː] with a falling tone. Benwing2 (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * great, thanks. I guess we'll have to decide on the order and degree of indentation. Does the following make sense?
 * [Quotation]
 * [Transcription]
 * [Transliteration]
 * [Translation]
 * [Footer]
 * In other words, everything after the passage quoted is indented by one additional tab stop. I am wondering whether the footer should be indented by two tab stops, but then there would need to be a way for only one tab stop to be used if there is no transcription, transliteration or translation, which might be complicated. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this makes total sense except that probably the transliteration should go before the transcription; this is how it's formatted in headwords, with the transcription formatted as /.../. If you think the footer should be indented extra, this can be done pretty easily as the code to do it is in Lua. Benwing2 (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW the code that formats the part below the header is the same code that formats and . Benwing2 (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, that sounds good. I think the footer should be given an extra indentation because it's supposed to be a comment on the quotation and whatever else follows it. But if there is no transliteration, transcription or translation, then it should just be advanced by one tab stop (not two) more than the quotation. — SGconlaw (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, it's all implemented in and all the modules underneath it. I still need to add the same support to the remaining quote templates. Please take a look at 𒃵𒂷 for an example; I made the transcription be surrounded by slashes but not in italics; if you think it would look better in italics, let me know and I'll change it. BTW in terms of what you mention above about the extra footer indentation, it's clear from the source code that the intention was already there to do that both for source and footer, but the generated HTML was wrong, so it wasn't happening. Benwing2 (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Excessive body text linking in example
WT:QUOTE suggests "Generally, the quoted text itself should not contain links", but the Russian example in the template documentation ("Ballad of the King's Bread") turns every single word into a link, which seems a bit excessive, and provides bad guidance followed by some editors, as happened in Special:Diff/62399967/62399989. —Jberkel 13:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you speak Russian? I don’t, so I can’t tell what is worth linking and what isn’t. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's useful in Russian for some reason, or in this specific instance, but having it as an example for quoting text in a foreign language suggests that this is common practice/required for all other languages. –Jberkel 14:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * in that case should we just remove that example? — SGconlaw (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, maybe it should be left as is, as an example of a quoted work with transliteration, but we could add another example above which doesn't use linking. – Jberkel 16:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Open Library
Hey! I saw you were the last editor here and want to ask you to make a change on this page (or recommend who I should ask about this). I believe that the example for Open Library number is not good enough. In this edit: I learned that when you add a Open Library number, you have to omit the "OL" prefix in the number for the link to be effective. Therefore, listing "OL7954505M" as an example on this page is not enough- we need to tell people that the OL prefix needs to be chopped off. Thanks for any guidance! Also- "|type=Translation” is not working for me. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

How to add several url:s
Inside "quote-book" : this is pretty hacky. Is there a better way? Taylor 49 (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not supported. I guess you want it to link to both the translation and the text? DTLHS (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * you could use the "new version" parameters – indicate the Hungarian work as the primary work using Alapítvány és Birodalom, page, pageurl, etc., and then specify translation of and Foundation and Empire, page2, pageurl2, etc. (Personally, I wouldn't bother to link to the English version as well, since this is a Hungarian entry.) — SGconlaw (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

What about for multiple available scans of a book? For example, and ; or  and. —Fish bowl (talk) 06:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅: urls. —Fish bowl (talk) 07:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * when would it be necessary to provide multiple URLs? Only the URL actually cited from needs to be provided. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "Alternative scans" is pretty self-explanatory to me. One might be slightly damaged or of a different scan quality. Or perhaps one would like to link to both Wikisource and to the original scan. —Fish bowl (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I remain rather unconvinced it is a good idea to add multiple URLs for redundancy’s sake (if a particular link goes down then at that stage an alternative link can be searched for), but not strongly enough to argue for the new parameter to be removed. Let’s see how people use it. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

alternative parameters
Hi. I've recently been using this, but using published=2017 instead of year_published=2017, and ISBN=2389723984 instead of isbn=23482834. So on those entries the information doesn't show up. It's too boring to find all such instances, so can someone add the above variations to the magic code isntead? Br00pVain (talk) 09:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, even year published=2008 (without the underscore) doesn't show anything - that should be added too Br00pVain (talk) 10:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * seriously, how about just using the correct parameter names the first time around, instead of creating clean-up work for others? If you make an edit and realize that something isn’t showing up, then figure out why and fix it. Making hundreds of wrong edits at once and then realizing there’s a mistake is just plain annoying for everyone else. — SGconlaw (talk) 12:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * perhaps do a bot run? — SGconlaw (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I added temporary tracking code to add pages using published to the category Category:Wonderfool silly mistakes/quote-book. Over the next few days, pages using published should appear in this category; please fix them up yourself. After awhile, I'll undo any changes made by Wonderfool for any pages remaining in the category. Benwing2 (talk) 04:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * could without the underscore be made working? I find that a valid point from WF. —Svārtava [t•c•u•r] 10:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I really wish I could edit this template. Br00pVain (talk) 10:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess it should be OK to add ISBN, ISSN, and year published as synonyms of isbn, issn, and year_published. Not sure if there is a technical limitation for year published (are parameter names with spaces permitted?). — SGconlaw (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No you can't put spaces in template parameters. DTLHS (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * How much chaos would it cause to do actual parameter checking with module errors? DTLHS (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Another common mistake, not necessarily exclusively made by me, is putting yearpublished= and p= instead of page= They could easily be added as alternative parameters too FTW Br00pVain (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Last Name, First Name
My edit here- - was reverted. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If the parameters exist I don't see why you shouldn't use them. DTLHS (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * For consistency across entries, for one thing. Also, why is there a need to use the “last name, first name” format in quotations in entries when they are arranged chronologically and not alphabetically by last name? — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If they are not supposed to be used (for consistency across entries) why do the parameters exist/are not deprecated? J3133 (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * we could deprecate them. This would probably need to be discussed at the Beer Parlour. They were in the original version of the template, so I didn't remove them at the time the template was overhauled. — Sgconlaw (talk) 07:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you not keep the parameters but make the output look like Firstname LastName? – Jberkel 16:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe that would be a simple change to the code at Module:quote (and the same code handling 2ndlast). 70.172.194.25 16:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No objection to that, but is there any particular benefit in splitting names into "last name" and "first name" anyway? Note that this assumes that people have a surname to begin with; this is not the case in many cultures. — Sgconlaw (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * One (small) benefit seems to be that you can copy-paste citations from Wikipedia. – Jberkel 11:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Parameter for subtitle
Maybe it would be helpful to have an additional subtitle parameter: right know I often add the subtitle to title, using. This is something that the template could format automatically. Thoughts? Jberkel 11:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Pages are not always numeric
The TemplateInfo for the "pages" parameter specifies "Number", but this means it cannot accept values such as "1–2" or "xxxvi". I suggest it might be better as "String". Inductiveload (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

May need "sectionarchiveurl", "sectionarchivedate", and "sectionaccessdate" (and/or "chapterarchiveurl", "chapterarchivedate", and "chapteraccessdate") parameters?
Currently, there's no way to provide archiveurls, archivedates, or accessdates for section and chapter URLs, only for whole-book URLs. This is a problem for certain works of literature, such as the two which I added quotes from in this diff (a novel as of yet published only online and unavailable in print) and this diff (a webcomic), where the whole-book URL, if any, merely leads to a directory page with links to the individual chapters/sections, and the chapter/section URL (for which, as of yet, this template cannot provide archive/access parameters) is required to actually see the text being quoted. The addition of sectionarchiveurl, sectionarchivedate, sectionaccessdate, chapterarchiveurl, chapterarchivedate, and chapteraccessdate parameters would be massively helpful here. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 15:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I can't see why it would be necessary to provide archive URLs for both the work as a whole, and a part of the work such as a chapter or section. I suggest just indicating the archive URL of the specific webpage quoted from, otherwise the quotation might look quite long. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Formatting bug
The ':' character is no longer interpreted within the template. See for instance Citations:galéjer. - Olybrius (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * yes, you can’t mark up the quoted text in this way. Use obliques or slashes (“/“) to separate the lines. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Chapters
I still have a major problem with the way this template formats chapters. Currently, the template produces something like this: This is crazy, and I don't think there is any standard formatting authority which does things this way (I checked APA, MLA, Chicago and a few others). It seems to have come about through a confusion between authored books and edited books (where, indeed, the title of an individual essay would normally be given before the main book title). But with a standard authored book where all chapters are by the same writer, the template should look like this: If there is no way to force the position of the chapter data, I would suggest we have separate templates for authored books v. edited books. Ƿidsiþ 11:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * year, Author Name, "Chapter 5", in Book Title, Publishing House, p. 1:
 * year, Author Name, Book Title, Publishing House, Chapter 5, p. 1:


 * I think your suggestion adds unnecessary complexity to the template, but raise it at the Beer Parlour for further discussion if you wish. However, my experience is that formatting changes to the quotation and reference templates seldom gain enough consensus. Seems that most editors aren’t interested enough in this sort of issue. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Texts collected in anthologies
Hi, everyone. I've never been quite sure how to treat these things, so I'm asking. For the sake of argument, let's suppose there are various 15th-century short texts, which are otherwise unpublished, collected in a 2023 anthology—titled Anthology—curated by John Smith. How do you use the template to quote one of the 15th-century texts? I've been doing the following: Is there a better way to indicate this kind of thing? Could the template use some way to better handle this (like some anthology-specific parameters), or is  enough already? Thanks in advance for your attention. —— GianWiki (talk) 08:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I would do something similar, but use the second set of parameters provided by like this: . — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sgconlaw Thank you very much for the suggestion. I never thought of that. — GianWiki (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * you're most welcome. — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

"Trans-title" parameter
I've just noticed that trans-title doesn't seem to be working—see. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I looked into this and the issue is a bit complicated. The code doesn't process <...> annotations if there's already HTML in the title (because it's difficult to separate out the <...> annotations from the HTML, which also use <...>). The HTML is being added by the use of nb.... The processing of trans-title happens after the check for HTML so it doesn't get run. I can fix the handling of trans-title or you can avoid nb... or add the trans-title annotation yourself in the title. Benwing2 (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * well, if you can find the time it would be good to fix the handling of trans-title. I don't think it used to behave that way. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * just a reminder about this when you have time. I encountered the issue again. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Use of Brackets
Hey, I wanted to make a comment here about this on Fengjie. This kind of diff happens from time to time, and I usually ignore it because there's basically no difference (in my mind). Hence I see no need for a revert, and I just want to comment on my feelings about the edit. I will say that I personally believe that "brackets=on" was seemingly correctly used (at least for the citation from "Agrarian Policy of the Chinese Communist Party, 1921-1959", and possibly for the citation from "Lutherans On The Yangtze"). I bring it up here because my consistent behavior has been to put brackets around citations when the citation includes a "related term" rather than the entry term. That's because I see the following wording on Template:quote-book: "Use "on" to surround a quotation with brackets. This indicates that the quotation contains a mere mention of a term or does not provide an actual instance of a term but provides information about related terms." Now, you may say to yourself: "Oh, Fengchieh, Fengjie and Fengkieh are not related terms- they are the exact same term! Hence no brackets are needed, and in fact there should not be brackets!" Or you may even say: "Brackets are not mandatory, and are confusing, so who cares?" But I just feel that any deviation from the spelling of the entry's title which is not purely grammatical (plurals, etc) ultimately warrants the use of "brackets=on". Neither of the above-mentioned citations should really be on this entry- they should each be on their own alternative form entries or the Citations page thereof. And I do see it as optional, as Template:quote-book says about "brackets=on"- "Status optional". If I'm not following the correct policy let me know, but I feel that my including the brackets and your removing the brackets was all 100% okay. There is no question that there's a close kinship between Fengchieh, Feng-chieh, Fêng-chieh, Fengjie, Fengkieh, Fongjie (Tongyong Pinyin) and other variants (they are likely out there!), and hence it makes sense that if I only have one citation for a particular one of these variants, I'd want to put it out there for people to see it on one of the more common forms, maybe on the Citations page. Maybe it will develop into an entry on its own. But there is no need to rush into creating a bunch of alternative form entries of unclear validity vis-a-vis WT:ATTEST unless you're about to really "get into" some section of vocabulary. (As for the "Lutherans On The Yangtze" citation which includes the entry term and a variant of the entry term, I never know quite how to handle those.) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC) (Modified) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the excellent explanation! My original motivation for editing the page was to replace the typo "{" with "[" in the passage and I should have just left the rest of it as-is. I had some vague impression that brackets=on was used to format quotes when used in references or citations, but I know better now. I'll revert the change and avoid messing with brackets=on in the future. Cheers! JeffDoozan (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

How to give credit to the author of the English translation of a quotation if it's not authored by a Wiktionary editor?
Suppose that I'm not the one, who translated the actual quotation text into English. An example from światło:

The English translation in the quotation above was taken from here (naturally, I verified that the Belarusian text correctly matches the English translation). What's the best practice in such cases? I'm not a native English speaker myself, so digging into the pool of already existing translations done by professional translators seems to be a good recipe to obtain high quality grammatically correct English translations. --Ssvb (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I would suggest using the "second" set of parameters like this:
 * Wikitext:
 * Result:
 * — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Request for links to Wikisource
the literature which I deal with is most often online and is also archived in Wikisource. however, there doesn't seem to be an easy way to link to it using the quotation templates—, ,. it would be very helpful if there was a way to maybe add a parametre or find another way.

that would also help us because we are trying to access toki pona as an accepted language in Wiktionary. thank you very much. Juwan (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Template does not hide in Appendix namespace
it seems that all the quotation templates don't seem to work under the Appendix namepage? or that is what it seems under words under the toki pona appendix, such as. Juwan (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Quoting dramatic works
There is no guidance for quoting from dramatic works, which are usually divided into Acts and Scenes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * what sort of guidance do you feel is needed? — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Guidance in how to cite using acts and scenes, as I stated above. I have zero idea which parameters to use. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For instance:
 * is what happens if I place the Act I information into the chapter parameter. The result puts "Act I" inside quotes, which is incorrect.  How do I indicate the Act and Scene in which a quote appears? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I finally found the information I needed.  It was not easy to find. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I finally found the information I needed.  It was not easy to find. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)