Template talk:Quote box

Font size

Jonesey95, currently, the font size of the quote box text "defaults to 88%". I'd like to be able to tweak that as it's pretty small text. Is there any workaround or another template that allows this? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Have you tried using the |fontsize= parameter that is listed in the template's documentation? See this test case for an example. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I was using fontsize (8, 10, 12, etc) and that didn't work. Percentages work. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

We do not use specified font sizes, because different readers have different default font sizes for accessibility and other reasons. See MOS:TEXTSIZE for guidance. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I wonder why it "defaults to 88%"? That makes the letters smaller and harder to read. Shouldn't it default to 100%? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know. You might look through the archives of this talk page, or the template's history, for an answer to your question. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, it's been mentioned before here: Template_talk:Quote_box/Archive_3#Accessibility_of_font-size:_88% I just don't see a good reason to make the quote text harder to read. Can we agree that the default should be 100%, while preserving the option to tweak it? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I have no objections. If nobody else here objects in the next week, remind me here again and I will change the default. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jonesey95. Isn't this a good time to do this? I think so. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Done, since there were no objections. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I just noticed this change at several articles on my watchlist that use this template and I personally feel it has made it harder for the eye to differentiate between normal text and in-line quote boxes. The template is also now inconsistent with the font-size of image captions. I don't think either of those reasons are convincing enough to get this changed back but I do think, considering how many articles use this template, that a wider discussion should be had about whether they should all default to 100% or whether the status quo was fine. I have searched back through the history of the template (as well as Template:Quote box2) and both were changed from 90% to 88% without discussion, but at the time 88% was the default size for infoboxes so I think it was for consistency with other page elements? - adamstom97 (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. Making the text smaller seems to defeat the purpose of a quotebox, when one wishes to highlight (IOW draw attention to) the text. How about trying 110%? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussions happened here, at the talk page for the template, multiple times, and there were no objections, AFAICT. Editors are free to use |fontsize= to make the text larger or smaller in a given template instance. There may be a separate, widely advertised discussion about whether this template is even appropriate in article space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Somehow it feels bigger than the normal text. Maybe my eyes are playing tricks on me. My preference is the smaller font size, but it's not the end of the world. SWinxy (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Came here to provide the same sentiments. As someone who thoroughly reads and researches a variety of articles and websites and edits here, this change made the fontsize larger than the rest of the text on the site and made it more difficult to read and navigate around the box, especially for our mobile readers who ought to also be considered when making changes to display formatting and style. I concur that this should be reversed, and the same argument for using |fontsize= can be had for increasing the text size as it can be for decreasing it. Don't mess with the whole thing for a small, relatively new position and leave it up to the editors' discretion of each individual article, rather than forcing a change that affects a multitude of articles and viewing formats of the site. I will note this change also made the textsize inconsistent with the captions of images, and thus can make it more difficult to read and navigate between those when paired closely together within the same article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Please link to an example page on which this template's text renders larger than the default size for the prose on the page. That would be something to fix, or at least investigate. This template's text should render at 100% of the normal prose text size. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

On here, the quote box text is slightly larger than the prose text, which I had to adjust given the changes here. I also noticed the larger quote bo font size compared to prose and image captions here, which Adam corrected. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. On the Batgirl page and on the Falcon and Winter Soldier page, the text is rendering in my browser at 12.25px in both the quote box and the paragraph to the left. The line height is 19.25px. Identical. I am using Firefox on Mac OS in Wikipedia's Desktop mode. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Please self-revert your BOLD edit. 88% has been the font size for many years, and your unilateral change has just changed the formatting on many articles. Since three editors have now objected, please start a new discussion/proposal. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

88% is harder to read, thus defeating the purpose of a quote box. You can't assume that most readers are young people with perfect eyesight. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

You realize many places on Wikipedia, including infoboxes, navboxes, and reference sections, already use a smaller font size? No, it does not make it "harder to read" (in fact, it makes it easier to separate the quote from the byline, and it avoids making the box excessively large on an article), and no, it does not "defeat the purpose" of a quote box just because the font size is slightly smaller. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Valjean 88% is what infoboxes and sidebars use as the font size FWIW. SWinxy (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, but they don't usually contain a lot of prose text. If I need to read a lot in them, I have to enlarge my screen's font size to 120-130%, exactly as when I encounter a larger quote box. I can read it, but it's tiring if it's a larger amount. A sentence or two is okay.

I see there are enough people who don't give a shit about the rest of us with poorer eyesight, so I won't fight this. It's not worth it. Fortunately (on another matter), the default spacing around headings is determined by the software, and I wish people would respect that and not mess with it. The default is a blank line above and below every heading, and some editors remove them. That's not good. The default makes it much easier to quickly scan a page while editing and find each section. Without that, one can easily miss a heading, so one has to scan much more slowly. But that's another matter.... Carry on, and have a good day. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I am confused about the description of this change as a bold edit. The matter was discussed here twice, and there were no objections to either discussion. The change clearly has some support. If there are technical problems with the change, such as the quote box text rendering larger than 100% of the default text size for a page, that is something I will be happy to investigate and fix, if necessary. MOS:FONTSIZE indicates that small font sizes should be used sparingly; this template may be one of those rare cases where it is useful. Is reduction to 88% really needed, or would something like 95% get the job done and still result in accessible text for people with visual impairments? – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Two editors discussing a major change to the longstanding conventions and formatting of a template used on around 805,000 pages without properly notifying a single WikiProject that may be affected by these is a BOLD edit, and now that the change has been implemented, those who were not invited to this discussion have seen it and have raised their concerns and opposition to it. That's how the process works. Just revert it back to how it was and let individual editors adjust on a page-by-page basis, and users are free to adjust their own displays as necessary for their individual cases. Don't just force a change directed toward a certain few upon all. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

yeah no i agree this wasn't bold in the slightest SWinxy (talk) 05:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

If you make a post on the talk page, discuss with zero or one other editor, ask "are there any objections", and then implement the edit, it's called being BOLD because you're assuming there is consensus and testing whether this is the case. If editors revert you or object to the edit, it means you do not in fact have consensus. If this template were not template-protected, any of four editors above who have objected to your edit would have reverted you. So, please self-revert, and then we can continue this discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted reluctantly. It looks like people with visual accessibility challenges will have to make do for now. I hope that some compromise size can be reached that will help all editors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Cquote tangent

“ There used to be this option which a lot of people thought was an elegant solution, and used (I'm talking about the big quote marks you see here, at the upper left and lower right). But, an editor who really really really hated it conducted a years-long relentless campaign against it (using skeevy methods too), and after a few unsuccessful RfC finally got a small one to ban it and impose his opinion on the editor corps generally, and I was too exhausted to contest it anymore. It is called {{Cquote}} (and {{Rquote}}); it only works on talk pages now, which is why you can see it here. As you can see I'm still salty about it lol. I miss not being able to use cos it's better than just an indentation at helping the reader understand right off that she is reading a quote -- you do not need a font size change -- and looks better than a 1985-style colored box, and other editors do too. IDK, on the one hand you hate to see this kind of thing, but on the other hand people who have an untiring and ruthless belief in something and will never give up, well, you have to respect that in a way. Sorry, but I felt compelled to rant lol. I feel better now, thank you. ”

Herostratus (talk) 04:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

For instance, just recently I came across Battle of Krasnoi#Napoleon's Bold move: Ordering the Guard's Advance. The section begins with a quote, and there was absolutely zero signal to the reader that it was a quote, since an indentation can't be sussed if you not indenting from previous text. Sure would have liked access to {{Cquote}}. Did not want to put a colored box around the material because IMO it's ugly and I don't make ugly pages and refuse to be forced to. All I could think of was to italicize the passage, which works pretty well. AFAIK that's not forbidden. That should be pointed out, or maybe italic text should be the default for quote box material instead of font size changes. Herostratus (talk) 23:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Jonesey95 - The way bold changes affecting thousands/tens of thousands of pages are being made on the basis of discussions by a very small number of people in this obscure backwater should be a matter of concern. KJP1 (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this happens far too often with templates and PAGs, which the vast majority of editors (especially those who focus on the content side of things) don't watch. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

If people have a problem with the way that consensus works on Wikipedia, there are Village Pumps where issues like that are discussed. We have WP:CENT, but the bar for inclusion there is pretty high; I suspect that a link to a discussion here about font sizes or colors would be removed as too trivial. So it goes.
As for the Battle of Krasnoi, that article has all sorts of problems with formatting, including the use of italics for quotations and WP:CITEVAR problems. It would benefit from significant cleanup of formatting, especially in the citations. Starting a section with a blockquote is just poor style, not a problem with a template or Wikipedia guidelines. Using a poor example to complain about MOS and how consensus works at Wikipedia does not make for a strong argument. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

As a template editor, I'm with Jonesey on this. It's a balance, and I think we've currently got it right. I'd rather have people come complaining after noticing a change than going to a noticeboard. SWinxy (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Krasnoi has a lot of citation problems that would require a whole effort to untangle (bare URLs, blockquotes not having the source listed, lacking identifiers, etc.) and I'd rather not do because it's a subject not in my wheelhouse. I think the big problem with the article is that it's not using Template:Blockquote properly. It doesn't use the parameters for the author or source, which would add the em dash at the bottom to visually indicate that it's a block quote. SWinxy (talk) 04:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

bottom-of-box sizing

As an example, at A Wizard of Earthsea#Setting, this template doesn't have uniform internal spacing throughout. The bottom looks almost twice as wide as the top. Is this intentional? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

That example uses manual line breaks in the quote, and the box is very narrow. If I widen it to 20em, it looks much nicer. Do you have another example that is broken but not as easily explainable? – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Every example on the documentation page (with the exception of the short To be or not to be...) has visibly more spacing at the bottom than the top, for me.

From Template:Quote box/testcases it may be an old issue, the 2021 sandbox version is also doing it. Belbury (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I can't say it's "broken", I'm just asking if it's intentional. As for examples, yeah, SEBAI: A. A. Milne#Commemoration, AK-47#Cultural influence and impact, Amazing Grace#John Newton's conversion, American Airlines Flight 77#Hijackers, Apollo 1#Program recovery, Apollo 15#Stand-up EVA and first EVA. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like you are saying that the space after the quote attribution is too large. If that is what you are reporting, it may be related to T352875, which has a patch on the way. Currently, <p>...</p> tags have 0.5 em of space before them and 1.0 em of space after them. This asymmetry is causing a variety of problems. I hacked the sandbox to work around what should be a temporary bug; do the sandbox examples look right to you now? – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

It looks like that bug fix didn't account for this template's use case. I have manually adjusted the padding. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Quotebox + table?

Moved from Wikipedia:Help desk § Quotebox / table

Hi all. Is it possible to contain a table within a {{Quote box}}? If not, is it possible to achieve a similar columnic effect? Cheers! ——Serial Number 54129 16:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Here's one:

Cell 1

Cell 2

Did you have a more specific question? – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Oh. Well, a combination of these two, the table inside a yellow box... Possible? ——Serial Number 54129 19:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

HEADER
Cell 1	Cell 2

HEADER

Lorem ipsum

Lorem ipsum

I modified the table above to put a table in the yellow quote box. It doesn't look pretty to me, but it's technically possible. Are you really quoting a table from some source, though? The above is probably a misuse of this template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Jonesey95, that's just the thing, nice one. I know what you mean though, it is a bit untidy. After all this, maybe I should just use the box! ——Serial Number 54129 11:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)