Template talk:Quote

Deletion rationale
Template that we have decided not to use. Only used on a few random pages. – Cleanse 10:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Delete– Cleanse 10:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: See this for prior discussion. -- Sulfur 11:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, and reopen discussion. The original consensus was that we should use this template, there was just disagreement over the formatting. Bp put a lot of work into this, and I don't think we should just discard it. We need to come to an agreement and work through the issues, not toss it because no agreement on formatting was reached. -- Renegade54 13:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and continue discussion. I am not totally familiar with the issue, but I agree something should not be discarded simply due to problems which could potentially be worked out.  If through that discussion we decide that it is not needed, we can always come back here. --31dot 20:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me?! That discussion was at the end of 2006. If you guys were really serious about having this template used, it would have been by now. If I hadn't nominated this for deletion, we'd all be happy to continue on without a template. We already "tossed away" Bp's work by ignoring it for so long. – Cleanse 01:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sometimes things just fall through the cracks... this is one of them. Just because we ignored the issue for so long doesn't mean it doesn't matter or shouldn't be reviewed. -- Renegade54 13:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin resolution

 * Consensus to keep. --Alan 22:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ready?
So I guess my question here boils down to is this ready for use yet? - Archduk3:  talk  23:33, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're ever using it. &mdash; Morder (talk) 23:35, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

That's a bummer, since this is way better then what we have now. I take it universe ending paradoxes would happen if this was deployed early? - Archduk3:  talk  23:40, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the current format is better than this one. It's also easier for new people to add new or modify existing quotes. But don't go changing things until a discussion has been had and a consensus has been reached. This template was never used before so it stands to reason that most of the users had a problem with it then and probably still have one now. &mdash; Morder (talk) 23:41, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't think about changing them all, just the few that have three or more characters talking, which is kind of a violation of MA:QUOTE in the first place, but would benefit from the ID tags without looking too different for the current system. Either way, now's as good a time as any to restart that discussion. I do agree that this may be harder for new users to implement, but I've never had too much trouble copy/pasting something with examples already on the page. - Archduk3:  talk  23:55, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want to start it then I vote 'no' :) I might actually bring this template up for deletion again since it's been around 9 months and we still don't use it. &mdash; Morder (talk) 00:06, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll second the opening of a deletion discussion.--31dot 00:15, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll begin writing my lamentations over this now, but we should at least see if there are any other outstanding issues with this, since it seems the discussion wasn't continued after the last deletion attempt, and the '06 discussion seems to have solutions purposed, if not implemented. - 00:24, January 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * I still like it for all the reasons I mentioned when I first created it. I would also point out that the people involved in that discussion viewed it favorably at the time, and there were not any truly substantial objections, only minor differences and technical problems dealing with how it was implemented. The old (current) system isn't a system, the conversations can't be easily followed, oh - and it's ugly too. --bp 02:38, January 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with bp - my initial opinion (which was: third font and magically appearing text: definite NO; everything else: OK) about the template hasn't changed. The way it is presented in the examples here seems to avoid these issues. I still think that actually displaying the person speaking in front of the text uttered might be an improvement, but I could live with this. In any case, if too many people object to using this template altogether, we might as well start a second deletion discussion - but I'm not sure of any specific reasons right now... -- Cid Highwind 11:31, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just throwing my two cents in but I really like this template. It's smart, professional and the font distinguishes it from the rest of the page. It's ideal for those quotes at the very top of the article, such as on Jonathan Archer. I would agree, however, that it would look odd to use it for the quotes within the "Memorable quotes" sections on articles. I think the established format there is fine as is. So I'm voting to keep this template and use it in "header" quotes to articles. --| TrekFan Open a channel 22:43, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

So, do we want to use this?
I personally think we should use this as the "header" quote on articles for the reasons I stated above. It would be nice if we could get a consensus on whether to use it or not since it's just going to be sat here otherwise. Anyone? --| TrekFan Open a channel 11:20, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * If it is used, it should be used as a 'header' quote only, and should be extended to include the episode and year as calls. I'll play around with it a bit later today to put that into it to see how it works. -- sulfur 11:37, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, just header quotes. I think it would look a bit wiered in the "Memorable Quotes" section. --| TrekFan Open a channel 15:27, April 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that is a sensible way to go. A "header quote" probably shouldn't be a quote of more than one person, so using this one seems like overkill. At least, any changes to this template would need to be done in a way that would still allow it to be used elsewhere, if we ever decide to do that - otherwise creating a new template might be more sensible. If we do want to use it elsewhere, though, I'd still like to see the people speaking to actually be displayed, which doesn't happen at the moment. -- Cid Highwind 16:36, April 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * I for one still want to use this template, with a tweak or two, for the quotes sections, so a separate template should be used for the opening quotes. - 17:04, April 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think a header quote template would be a really good idea (since formatting them consistently is a pain), but as a separate template. I still don't like the idea of using this quote template for memorable quotes sections, but I will defer to the majority opinion.–Cleanse ( talk 00:45, April 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * Is anyone working on this? I was going to create a header quote template based on this, but I cannot decipher the arcane runes. :-) –Cleanse ( talk 04:20, April 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * If by working on it you mean reminding myself to play around with CSS formatting for it, then yes, I am working on it. If you mean actually working on it, then no. :) I think I understand what the CSS and JS for this does, not that I think we need the JS for headers, so I'll make a point to actually do something on this soon, if not this weekend, if no one beats me to it. - 14:39, April 30, 2011 (UTC)