Forum:CT:Clarifying use of quote templates

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Clarifying use of quote templates

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Use quote template for two-speaker quotes regardless of length. Grunny (talk) 02:40, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

Recently, I have discovered that our policy on use of {{Quote}} vs. {{Dialogue}} is somewhat ambiguous, specifically with regard to which should be used for two-speaker quotes that are three or more lines in length. I have always believed that {{Quote}} should be used for two speakers regardless of length and have been backed up on that by Tope and Grunny, but some other users, including Havac and Menkooroo, have interpreted the MOS and the original CT to mean that two-speaker quotes with three or more lines should use {{Dialogue}} instead.

Therefore, this is a vote to decide which way we should go with this. Whichever way this goes, it will be clarified in the previously linked section of the MOS. I'm not in the mood right now to bother writing up two exact proposals; it should be simple enough that it can be handled by the closing admin without controversy.

Option 1

This option is to use {{Quote}} for two-speaker quotes regardless of length.

  1. Master Jonathan New Jedi Order (Jedi Council Chambers) 16:15, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Standardization is good, remember? This easily makes the most sense... Chack Jadson (Talk) 02:34, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
  3. This is a farce of a vote. That a specific little bloc of users, prone historically to intensive bellicosity when it comes to simple nomination objections, "interpreted the MOS and the original CT" and is now being treated to having their attempts to circumvent the policy legitimized in a CT is absurd. Does anyone know how to read? Nowhere in that CT was it decided by a vote that dialogue templates should be used. And nowhere in the MOS is it suggested that anything other than the quote template should be used for just two speakers. Just how difficult is it for a reader to understand that two people are being quoted, and which is speaking, based on the extremely easy-to-decipher "respectfully" attribution? This vote is for the policy to remain the same, and if neither option should succeed, Option 1 was how it has worked in the first place and will continue to be enforced. Graestan(Talk) 05:53, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
  4. I can entirely understand Havac and Menkooroo's stance, as that original CT posted above doesn't seem to address lengthy back-and-forths, and it can get a wee bit confusing when you have 10+lines in a quote and have to keep reminding yourself who's saying what. But, I will admit the MOS is pretty clear on this, so I have to vote with precedent. I'll channel Johnny Cochran on this: If the number of lines bloats, you must still use {{Quote}}! Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 06:09, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
  5. My personal belief is that if it's too long to be understood properly, then it shouldn't be a quote at all and should be cut down—seriously. CC7567 (talk) 06:33, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
  6. This is my preference... along with disallowing three-plus-speaker dialogues as intro quotes Enochf 06:58, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
  7. Grunny (talk) 07:46, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
  8. Per Trayus. 1358 (Talk) 12:52, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
  9. Someone find me a two-speaker quote in an FA/GA with 5 lines each, using {{Quote}}, then we'll talk. NAYAYEN—it appears to be a frammistat 12:57, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
  10. Not five lines each, but close :P—Tommy 9281 16:11, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
  11. This is the most practical and reasonable option. Aside from being the intention of the original CT, Dialogue becomes unnecessary and unwieldy for two-person-only quotes because it provides no new information that isn't already specified straightforwardly in the attribution line, providing the editor actually orders the names correctly, which is just common sense. Dialogue was created for the purpose of clarifying quotes with multiple speakers in multiple lines, which understandably becomes a bit more unwieldy and requires this clarification. Plus, this option just looks neater. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:40, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
  12. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 20:53, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
  13. Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 22:41, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
  14. IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 02:05, December 14, 2010 (UTC)
  15. Nah, I'm good. –Tm_T (Talk) 09:09, December 14, 2010 (UTC)
  16. JangFett (Talk) 23:03, December 14, 2010 (UTC)
  17. —Jedi Kasra (comlink) 00:05, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
  18. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 20:44, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
  19. DarthRage 22:57, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
  20. JethLordMasterYing yang copy (Xia Order) 23:13, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
  21. OLIOSTER (talk) 01:20, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
  22. Per Tope. Corellian PremierAll along the watchtower 22:47, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
  23. I like clarification, but this whole thing is sorta meh. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:23, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

Option 2

This option is to use {{Quote}} only for one-speaker and two-speaker/two-line quotes, and use {{Dialogue}} for quotes with three or more lines.

  1. I prefer to know who is saying what.--Dionne Jinn (Something to say?) 16:24, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
  2. I agree with Dionne --- {{Dialogue}}, IMO, does a much better job of indicating who is saying what when there's a jumble of lines sitting there in the quote. Menkooroo 00:38, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
  3. This was what the original CT decided, this is what's clearer, ergo, this is what we should go with. - Lord Hydronium 04:29, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
    • To correct Grae's mistaken impression up there, this is in the intro of the original CT: "Also, I was curious if we have a set standard for two-line dialogue quotes." There is no mention of that standard applying to more than two lines, and in fact comments of people who voted indicate they did not read it that way: "For 2 people use option 2 or dialogue form for 3 or more lines." Whatever Grae may want the original CT to say, it's clear people were voting on it only as it pertained to two-line dialogues. Of course, in this one people can vote on how it should be in the future however they like, but let's be clear what the original vote was for. - Lord Hydronium 06:11, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
      • There is an enormous difference between what is actually presented in the CT to be voted upon, and what you are reaching far—as well as in retrospect—to establish was going on inside a fair number of other people's heads when they voted on the original CT. In no way is it clear, but apparently you can just tell us what is clear and what other people were thinking in 2006, and we are expected to swallow it whole. I'm not a sucker. Graestan(Talk) 06:22, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
        • Since we can't read minds, all we can use to determine the intent of the original CT is what was posted in the CT. And all posts in the CT, if they say anything on the subject, are regarding rules for two-person, two-line dialogues (except for the one-person dialogues, naturally). Therefore this was the rule established. You may wish to interpret that as extending to all two-person dialogues of any length in your own head, but your head is not policy. We can only base policy on the CTs. If this CT decides that all dialogues, even 20 lines long, should have no way of indicating who says which line besides counting through each of them...well, that will be policy, though a very poor one. If, however, there's no consensus, we aren't going to go making up new policies based on what you think the old CT said. If the CT is in doubt when it comes time to close this, I would suggest you allow a neutral party to do so, but I don't have much hope you will. - Lord Hydronium 06:33, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
  4. I have to agree with Menk and Dionne. I prefer to know for sure who's speeking. Besides, I think it looks better. MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 15:03, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
  5. I think it's a little silly that something like this has be resolved by a vote, when the difference is so minuscule. But since we are voting, why not err on the side of certainty? As editors, we edit for the benefit of the readers, and even though it chagrins a few of the movers and shakers, we have to remember that not all of our readers are familiar with general English grammar rules of attribution. If, under the current policy, quotes confuse a few people, even for a second, then it has succeeded in distracting readers from the actual content of the article. SinisterSamurai 19:30, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
  6. Per Dionne. Why not use a dialogue template for dialogue? SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 22:09, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
  7. I'm not sure what Graestan's characterization of this has to do with reality or civility, but the original CT was addressing the question of two-line, two-speaker interactions specifically, as can be seen in the CT itself, and that simply wasn't translated clearly when it was added to the MOS. A clumsy transition to the MOS doesn't somehow change the original meaning of what was voted on. That would be why we had {{Dialogue1}}, {{Dialogue2}}, {{Dialogue3}}, and {{Dialogue8}} in existence and in use for years before they were rendered obsolete by the {{Dialogue}} revamp. Much as Grae and Tope might like to rewrite history, this is the clear intent of the original vote ("I was curious if we have a set standard for two-line dialogue quotes," the fact that it was provoked by a specific two-line quote-counterquote interchange, "Option 2 for two-line dialogue quotes," "For 2 people use option 2 or dialogue form for 3 or more lines"), and I don't see any reason to change from that. Havac 06:22, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Option 1:

"I think I'll have mustard on my hot dog."
"Mustard? Are you serious?"
"Hey, screw you! Mustard rules!"
―Eugene and Reginald while preparing a Life Day feast[src]

Option 2:

Eugene: "I think I'll have mustard on my hot dog."
Reginald: "Mustard? Are you serious?"
Eugene: "Hey, screw you! Mustard rules!"
―Eugene and Reginald while preparing for a Life Day feast[src]

Both of those examples use just three lines total, but the voting options are good for any number of total lines that is more than two. If you want to take a look at both examples in current practice, here are two examples of Option 1: nyah and nyah, and here are two examples of Option 2: nyah and nyah. Take a look and decide which one you think is best. Menkooroo 00:38, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

  • I altered the formatting of this post, Menk, because as is, it was breaking the HTML output and causing the top tabs and the sidebar to display real small. Hope you don't mind. :) Master Jonathan New Jedi Order (Jedi Council Chambers) 05:00, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
    • No, not at all. I appreciate that. Thank ya. :D Menkooroo 10:32, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

It seems it was wise thing from me to hammer through the rule to use "quote"-template in Finnish Jedipedia only for quotes from one person and always use "dialogue"-templates when there is more than one speaker. We have pretty well avoided this kind of misunderstandings after the few first disagreements in the matter before it was really settled. But argue away guys... You are just making your own lives difficult.--Dionne Jinn (Something to say?) 06:40, December 13, 2010 (UTC)