| rdfs:comment | - We seem to have resolved the issue of internal links during our last discussion and vote on quotations, but there are still a few discrepancies between articles, specifically on the quote labels. Here is one classic quote, as it appears in the blaster article: 1) 2) In contrast, a few other articles have everything but the speaker in parentheses: 3) Or this version with smaller parentheses, which is not quite as popular: 1) 2) Most of them appear in this format: 3) And rarest, though there is a template for it, is this version that is generally used for dialogues that have more than two lines:
|
| abstract | - We seem to have resolved the issue of internal links during our last discussion and vote on quotations, but there are still a few discrepancies between articles, specifically on the quote labels. Here is one classic quote, as it appears in the blaster article: 1) 2) In contrast, a few other articles have everything but the speaker in parentheses: 3) Or this version with smaller parentheses, which is not quite as popular: I personally feel that the parentheses versions are more elegant, but that may be only my opinion. I wonder if most people actually prefer the plain "Person A to Person B" format, or if it's just routine. Also, I was curious if we have a set standard for two-line dialogue quotes. This one, from the Form V article, is different from most: 1) 2) Most of them appear in this format: 3) And rarest, though there is a template for it, is this version that is generally used for dialogues that have more than two lines: Again, I prefer the first version here for similar reasons (avoiding a cluttered quote label), but with this case there is a small precedent. Those who own the book Tales from the Mos Eisley Cantina can find before the title page a quote exchange between Obi-Wan and Luke, using the format of two separate quotes. Also, we've seemed to be cutting down to a single quote for each article section, so a quote-counterquote format might be more aesthetic than it was before, when sections had a handful of quotes unrelated to each other. Thoughts? -BaronGrackle 22:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
* For single quotes, I prefer option number 3 because that format is somewhat cleaner and easier to decipher at a glance. For conversations, I rather like option 3 as well, but I think that the attribution field should probably be made optional.– 23:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
* I'll take Option 1 and Option 2, respectively. jSarek 01:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
* Option 1 for single quotes and Option 2 for two-line dialogue quotes. —Mirlen 01:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
* I'm with Mirlen. —Xwing328(Talk) 03:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
* Option 1 at top. The smaller font and/or parathenses stuff are just clutter, imo. For 2 people use option 2 or dialogue form for 3 or more lines. -Fnlayson 20:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
* 1 and 2 as well. Havac 03:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
* Should this be moved to CT? —Xwing328(Talk) 04:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
* Well, so far 5 out of 7 are in complete agreement. There may be no need. :-) -BaronGrackle 09:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
* 1 and 2 again - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 19:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
* Continued at Forum:Quotations. Jasca Ducato 10:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
|
