This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theQuotation mark article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text.Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome!Learn to edit;get help. Assume good faith Be polite andavoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seekdispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL

Archives:1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9Auto-archiving period:6 months

This level-5 vital article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

TypographyMid‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related toTypography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.TypographyWikipedia:WikiProject TypographyTemplate:WikiProject TypographyTypography Mid This article has been rated asMid-importance on theimportance scale.

This article is based on material taken from theFree On-line Dictionary of Computing prior to 1 November 2008 and incorporated under the "relicensing" terms of theGFDL, version 1.3 or later.

TheSummary table of this article contains links to wiktionary. As far as I have searched, none of those wiktionary pages exist. It makes no sense to have those links instead of links to different language wikipedias. —Snoteleks(talk)15:59, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, I suggest to remove those links or have the pages created...

Theking2 (talk)08:31, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should create a unique closing quotation mark at the end of phrases. An aligned ." as a single character when used at the end of the phrase[s].

This is a glyph/font esthetic problem according to many graphic artists, font creators and others who noticed this problem.2A02:587:4F0C:9300:ADDF:7B50:FFD5:C561 (talk)09:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not a font or glyph problem. It is no different in concept to the⟨fi⟩ ligature: seeLigature (writing)#Stylistic ligatures andOpenType#Description. You just need to persuade the vendors ofcomputer fonts to provide it but you may not use Wikipedia to do so.𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk)18:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Putting the dot/full-stop/periodunder the quote mark is not universally preferred, though it's arguably better than putting them in the reverse of their logical order.

We don't put sentence punctuation inside noun phrases, so why do we tolerate or even require inserting punctuation inside a quote when the quoted text as a unit functions as a noun in the containing sentence? Give me precision and unambiguity over subjective “beauty”; your “ugly” is my “sane, logical, and therefore easier to read”.

What really gets me is that people justify weird conjunctions of quotes and other punctuation on the grounds that the inter-word spacing looks better, and yet those same people typically eschew ragged right margins, insisting that the spacing between words should change randomly from line to line. Pick a side and stick to it.

Anyway, Wikipedia isn't the place to campaign for either position.

Sorry, rant over.Martin Kealey (talk)04:30, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs updating: the straight quotation mark is not a true quotation mark at all, and its use is not acceptable. Straight quote marks are a hangover from the space constraints of the typewriter keyboard and have no place in modern text. See here:https://practicaltypography.com/straight-and-curly-quotes.html -- and see literally any book on typography or typesetting.SimonDMHRA (talk)10:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Updatingwhere? The entire point of this article is to talk about the typographic conventions for quote marks in multiple languages.Martin Kealey (talk)04:04, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sectionQuotation mark#Typographic forms discusses this issue without stating an opinion because an encyclopedia (like a dictionary) records whatis, not what someone thinksshould be. If you can find a widely accepted authority that states what you say, another sentence to that effect can be added. But until regular keyboards come with left and right quotation marks, people will continue to use the straight forms. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk)09:09, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At their talk page, I have adviseduser:~2025-31563-08 that they cannot keep trying to assert thatU+3008〈LEFT ANGLE BRACKETandU+3009〉RIGHT ANGLE BRACKET are valid entries in the infobox. There is nothing atQuotation mark#Chinese, Japanese and Korean to support their assertion that angle brackets are valid quotation marks in Japanese or Korean. In fact it says that they arenot quotation marks (but rather that they are used to identify book titles). It may be that, because angle brackets can be invoked easily from Android, that some people have adopted them as quotation marks but that is not good enough. So, until they can back it up with aWP:RS, their change will keep being reverted. Unless of course someone else can help them out with an RS citation?𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk)20:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ✓Done~2025-31563-08 (talk)21:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• B-Class level-5 vital articles
• Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Society and social sciences
• B-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
• B-Class Typography articles
• Mid-importance Typography articles

• All Wikipedia vital articles