Talk:Nested quotation

Split

Should be split into two articles: one on literature and one on programming. RJFJR (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Revert

I have undone this edit, by Afaprof01, which had several issues:

• It relegated the original article, which explained the subject of nested quotations quite well, to a section misleadingly titled "More complicated rules and examples" well below in the article.

• The new lead discussed quotations in general, rather than focussing on nested quotations in particular, and did not use the title nested quotations at all. (See WP:LEADSENTENCE.)

• This was followed by sections on "Direct quotations" and "Indirect quotations" which are not particularly relevant to the article, certainly not enough to warrant whole sections nor necessary to discuss before addressing the actual topic of the article. (See WP:OFFTOPIC.)

• Confusingly, the actual subject of the article (nested quotations) was not mentioned in any detail until the third section, titled "Quotation within a quotation". It would take some effort for a reader unfamiliar with the concept to realise that this was actually what the entire article was meant to be about.

• The added text read more like an instruction manual ("Do not open a quotation and fail to close it at the end of the quoted material") and gave explicit instructions relevant only to Wikipedia ("DO put a space between single and double spaces if you use the Wikipedia template {{" '}} or {{' "}}.") (See WP:NOTMANUAL.)

• It included the statement "Quotation marks are always, without exception, used in pairs" (emphasis in original), which ignored the exception that quotations that continue over multiple paragraphs do not include an ending quotation mark in each paragraph except the last. (See WP:DUBIOUS.)

I thought the entire article might need a re-write when I saw it, but it seems that reverting the last edit is the best way.

In order to overcome the issues of citation, please introduce citations to verify the content of the current article rather than re-writing the article in a way that does not stick to the subject or comply with Wikipedia policies. —sroc (talk) 06:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)