Template talk:Quotation

Feedback, is this better than Quote?
It's a different purpose. The Quote box (right-side justified) fits nicely in its purpose to provide an "aside" point, for example: Social Security.

You should instead be comparing it to Notice. I think Notice works better, as the intent is to bring something to a reader's attention. I added Notice to the Bogleheads:Sandbox. I would use Notice over Quotation. --LadyGeek 21:39, 18 January 2015 (CST)
 * I'm struggling to understand how something that is an "aside" point should be promoted to a Notice. They are vastly different things and the presentation to the user is significantly different.
 * I thought the general intent was to follow Wikipedia's lead? The Bogleheads version of Quote has no resemblance to Wikipedia's Template:Quote. So my first approach was to just update to Wikipedia's version. But they indicate an intention to merge with the Quotation template. Thus my approach to picking the Quotation template to copy to the BH wiki. FWIW, the closest match to the current Quote template that I could find was Wikipedia's Template:Quote box. If the intention is to retain the boxed appearance on the right margin, then this likely should be the alternative. The only concern is the Caution information in the template's documentation that would need to be reviewed and considered.
 * I disagree, rather strongly, on using Notice as a replacement. It is not being used consistently with Wikipedia either, per Template:Notice, which states "It should be used sparingly and only for significant information for which a more specific template doesn't exist." Personally I find that the Notice template is being overused and distracts from the contents of the articles.
 * In the articles that I checked that use the template, the quoted text was an important part of the article and it seemed to me that the Quotation template provided the appropriate importance in the context of the article.
 * At the end of the day, my objective is supplying tried and true Wikipedia templates that can help editors and benefit readers, so any guidance on direction is helpful. But to me, the current Quote template produces output that is totally inconsistent with the intent to follow Wikipedia's example and should be replaced. --Peculiar Investor 22:41, 18 January 2015 (CST)
 * I see your point now. It's a difference on the meaning of sparingly and significant. I was using Notice to highlight key points which I thought were important to mention. Usage in that context is more akin to frequently and somewhat important. However, one should pay attention to it. To align with Wikipedia, I agree on your perspective. Replacement with Quote should be done carefully, as a number of the existing boxes really are important.
 * The functionality of right-aligned Quote should remain, as it's used as intended. The Wikipedia equivalent of Template:Quote box would be a helpful format change, as I think it's easier to read.--LadyGeek 16:26, 19 January 2015 (CST)
 * This dialogue was the specific reason that I solicited feedback on this template and didn't barge ahead and change all usage of the Quote template to use this version. I'd still like to get more feedback, so perhaps I'll post in the editor's lounge also. --Peculiar Investor 17:05, 19 January 2015 (CST)
 * Can the content in Bogleheads:Sandbox be cleared? I wanted to make use of the page, but it's intended for this discussion. I went with my user page version instead. --LadyGeek 16:51, 24 January 2015 (CST)

✅ --Peculiar Investor 17:31, 24 January 2015 (CST)

Notice template
Based on the above comments, I revised Notice to align with finiki (Wikipedia compliant) and, more importantly, to include the proper documentation. --LadyGeek 21:02, 19 January 2015 (CST)