Talk:Quotation mark

The Summary 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)

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

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

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)

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

Putting the dot/full-stop/period under 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)

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)

Updating where? 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)

The section Quotation mark#Typographic forms discusses this issue without stating an opinion because an encyclopedia (like a dictionary) records what is, not what someone thinks should 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)

At their talk page, I have advised user:~2025-31563-08 that they cannot keep trying to assert that U+3008 〈 LEFT ANGLE BRACKET and U+3009 〉 RIGHT ANGLE BRACKET are valid entries in the infobox. There is nothing at Quotation 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 are not 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 a WP: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)

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