This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Quotation mark article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute 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 rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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

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

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: 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)Reply

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)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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style