Template talk:non-gloss definition

Discussion

CSS class

I'm not sure that 'use-with-mention' is the best CSS class to use for this template, but it seems to be a decent first approximation since the Category:Form of templates are a type of non-gloss definition. Feel free to suggest or create a different CSS class if you have any better ideas. Rod (A. Smith) 18:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to keep information together, there's the BP discussion (June 2008) about this template. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 08:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: Category:Form of templates is now at Category:Form-of templates. - dcljr (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

context

Should context tags be inside or outside this template?—msh210℠ 17:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Outside, I would think. Do you have an example where they might look better inside the template? Rod (A. Smith) 17:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't depend on looks. The template should surround the non-gloss definition. We should decide what that conprises (e.g., whether it includes the context tags). Once we've decided where the template goes, we can decide what it looks like. At least, I think so.—msh210℠ 18:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good approach. My opinion is that context tags apply to an entire sense of an entry, and that each sense is defined by one or more semi-colon-separated definitions. Most of those definitions are glosses, but in special entries, one definition or one way of expressing a particular sense may be non-glossy. I imagine these variations:

# a glossy [[definition]] for one sense

# a glossy [[definition]] for another sense; another glossy way of expressing this sense

# {{non-gloss definition|indicates some sense that is difficult to express as a gloss}}

# a glossy [[definition]]; {{non-gloss definition|indicates something about this sense that the glossy definition expresses ambiguously or imperfectly}}

# {{context|some grammar, register, dialect, field, colocation details, etc.}} another glossy [[definition]]

# {{context|some grammar, register, dialect, field, colocation details, etc.}} another glossy [[definition]]; another glossy way of expressing this sense

# {{context|some grammar, register, dialect, field, colocation details, etc.}} {{non-gloss definition|indicates some sense that is difficult to express as a gloss}}

# {{context|some grammar, register, dialect, field, colocation details, etc.}} a glossy [[definition]]; {{non-gloss definition|indicates something about this sense that the glossy definition expresses ambiguously or imperfectly}}

So, context tags seem to belong immediately after the "#" of a sense, outside of this template. Does that seem right? Rod (A. Smith) 19:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

To me, fwiw, yes.—msh210℠ 16:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Broken pages

@IvanScrooge98 Your last edit broke a bunch of pages, which pass parameters (usually lang) to {{non-gloss definition}} (or its shortcuts). Could probably be fixed easily with an AWB run. – Jberkel (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jberkel: if it is the case, I can just undo my edit. It was intended to simplify, certainly not complicate things. [ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔ̟t̪ːo] _{(parla con me)} 20:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, please do. In the meantime I'll look into fixing things with AWB, then we can re-enable it (also need to check if the tag nesting is ok). What exactly were you trying to achieve? – Jberkel (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted it for now. Started with AWB but this is probably more a task for a bot. There were around 2800 module errors (probably not all related to this template though). – Jberkel (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Language parameter

@IvanScrooge98 Actually this template should probably be changed to take a language parameter (see -cino for example, links go to the English sections). I'll bring it up in BP. – Jberkel (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Not italic on mobile site

This template does not make the text italic on the mobile site like it does on the normal one. Compare "yay" on mobile site and "yay" on normal site. --M!dgard (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, I can't reproduce this: for me, both desktop and mobile have italics, as expected, whether I view the pages from a computer or a mobile phone. - -sche (discuss) 21:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)