Template talk:sense

Colon
The colon should be italicized too. --Connel MacKenzie 19:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Good catch. The CSS in the template is now corrected.  Let me know if anything else looks wrong.  (I also modified the documentation above to show the currently selected style.)  Rod (A. Smith) 20:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: the WT:PREFS setting to italicize the surrounding parentheses is the same setting used to italicize the trailing colon. That wording is now corrected in WT:PREFS.  Rod (A. Smith) 20:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Very styled
A colon following a phrase in brackets looks rather odd to me. Is there a precedent for such a construction in any print dictionary or glossary? And italics makes a total of three typographic devices used to set off the sense. Bringhurst (book) tells us to "change one parameter at a time."

Would anyone object if maybe we changed this to just italics plus colon? —Michael Z. 05:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal
Proposal is that should categorize in some way, and so should  for the same reason; to have all of these in a single cleanup category. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

CodeCat's and DCDuring's edits to this template on May 21, 2014
CodeCat's original edit was a good faith attempt to clarify the wording that appears when this template is used in mainspace.

But I agree with DCDuring, that the change is unnecessary. In fact, I think this change significantly detracts from the quality of mainspace entries. What appeared in mainspace was already entirely clear, and this change only adds needless verbiage to what should be the briefest of glosses. The change should be undone. -- · (talk) 04:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure whether I agree with CodeCat's original edit — we've gotten plenty of feedback showing that people are confused by in ====Antonyms==== sections, which is a hint that they probably latently misunderstand it in other sections as well — but I certainly disagree with her re-revert, and especially with her edit-summary "Unexplained revert", as though it were DCDuring's responsibility to defend the status quo rather than CodeCat's responsibility to discuss an edit that she now knew to be controversial. —Ruakh TALK 06:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * See Beer parlour/2014/May. Apparently CodeCat's original edit was bad, too. I guess I'm not surprised. —Ruakh TALK 06:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A follow up: Beer_parlour/2016/March. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)