Usage Use this template to apply the correct styling to a gloss, given as the first (and often only) parameter.  Based on linguistic standards, for linguistic material Based on default WP:Manual of Style expectations, out of a linguistic context Adjustable in user stylesheets   Typical usage:  Foreign term {{gloss|English term}}  E.g.:  {{langx|es|casa}} {{gloss|house}}  yields:     With parentheses (round brackets):  See below for when to use this option.  Technical or ambiguous term {{gloss|mode=def|contextual plain-English meaning}}  E.g.:  billiards {{gloss|mode=def|cue sports on a pocketless table}}  yields:  billiards   Inline glosses Most translations and definitions are worded as glosses.  That is, the words in the definition or translation function with the same part of speech and semantics as the defined or translated material.  For example, a contextual gloss of the word cats (a noun) might be the noun phrase members of the family Felidae (to distinguish it from the narrow meaning domestic cats), and a translating gloss of the Spanish verb  is a verb phrase in English, to live.  Some terms are difficult or impossible to define with a gloss.  For example, one of the definitions of the word of in English that a dictionary could give might be Connects a noun derived from a verb with the object of that verb.  That definition is not a gloss, because the words in the definition cannot be used as a substitute for of.  Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and thus we do not usually specially format glosses (or non-gloss explanations) of terms or concepts in any particular way, but present this content as best fits the context:              And so on.  There are some exceptions, where a consistent approach can be helpful:   In the presentation of translations of non-English content into English, it is useful to both readers and editors to consistently distinguish meaning, as in , from other annotations, as in , or . Standard linguistic practice (and WP practice – see MOS:SINGLE) is to place English translation glosses of foreign terms in 'single quotation marks', non-italicized, non-bracketed, and without intervening punctuation (e.g. comma); and to italicize the non-English original (see MOS:FOREIGN).  This is the default behavior of this template: [[Lao language|Lao]]: {{lang|lo-Latn|khwaay}} {{gloss|water buffalo}} produces: Lao:   – without need of any further parameters.  When glossing a literal but ambiguous English translation (itself a different kind of gloss), to make the meaning clearer: , since "water buffalo" by itself could be misinterpreted as inclusive of the wild species. This additional kind of gloss is most often put in parentheses (round brackets), and is not italicized in most contexts. (They are italicized or otherwise distinguished in some dictionaries, for distinction from the definition as such.) The typical non-italicized use is the second of this template's basic functions: ... playing billiards {{gloss|mode=def|cue sports on a pocketless table}} ... produces: ... playing billiards  ....  If this use of the template becomes common, it will be possible for user stylesheets to hide them for more concise presentation (e.g. on mobile devices) or perhaps a Wikipedia:Gadget to toggle display/hide mode on the fly.  When quickly explaining jargon, slang, or other possibly unfamiliar wording, and without need for elaboration, the use of parentheses is the most common and concise approach, and usually the least likely to lead to a comprehension difficulty: , or  vs. . Note that the or format can easily imply an alternative term instead of a gloss, and is frequently confused for this reason: . The use of double quotation marks can easily be misinterpreted as skepticism or sarcasm, whichever direction they are applied:  and . The use of italics for words as words can similarly lead to difficulty, such as applying the wrong style to a taxonomic group that is never italicized, as in , or being misinterpreted as  or as a . This is another case for use of .  Interlinear glosses  Other templates have been provided for interlinear glossing:  Use  for glossed text  Use  for individual glossing abbreviations  However,  can technically be used (possibly awkwardly) to provide glosses (the bottom line) of an interlinear gloss.  It is not presently suited for a gloss spread out over several table columns, because it generates 'single quotes' on each use. A parameter could be added to suppress this, but may never be needed since we have .  Don't over-do it Regardless what template you use, please note that excessively complex interlinear glosses (such as might be found in a linguistics journal paper) are usually not appropriate in an encyclopedia. As the Leipzig Glossing Rules states: "Depending on the author's purposes and the readers' assumed background knowledge, different degrees of detail will be chosen." Our readers have  other than enough English-language competence to get the gist of articles on the English Wikipedia. Many of our readers are elementary school children, and learners of English as a second language (ESL). Even a native speaker with a masters degree may have no knowledge of linguistics jargon.   In most contexts, it is thus not necessary, and may be confusing, to provide a great deal of metalanguage morpheme-by-morpheme correspondence information, between the original text and the free English gloss (much less to mix such information into the gloss).  When such information is provided, e.g. in an article on detailed linguistic matters, link at least the first occurrence of standardized linguistics abbreviations (given in ) to the corresponding article about that feature of language, as in: .  Use the  template, as it was created to do this without having to resort to a bunch of manual markup.  Interlinear glosses of any complexity are best arranged in a bare table, to preserve vertical alignment between elements.  See also   or  - similar template but with a "lit." lead-in.   or   References and further reading