585:
WHATWG is a consortium of three browser makers, and its spec is what those three agree on as the default behavior of their products (and is notably missing
Microsoft and Google). It does not dictate usage here. And any time WHATWG conflicts with W3C, we follow W3C, because it's intended for authors/publishers not user-agent developers, and has the buy-in of hundreds of organizations, not just three. Incidentally, all three are in W3C, too; any time WHATWG conflicts with W3C on HTML or CSS, it's those three companies contradicting themselves because they can't read specs properly, just don't care, or have some kind of "the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing" internal office politics problem going on. I'm on WHATWG's mailings list and I see these issues unfold first-hand and real-time. Sometimes it's just facepalm ridiculous, and frequently also involves a lot of "me and my buddies got mad at someone at W3C in 2005, so screw them and everyone who likes their spec" posturing. I've directly encountered this multiple times in trying to resolve some of WHATWG's boneheaded "PoV forks" from W3C. One obvious example of this is WHATWG trying to force italics on the content of
545:; this is the "D" part now). This affects few enough articles that others weren't likely to raise objections any time soon. However, some of what you did either a) has been objected to before, as I indicated (e.g. the dark underline color), or b) doesn't comport with MoS and other rules here (e.g. the over-italicization); on the latter, whether anyone objected in this particular instance is irrelevant. (This is a general principle; e.g., it's not okay to violate BLP just because no one notices and objects to the violation. The existence of a rule about it is a "pre-objection".) While you might not have been aware of the issues before, you are now.
621:
when not needed to work around a specific, intractable problem. If you spend any time at WP's own CSS interface pages' talk pages, you'll find out quickly that the consensus is strongly against doing anything to elements that defies their expected behavior, if we can avoid going in that direction. No one wants a span that behaves like a div (or whatever) if this can be avoided. In over a decade of template and style work here, the only time I can recall feeling
573:; the two are not synonymous. A provenience is ...". Whether such a stylization applies in a given circumstance is a case-by-case judgement call, and WP's MoS has specific advice on when to use it (including to use quotation marks instead sometimes, and usually neither stylization after the term has already been introduced and used once). You're trying to hard-code a style that violates our style guide in multiple ways most of the time (especially in
611:(while I don't see the difference with my eyes on my monitor, the difference might be marked on others). I implemented that, though it needs to be checked that this doesn't vary on a skin-by-skin basis, at last when it comes to the official skins. We might need to set it to a class; requires some digging around in the system-wide stylesheets.
437:
The i element represents a span of text in an alternate voice or mood, or otherwise offset from the normal prose in a manner indicating a different quality of text, such as a taxonomic designation, a technical term, an idiomatic phrase from another language, transliteration, a thought, or a ship name
620:
does; I'm a professional Web developer, among other things. There is no need for that code when we don't use markup that requires it. Using it can also have side-effects relating to the CSS box model. It's a "weird thing" – a "pretend this isn't what it really is" effect – that shouldn't be used
809:
Yes, this is a problem. It took me some time to work out why some links were not working. I can't quite work out what is happening, but it has something to do with case of the first letter. Can it be fixed or is there a workaround that should be in the documentation? Please ping with reply. · · ·
589:
and "requiring" the element to only be used for titles, when it's intended for any citation data (as long as it contains at least one of: a title, author, or URL. Even if W3C were to go along with WHATWG's attempt to limit the scope (they actually tried that for a while in the early days of HTML5,
1162:
for cases where a lower-case anchor isn't sensible/desirable, typically a proper name like "Hermansky–Pudlak syndrome" (I would still create them for an acronym like "VRAM" and "CMOS" since some people write them lower-case; e.g., if we were gli'ing from a quotation that used a lower case one, it
584:
Long digression on why else to not take WHATWG seriously: WHATWG's style and intent recommendations are sometimes flat-out wrong, conflicting not only with off-WP major style guides but also with W3C's HTML5 and CSS specs, which have way more buy-in and are what people actually validate against.
126:
needs a light underline. Someone, in the course of debugging an unrelated double-tooltip issue, removed the original underline without discussion, resulting in the glossaries being barely usable. It was impossible to see which terms were in-glossary links without randomly hovering over words and
590:
and the real-world developer reaction was overwhelmingly negative), the forced italics would still be wrong, because only the titles of major works are italicized; minor works' and sub-works' titles go in italics, and some works get neither, e.g. utility software like
Microsoft Word (italics
887:
It'll definitely break something else (namely, almost every use of this template at the start of a sentence). Almost all glossary entries should be lower-case (unless they are proper names). The usual use-case for this template is for terms, not names, and the case stuff is to account for
670:
Sorry that's a bit long, but I'm trying to cover these things adequately. Templates with CSS in them fairly often attract well-intended but side-effect-inducing tweaks from people with particular preferences regarding what is "best" with CSS or HTML. I get bitten in the butt by this, too,
411:
While this template may have "thousands" of transclusions, it's only used on 7 individual articles—all of which are glossaries that you'd expect to have a high number of transclusions, and all of which I looked at when I made the changes. They were certainly not "random". (I was editing
671:
sometimes; we do have a lot of templates with clumsy code in them and I clean them up when I come across them, but once in a while get reverted because something was done in a highly particular way on purpose, and I wasn't aware of it. D'oh! HTML comments help.
663:. Someone else pointed it out; I don't think I caught that one. Anyway, as the doc says, the intended style is dashed. In some browsers and on high-resolution monitors (small text), a dotted line is almost indistinguishable from a solid underline.
1068:, it looks for a "aBC" instead of "abc". The template is not even documented this way, and says explicitly that it's going to look for a target of "abc" and that the target page needs lower-case anchors (these are automatically provided by
465:
merely allows the element to be styled as if it were a block element. It doesn't have any unintended effects. (And if it did, they would be readily apparent on a page that has hundreds or thousands of transclusions.)
556:
occurrence of a technical term, etc. (If we misused it that way, any article on a technical subject would be virtually unreadable due to every other word being italicized just for being technical). It means when a
472:
go together: The first two are for backwards compatibility with older browsers that don't support the third syntax, which is the real intended style (a dotted underline matching the color of the body text).
538:
I saw the explanations, and they clearly meant well, but they don't counter the objections to these changes nor the rationales for the template being done the way it was done in the first place.
594:
used for digital "creative works" like video games and e-books), religious doctrines like the Bible and the Q'ran, works without a real title that are named after their first few words (their
780:
The forced lower case breaks a lot of links to entries with a first capital letter. Using a first-lowercase anchor is a workaround, but there should be a better way to handle this. --
21:
This template is producing weird formatting that results in two sets of tooltips, which is counter-intuitive, confusing and difficult to use. Please see the discussion at
271:
A subtle underline color was chosen on purpose. People complained bitterly about a "robust" one, and even wanted to kill the template entirely, they hated that so much.
965:
i.e. both are capitalised, which also works correctly. So I don't understand what this has to do with the start of sentences. The links only seem to break when a
581:
in particular, which is not for the defining instance of the term on the page). WP follows its own style guide, not the loose and vague recommendations of WHATWG.
354:
this directly interfered with intentional and more contextually important, meaningful uses of italics, e.g. for non-English terms, for in-sentence discussion of
637:
system, because the effect is well-documented to require it, and in a bunch of direct testing I was not able to find another way to get the desired output.
602:, and untitled works given some conventional name that scholars have arrived at, e.g. the Dead Sea Scrolls and Bach's Sanctus in D major (a.k.a. BWV 238).
334:
color markup – most editors don't understand it (thus easily break it due to more complicated syntax), it's not needed, and it's unnecessarily lengthy.
532:
451:
class at the time, so that the term did not stand out too much from the regular body text. (It seems that perhaps this color has since changed to
565:
manner to introduce the term and/or to distinguish from another that it's being compared to. Example of both at once: "In archaeology the term
358:, for book titles, for hatnotes and other cross-references (which glossaries may use quite extensivesly), and for actual semantic emphasis with
640:
Yes, I know. We don't need any of the "edge case" support code if we use the template's original design intent instead of replacing this with
531:
I didn't mean the article or template selection were random; the changes were random experimentation done to the live template instead of in
470:
text-decoration: underline; -webkit-text-decoration: underline dotted rgb(37, 37, 37); text-decoration: underline dotted rgb(37, 37, 37);
1198:
1115:
923:
756:
723:
683:
393:
244:
189:
94:
302:
all of that is just code bloat, which actually matters in a template that may be transcluded hundreds of times on the same page;
127:
hoping to get lucky. Anyway, this version uses a dashed instead of dotted line (to distinguish it from the underlining done by
1095:
1055:
215:
157:
413:
318:
element, the only way to tell the content has both kinds of markup is to use different underline styles that do not overlap:
22:
599:
267:
with a live template with thousands of transclusions), and returned to the long-stable version of this template, because:
1179:
just because a lower-case anchor was missing. Again, this doesn't affect template-structured glossaries anyway, in which
660:
348:
212:
Some well-linked glossaries are getting quite long, and much of their bulk is actually made up of long-winded calls to
795:
Yeah, the first letter in the anchor link is always lower case when using this template, which shouldn’t be the case.
149:
79:
912:. Someone could probably make something more robust with a Lua module, but I can't Lua my way out of a paper bag.
949:
i.e. lower case redirecting to capitalised. That link works just fine. Meanwhile the entry for 'Chinese cut' says
823:
430:
1084:
list, then it would need manually added anchors. I can probably fix both the wrongheaded mismatch between what
985:, but that doesn't work either (and has a different appearance), so I reverted. Perhaps this is a problem with
1158:
It now lower-cases the entire string the same way the parent template does, and both templates now support as
1151:
1011:
880:
850:
632:
1087:
1039:
650:
229:
144:
121:
78:
Not pointing a personal finger, but something horribly wrong has certainly been done; see my comments at
1195:
1112:
920:
814:
753:
720:
680:
390:
241:
186:
91:
711:; sandboxed and implemented. Now it won't matter what skin people are using, even a weird custom one.
796:
285:
the latter is a severe readability problem in many browsers, with the underline fused to the letters;
511:
1146:
1006:
875:
845:
785:
48:
933:
Now I'm even more confused. Again looking at the cricket glossary, the entry for 'action' uses
1203:
1153:
1120:
1013:
928:
882:
852:
817:
804:
789:
766:
733:
693:
516:
402:
253:
198:
103:
73:
52:
37:
535:, as demonstrated in your edit history on the template, trying out this then trying out that.
1190:
1107:
1047:
915:
868:
859:
811:
748:
715:
675:
384:
235:
180:
85:
232:
alone, and should have a positive impact on other glossaries after it propagates to them.
140:
wrapper), and it is a light blue color, to suggest a link (but light to be unobtrusive):
562:
523:
505:
378:
69:
33:
1182:
1139:
1071:
989:
960:
944:
781:
542:
478:
419:
These changes have been live for almost a year, and no one has raised any objections.
351:, doing that made the text nearly unreadable, with almost everything italicized; and
308:
168:
135:
44:
1125:
Thanks for looking into this. It's a problem even without manual coding: just using
1174:
1166:
1129:
1063:
999:
972:
952:
936:
901:
839:
830:
576:
429:
was used for glossary terms because that is precisely what it is designed for, per
422:
I explained the reason for each change I made in my edit summaries. In particular:
223:
205:
1031:
558:
361:
844:
to work, even after playing with the capitalisation, adding extra anchors etc.
647:
Right. IIRC, I actually original did this with a "real" underline (probably in
65:
29:
150:
1060:. I'm not sure why/how that happened, but if you try to do something like
1100:
are doing with case, and also add a switch to override lowercasing, like
894:
rules apply when ...", to link to an entry #foo. For a proper name, use
595:
355:
898:. An alternative would be to have a #udrs anchor for short, and use
644:, and I already said this above. Wasn't broke, don't "fix" it. :-)
737:
That actually failed; I didn't sandbox enough. What does work is
745:
won't matter what skin people are using, even a weird custom one
320:
1028:
The problem appears to have been a change, somehow, from the
263:
I've reverted a number of undiscussed changes (the result of
1145:
breaks if there are multiple capitalised words in the term.
528:
Thanks for the response. To cover these in the same order:
162:
874:
call in this template? Or will that break something else?
305:
other code may do a "regular" underline here; if you use
908:
978:
890:
299:
change, which is apt to have other, unintended effects;
264:
61:I fixed it, unless I did something horribly wrong.
541:
I've raised an objection and reverted the changes (
347:is a terrible idea. At a well-linked glossary like
552:element. It does not suggest using that style for
941:to redirect readers, with the target entry being
569:has a distinct meaning from the art-history term
118:This version of the template (as distinct from
23:Knowledge talk:Manual of Style#Dotted underline
1076:, but if you're doing some manually wikicoded
659:problem quickly, in the "testbed" article at
8:
172:
1187:automatically creates lower-cased anchors.
447:was used to match the color used for the
408:Here's what I have to say on the matter:
228:saved tens of thousands of characters at
80:Template talk:Glossary_link#Dotted border
475:That said, I agree with your note about
1159:
1101:
969:word in the entry is capitalised e.g.
707:Yeah, the best way to do this is with
548:You're misunderstanding WHATWG on the
455:.) Your use of pure black was in fact
904:|udrs|Umpire Decision Review System}}
655:before the split) and we noticed the
321:
7:
656:
586:
549:
491:
484:
425:
367:
343:
338:
314:
128:
319:
290:-webkit-text-decoration: underline
14:
836:links work fine, but I can't get
842:|Umpire Decision Review System}}
43:it appears this has been fixed?
1163:would be more convenient to do
822:I'm having the same problem on
158:Template:Glossary link internal
642:text-decoration: underline ...
517:15:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
414:Glossary of graph theory terms
403:01:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
1:
1204:01:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
1188:
1154:13:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
1121:02:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
1105:
913:
909:Umpire Decision Review System
906:which is marginally shorter:
746:
713:
673:
494:example of overlapping style.
382:
259:Reverted recent major changes
233:
178:
74:22:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
53:20:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
1014:18:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
929:18:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
888:sentence-initial position: "
883:14:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
853:11:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
661:Glossary of cue sports terms
598:), e.g. untitled poems like
349:Glossary of cue sports terms
161:
160:(used inside same article):
38:11:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
767:23:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
734:23:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
694:23:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
254:18:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
220:over and over again; using
199:08:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
171:(unrelated to glossaries):
1224:
818:18:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
790:10:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
600:so many by Emily Dickinson
280:text-decoration: underline
204:Cut article size by using
104:15:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
907:
824:glossary of cricket terms
805:19:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
278:was used on purpose, not
147:(used between articles):
977:(a proper noun). I just
975:|One Day International}}
889:
330:WP virtually never uses
295:the latter also needs a
864:Can we just delete the
265:random experiementation
1096:glossary link internal
1056:glossary link internal
947:|term=Bowling action}}
431:the HTML specification
230:Glossary of cue sports
216:Glossary link internal
145:Template:Glossary link
979:tried your suggestion
627:display: inline-block
618:display: inline-block
468:The three statements
463:display: inline-block
297:display: inline-block
17:Two sets of tooltips
342:element instead of
288:the latter needs a
963:|term=French cut}}
957:and the target is
629:is for the recent
939:|bowling action}}
613:
603:
506:Gordon P. Hemsley
486:...</abbr: -->
438:in Western texts.
345:...</span: -->
316:...</abbr: -->
130:...</abbr: -->
72:
36:
1215:
1202:
1186:
1178:
1170:
1161:
1144:
1138:
1134:
1128:
1119:
1103:
1099:
1091:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1067:
1059:
1051:
1043:
1035:
1004:
998:
994:
988:
984:
981:of using a bare
976:
964:
956:
948:
940:
927:
910:
905:
897:
892:
873:
867:
863:
843:
835:
829:
802:
776:Forced lowercase
765:
740:
732:
710:
709:class=plainlinks
704:
700:
692:
658:
654:
643:
636:
628:
619:
612:
610:
588:
583:
580:
551:
527:
515:
514:
493:
487:
482:
471:
464:
454:
450:
446:
428:
401:
370:
365:
356:"words as words"
346:
341:
333:
324:
323:
317:
312:
298:
291:
281:
277:
252:
227:
219:
197:
174:
164:
152:
139:
131:
125:
102:
62:
26:
1223:
1222:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1180:
1172:
1164:
1142:
1136:
1132:
1126:
1093:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1069:
1061:
1053:
1045:
1037:
1029:
1002:
996:
992:
986:
982:
970:
958:
950:
942:
934:
899:
895:
871:
865:
857:
837:
833:
827:
812:Peter Southwood
798:
778:
763:
738:
730:
712:
708:
703:rgb(37, 37, 37)
702:
698:
690:
648:
641:
630:
626:
617:
608:
574:
521:
510:
502:
476:
469:
462:
452:
448:
445:rgb(37, 37, 37)
444:
399:
369:...</em: -->
359:
331:
306:
296:
289:
279:
275:
261:
250:
221:
213:
210:
195:
154:
133:
119:
116:
114:Faint underline
100:
83:
19:
12:
11:
5:
1221:
1219:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
826:. Most of the
777:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
761:
744:
739:color: initial
736:
728:
706:
688:
672:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
645:
638:
633:Gallery layout
624:
614:
607:Good point on
605:
593:
563:words as words
555:
539:
536:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
473:
466:
460:
442:
441:
440:
427:...</i: -->
420:
417:
397:
375:
374:
373:
372:
340:...</i: -->
335:
328:
327:
326:
303:
300:
293:
286:
272:
260:
257:
248:
209:
202:
193:
176:
175:
166:
155:
148:
115:
112:
111:
110:
109:
108:
107:
106:
98:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1220:
1205:
1200:
1197:
1194:
1193:
1184:
1176:
1168:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1152:
1150:
1149:
1148:Modest Genius
1141:
1131:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1117:
1114:
1111:
1110:
1097:
1089:
1088:glossary link
1073:
1065:
1057:
1049:
1041:
1040:glossary link
1033:
1027:
1015:
1012:
1010:
1009:
1008:Modest Genius
1001:
991:
980:
974:
968:
962:
955:|French cut}}
954:
946:
938:
932:
931:
930:
925:
922:
919:
918:
911:
903:
893:
886:
885:
884:
881:
879:
878:
877:Modest Genius
870:
861:
856:
855:
854:
851:
849:
848:
847:Modest Genius
841:
832:
825:
821:
820:
819:
815:
813:
808:
807:
806:
803:
801:
794:
793:
792:
791:
787:
783:
775:
769:
768:
758:
755:
752:
751:
742:
735:
725:
722:
719:
718:
695:
685:
682:
679:
678:
669:
662:
657:<abbr: -->
652:
651:Glossary link
646:
639:
634:
622:
615:
606:
604:
601:
597:
591:
587:<cite: -->
578:
572:
568:
564:
561:is used in a
560:
553:
547:
546:
544:
540:
537:
534:
530:
529:
525:
520:
519:
518:
513:
508:
507:
501:
495:
485:<abbr: -->
480:
474:
467:
461:
458:
443:
439:
435:
434:
432:
424:
423:
421:
418:
416:at the time.)
415:
410:
409:
407:
406:
405:
404:
395:
392:
389:
387:
380:
363:
357:
353:
352:
350:
344:<span: -->
336:
329:
325:
315:<abbr: -->
310:
304:
301:
294:
287:
284:
283:
276:border-bottom
273:
270:
269:
268:
266:
258:
256:
255:
246:
243:
240:
238:
231:
225:
217:
207:
203:
201:
200:
191:
188:
185:
183:
170:
169:Template:Abbr
167:
165:
159:
156:
153:
146:
143:
142:
141:
137:
129:<abbr: -->
123:
122:Glossary link
113:
105:
96:
93:
90:
88:
81:
77:
76:
75:
71:
68:
67:
60:
56:
55:
54:
50:
46:
42:
41:
40:
39:
35:
32:
31:
24:
16:
1191:
1177:|CMOS|cmos}}
1147:
1108:
1007:
995:rather than
966:
916:
876:
846:
799:
779:
749:
716:
697:Update, re:
696:
676:
616:I know what
582:
570:
566:
504:
489:
456:
436:
385:
376:
332:rgb(x, y, z)
262:
236:
211:
206:Template:gli
181:
177:
117:
86:
64:
58:
28:
20:
1192:SMcCandlish
1109:SMcCandlish
917:SMcCandlish
860:SMcCandlish
750:SMcCandlish
717:SMcCandlish
677:SMcCandlish
567:provenience
559:term of art
490:This is an
386:SMcCandlish
368:<em: -->
237:SMcCandlish
182:SMcCandlish
87:SMcCandlish
741:. Now it
571:provenance
550:<i: -->
426:<i: -->
339:<i: -->
337:Using the
533:a sandbox
524:GPHemsley
379:GPHemsley
322:snrklwsl.
282:because:
1052:call in
1036:call in
782:Paul_012
743:actually
623:required
208:shortcut
132:(or its
45:Frietjes
1169:|cmos}}
1048:lcfirst
869:lcfirst
699:#222222
625:to use
609:#222222
596:incipit
492:abbrev.
459:subtle.
453:#222222
449:mw-body
313:or the
163:abaxial
151:abaxial
1160:|lc=no
1102:|lc=no
1066:|ABC}}
967:second
764:ⱷ<
731:ⱷ<
691:ⱷ<
543:WP:BRD
377:Ping:
1171:than
1044:to a
800:qwark
797:Inter
759:: -->
726:: -->
686:: -->
554:every
292:hack;
97:⚞(ⱷ҅̆
59:think
1183:term
1140:term
1135:and
1092:and
1080:and
1072:term
990:term
961:term
945:term
786:talk
701:and
483:and
479:abbr
309:abbr
136:abbr
101:ⱷ)≼
66:sroc
49:talk
30:sroc
1201:😼
1175:gli
1167:gli
1130:gli
1118:😼
1064:gli
1000:gli
973:gli
953:gli
937:gli
926:😼
902:gli
891:Foo
840:gli
831:gli
592:are
577:gli
457:not
400:ⱷ≼
396:≽ⱷ҅
366:or
251:ⱷ≼
247:≽ⱷ҅
224:Gli
196:ⱷ≼
192:≽ⱷ҅
173:WMF
25:.
1189:—
1185:}}
1181:{{
1173:{{
1165:{{
1143:}}
1137:{{
1133:}}
1127:{{
1106:—
1104:.
1098:}}
1094:{{
1090:}}
1086:{{
1074:}}
1070:{{
1062:{{
1058:}}
1054:{{
1050:}}
1046:{{
1042:}}
1038:{{
1034:}}
1032:lc
1030:{{
1005:?
1003:}}
997:{{
993:}}
987:{{
971:{{
959:{{
951:{{
943:{{
935:{{
914:—
900:{{
872:}}
866:{{
838:{{
834:}}
828:{{
816::
788:)
760:ⱷ҅
747:—
727:ⱷ҅
714:—
705::
687:ⱷ҅
674:—
653:}}
649:{{
635:}}
631:{{
579:}}
575:{{
488::
481:}}
477:{{
433::
383:—
381:.
364:}}
362:em
360:{{
311:}}
307:{{
274:A
234:—
226:}}
222:{{
218:}}
214:{{
179:—
138:}}
134:{{
124:}}
120:{{
99:⚲͜
84:—
82:.
70:💬
57:I
51:)
34:💬
1199:¢
1196:☏
1116:¢
1113:☏
1082::
1078:;
983:]
924:¢
921:☏
896:]
862::
858:@
784:(
762:ᴥ
757:¢
754:☏
729:ᴥ
724:¢
721:☏
689:ᴥ
684:¢
681:☏
526::
522:@
512:✉
509:→
503:—
398:ᴥ
394:¢
391:☏
388:☺
371:.
249:ᴥ
245:¢
242:☏
239:☺
194:ᴥ
190:¢
187:☏
184:☺
95:¢
92:☏
89:☺
63:—
47:(
27:—
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.