Template talk:first person singular present tense and imperative of

Discussion

Shouldn’t we split this into two lines, like

1. First person singular present tense of krassen.
2. Imperative of krassen.

The problem is that this would necessitate the inclusion of the # in the template, which is not the case now. H. (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This template failed WT:RFDO for the reason you stated. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion debate

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Template:first person singular present tense and imperative of

First-person singular present tense and imperative are two definitions, and should be on two lines. Used only twice in the main namespace, sol and hoon, only other use is the documentation of the template itself. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphan and delete per nom. Like French, Dutch has two present imperative forms — one informal singular, one formal-slash-plural — so even if we're O.K. with combining these onto one line (like we usually do with English preterites and past participles), this template isn't explicit enough, and can't be fixed in a language-neutral way. —Ruakh_TALK 17:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete. For Dutch there is a template called {{nl-verb-form}} which can create these entries, and that's the template MewBot uses for Dutch verbs. Also, Dutch only really has one imperative, the plural/formal imperative is archaic and hasn't really been used at all since the early 20th century. —CodeCat 11:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. --Dan Polansky 09:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)