Template talk:past of

RFM

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Move to Template:en-past of. As far as I can tell, this is intended specifically for English, but its name is very misleading to say the least. —CodeCat 17:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

1. Support There is also good reason to have {{en-simple past}}, {{en-3rd person singular of}}, {{en-present participle of}} (or {{en-ing form of}}), {{en-past participle of}} and {{en-plural of}}, though shorter aliases would be desirable for the longer ones. These would allow linking to appropriate Etymology or PoS sections within English L2 sections, thereby taking advantage of the positioning of English at the top of the page in all(?) relevant pages. DCDuring TALK 17:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

   I think I agree with that too, although I'm not sure how well subsection-linking works with tabbed languages. Also consider what would happen if a Translingual section precedes. —CodeCat 17:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

   That kind of thing is what the ? was for. Translingual taxonomic name and associated entries are OK as they would be proper nouns or nouns or adjectives with Latinized spellings, ie no problem with verb templates, unlikely to be a problem for nouns. Other Latin script Translingual entries not for symbols (including numbers) should be very few. I expect that most of them arguably do not belong in Translingual. In the remaining instances we have a choice of complexifying the template a lot (not my favorite option) or having a parameter ("nottop=" ?) to force the link to the English section.

   Also, {{en-comparative form of}} and {{en-superlative form of}} could also be created, with similar potential advantages. DCDuring TALK 18:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

   Argh, um other languages use to too, right? Middle English for example. That of course doesn't mean we can't use this. By the way the French Wiktionary for English uses two lines, one for simple past and one for past participle. That's really what we should do, in my opinion. By bot it wouldn't be hard; {{past of}} itself could be turned into a subst: template and subst:ed by bot. That would be my vote in the overall scheme of things. Delete this all together. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

   Didn't Middle English still distinguish past singular (no -en) from past plural (with -en)? Old English did, at least, so that probably carried over into Middle English as well. Also, I'm pretty sure that Middle English weak past forms still had a schwa -e at the end, whereas the past participle did not. —CodeCat 18:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

   Are there entries in any other languages besides Middle English and English that use this?

   Middle English should be using templates of the form "enm" or generic ones. English would benefit from not using templates with generic behavior, rather than exploiting its special position. What is the best way to accomplish this result? DCDuring TALK 22:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

   What's the name of the tool for identifying parameter use within templates? DCDuring TALK 22:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Why are we using hashes? Anyway, {{#if:{{{lang|}}}|[[Category:past of with lang]]}} should do it, no need for dump analysis. PS this would also pick up lang=en, but since that's redundant there's no reason not to identify those too. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

1. The hash carries over from my agree above. This is easy to do if all we have to do is worry about Middle English, because there are relatively few entries. We can create the "enm" templates before the move, making them mimic the relevant behavior of the generically named template. We can also create the new "en" templates and test them, making sure that there is consensus. We can then redirect the generically named templates to the "en" ones, change the inflected-form entry creators to the new name, and gradually eliminate the older name.

   The tool for identifying parameter use seems particularly useful to catch any unexpected use of the template in languages other than English and Middle English. I realize that the comparative and superlative templates are more difficult because at least many Romance languages use them. DCDuring TALK 23:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

   {{#ifeq:{{{lang|en}}}|en||[[Category:past of with lang]]}} will categorise any non-English uses, regardless of whether the lang= parameter was provided. —CodeCat 23:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

   I was thinking of TemplateTiger. DCDuring TALK 00:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

   Using Templatetiger I was able to establish that one de, one enm, one no, and ~30 sco entries use this template. I have revised the de, enm, and no entries, but not yet the sco. DCDuring TALK 00:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I've orphaned {{past of}} and moved all transclusions over to {{en-past of}} and {{sco-past of}}. I also simplified the templates by removing parameters that weren't used or needed for English/Scots entries (like script). —CodeCat 04:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

That was a bit quick! Mglovesfun (talk) 10:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you update ACCEL? It still[ [//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=recertificated&diff=19969566&oldid=19967884 uses {{past of}}. - -sche (discuss) 02:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, the whole accelerated creation system really confuses me. It seems like it was written to be clever but not to actually be easy to adapt by people who don't understand all the intricacies. So... I don't really feel terribly comfortable trying to do that. (though, I think it says enough about the system if I can't even figure out how to change something as simple as this!) —CodeCat 03:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. --Yair rand (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)