Template talk:comparative of

Language anchor wanted

It should be easily implemented when the lang= parameter is supplied to also link the main word as e.g. blyg#Norwegian|blyg instead of merely blyg (for the word blygere). __meco 20:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Link to Glossary

Shouldn't this link to Appendix:Glossary#comparative, not to the entry comparative? 75.212.217.187 (really, w:en:User:JesseW/not logged in 06:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. There is a strong case for the dictionary terms wiktionary uses to be defined in the specific sense we use them as defined in the internal glossary. DCDuring TALK 10:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have made the change. I don't think anything should break. DCDuring TALK 10:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Include "more ugly"

Would there be any support of changing the wording to the following, or a similar idea to remove the necessity of understanding "comparative" from the template entirely. Conrad.Irwin 10:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

# Comparative form of {{{1}}}; more {{{1}}}.

I like the idea. There would then be some maintenance to remove the extra "more X" that would appear on many entries. It would be a minor appearance improvement for such entries, once dupes were removed, because the inserte "more X" looks ugly with the period that follows the templated text. DCDuring TALK 11:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Good idea! A colon might be better than a semicolon, though, since the two definitions are equivalent. —Ruakh_TALK 12:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad it's here. Looks good. I've already added it a few places in the course of failed attempts to use search to find instances of the template and following text with "more", to eliminate duplicated text. How might getting such a list be possible, through better use of search, another search tool, or otherwise? DCDuring TALK 01:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I estimate that it would take me only another hour to finish using a manual scan of the 592 entries in the comparative category that I have not already scanned (6 instances of dupe text in first 200). IOW, it would not be worth anything custom unless it it is very quick. I wouldn't mind learning any search tricks that would have enabled me to better use search. DCDuring TALK 01:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have eliminated all the duplicate text I could find by reviewing all of the entries that use this template using popups. C. 25 in all.

Now we could use the same for {{superlative of}}. DCDuring TALK 15:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

More eläimellinen. Not good. If the lang parameter is defined, that should not be visible.--Jyril 20:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to suppress the "more [headword]" in English using something simple like "nomore=1"? I don't know how many instances there are, but more is not handled well, yielding "more more". If this really is the only possible instance, then I guess I should handcraft the senses that have this. DCDuring TALK 21:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Colon vs. Semicolon

For the Comparative of and Superlative of templates, currently entries read as follows:

Comparative form of glassy: more glassy.

I feel a semicolon may make more sense than a colon.

Comparative form of glassy; more glassy.

I changed the templates but had the edits rolled back.

I recommend changing the templates to have a semicolon rather than a colon. Agree? Disagree? sewnmouthsecret 13:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. A semicolon usually suggests two slightly different senses, whereas a colon usually conveys that what precedes is equivalent to what follows. When we describe something and then gloss it, I think the colon is the best and clearest punctuation mark to indicate that the description and the gloss are trying to convey the exact same thing. (Compare ordinary English: "Glassier is the comparative form of 'glassy': it means 'more glassy'" vs. "Glassier is the comparative form of 'glassy'; it means 'more glassy'." The latter sounds like two separate but related statements about 'glassier', whereas the former makes clear that only one statement is being made, but in two different ways.) —Ruakh_TALK 14:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

From our definition on colon: "The punctuation mark ":" introducing a quotation or a series of items, or separating clauses."

The template in its current state doesn't fit this definition. I don't purport to be an expert in punctuation, but I just don't think this looks right. sewnmouthsecret 15:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It falls under the "separating clauses" clause. (They're really clause fragments, a.k.a. phrases, because it's a definition and not a real sentence; but then, we'd have the same issue with a semicolon.) For a fuller explanation of the uses of the colon, see [[w:Colon (punctuation)]]; the use I'm describing is what's there called appositive, and it's the same category as what are there called syntactical-deductive and syntactical-descriptive. Now, colons and semicolons aren't mutually exclusive, and I'm not saying a semicolon would be wrong; but I do think that in a definition, a semicolon indicates a shift in sense, which in this case is not what we're trying to indicate. —Ruakh_TALK 00:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

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.

---

Split off English versions of Template:comparative of and Template:superlative of

These templates currently contain code that displays additional information in the definition when the language is English. I don't think that a general, language-independent template like this should contain code that caters to a specific language in this way, so I propose splitting off all English uses of these templates to {{en-comparative of}} and {{en-superlative of}}. —CodeCat 19:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Support per nomination. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Weak support. - -sche (discuss) 20:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Done —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

is_lemma not working

ἆσσον (âsson) needs to be categorized as comparative adverb and not a comparative adverb form, but is_lemma isn't not working. Also, I wish the parameters were simpler to use. For instance, making "lemma" or "adverb" in the fourth or fifth parameter trigger the appropriate behavior. But I don't know much about Module coding. — Eru·tuon 01:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

You can use nocat=1 and add the appropriate category some other way. —CodeCat 02:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)