Template talk:en-conj

To be

Where is the template that can be found on the English entry 'to be'? ~Eloquio (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

As you can see by editing that section of the page, there is no template, the table is hardcoded on the page itself. --WikiTiki89 14:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry; noticed that just after I asked here. ~Eloquio (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

RFM discussion: October 2013–February 2016

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

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.

---

Template:en-conj

This is an unused template that contains only a schoolboy exercise of the conjugation of do, mostly perphrastic, of course, and incomplete as a table of all periphrastic equivalents of all tenses and aspects that can be expressed in English. Thus it is misnamed and misleading. If anything it ought to be in the creator's user space, renamed as {{en-conj-do}}. DCDuring TALK 14:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

If you plug in other terms, it outputs the forms of the verb you've plugged in. Observe: {{en-conj|love|loved||loving}} yields:

Conjugation of love

infinitive	(to) love
	present tense	past tense
1st-person singular	love	loveed
2nd-person singular
3rd-person singular	loves
plural	love
subjunctive	love	loveed
imperative	love	—
participles	loveing	loveed

That doesn't mean we really need it, of course, but it does do more than you thought it did. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I was so annoyed that it didn't work as it used to, as the inflection-line template (or redirect thereto) for English conjugations, that I didn't bother to look. That it has no documentation makes that particularly easy. It needs the "principal parts" (3, 4?) in order to generate the periphrases that it covers.

Were it deployed in English L2s I think it would be a great way to ensure that we get fewer native speakers to use Wiktionary, to continue phase one of the linguistic cleansing process. DCDuring TALK 16:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean the inflection-line template for English conjunctions? That's now at {{en-con}}. Anyway, I have no objection to deleting this (it's unused anyway) since we already provide the principle parts on the headword line and everything is derivable from those parts, especially if we have an Appendix:English verbs for the benefit of learners. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Besides, it needs fixing: buried deep in the paradigm are "he will has" and "he would has". Chuck Entz (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I created a documentation that there are no more confusions and thus I think this discussion is finished, Keep as is. --Bigbossfarin (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. There is so little value to English conjugation tables that it doesn't seem to me that it merits taking a name that should be used for English conjunctions. Mindless uniformity across languages might be fine for other languages, but not for English on English Wiktionary. Why not rename it as {{en-conjugation}}? DCDuring TALK 14:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm split. The template is too well made to delete, but on the other hand it is entirely useless since we don't conjugate English verbs in entries (and I would be opposed to doing so). I guess I would support moving it to {{en-conjugate}}. But I definitely oppose moving {{en-con}} to {{en-conj}} and would also oppose redirecting {{en-conj}} to {{en-con}}. If {{en-conj}} doesn't contain a conjugation table, then it most certainly should not contain a conjunction template. This is not mindless uniformity, this is to avoid confusion. --WikiTiki89 14:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Another way to avoid confusion would be to rename "xx-conj" templates to "xx-conjg". We know have confusion among contraction, conjunction , and conjugation templates, which could be avoided by other shortcuts "xx-contr", "xx-conjct", and "xx-conjg". This template name has the most potential for confusion. DCDuring TALK 15:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you're right, but using different abbreviations for each language is much more confusing than having ambiguous abbreviations. --WikiTiki89 15:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

A discussion about the name of the templates you can already find here: Template talk:en-con. Since this discussion names of some templates for conjunctions were changed to "xx-con", see: {{eo-con}}, {{nl-con}}, {{arc-con}}, {{cmn-con}}, {{lo-con}}, {{nan-con}}, {{hy-con}}, {{ka-con}}, {{xcl-con}}, {{sh-con}}, and {{ur-con}}. So everyone who wants to use {{en-conj}} for header of conjunctions is wrong, and if you look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:en-conj there is not one content page which uses this template as header. I don't think that we have to move anything because it would be a big effort to change the lemma of all the listed templates. Greetings Bigbossfarin (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Could we rename -decl and -conj to -infl instead? Then the problem would be sidestepped. And "infl" is more general, because it can apply to things that aren't conjugation or declension, like Dutch pronominal adverbs or Irish prepositions. Declension and conjugation are primarily Indo-European-biased terms and don't fit well in many other cases, nor is it even clear what should be done when they're mixed together. —CodeCat 16:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Not moved to userspace (as originally proposed) or anywhere else; the template has been substantially overhauled and may prove useful. - -sche (discuss) 04:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

only he

there's no "she" or "it" or "one" in this template. So sexist... Indian subcontinent (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Indian subcontinent: I could insert a gender parameter but I don't think it would be used. Listing all pronouns is too long. Do you have any suggestions? Bigbossfarin (talk) 10:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

RFD discussion: July 2020–May 2022

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Template:en-conj

Nomination per Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2020/June#Conjugation_table_for_English_verbs. Mihia (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Delete, I see no value in having a conjugation table that only contains periphrastic forms; this makes English conjugation look needlessly complicated. PUC – 12:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we should have English verb conjugation tables; it's bizarre that the English Wiktionary has tables for French and German (which contain plenty of multiple-word inflected forms that could be seen as making the conjugation look complicated) and not English, while the French and German Wiktionaries do show how English verbs conjugate. Perhaps we should have a much simpler table than this (and indeed, we do have some simpler conjugation tables, so I'm fine with deleting this particular one), and ones that list archaic forms with appropriate tags, but we should have something. - -sche (discuss) 22:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

One already kind of exists: {{en-conj-simple}}. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 06:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete it already. The info is contained in each entry's headword line + the page Appendix:English verbs (which could use a bit of cleanup, and substitution of this template where it is used). This, that and the other (talk) 08:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

RFD-deleted. I know I voted just above, but no-one is arguing for this to be kept, and a clear alternative exists. This, that and the other (talk) 04:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

In that case maybe {{en-conj-simple}} should be renamed {{en-conj}}? — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. I am working on migrating the uses across to the new template, which is a little tedious, as {{en-conj}} doesn't show archaic/obsolete forms. This, that and the other (talk) 08:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: great. Yes, speaking from experience, {{en-conj-simple}} is a pain to work on as it's quite complex so thanks for taking that on. What are you migrating from {{en-conj}} over to the simple template? — Sgconlaw (talk) 09:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

To put it simply, not much. The structure of parameters is completely different, so it's not so much a migration as a reworking of each call to the template. This, that and the other (talk) 09:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@This, that and the other It may be worth incorporating the future, conditional and imperative tenses in a brief way so that they're covered, for the sake of completeness. Laboriously laying out every form as {{en-conj}} does is obviously ridiculous, but they do deserve mention. Theknightwho (talk) 11:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not on board with adding future and conditional (will X/would X). The formation of these tenses in English is a matter of grammar, not morphology (or lexicography). I have thought of putting a link to Appendix:English verbs at the bottom of the {{en-conj-simple}} conjugation box; do you think that would be enough?

Anyway I don't think this is the place for discussions on how to improve {{en-conj-simple}}. Perhaps WT:BP. This, that and the other (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Fair point - I'm not really that fussed about it, but I might at some point. Theknightwho (talk) 11:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Archaic past tense form has disappeared

@Theknightwho: the template no longer displays the archaic past tense form ending in -edst (for example, walkedst. Could you please reinstate it, as it is used by some entries? Thanks. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw I changed the default so that it didn't. It displays them with the parameter old=1. Theknightwho (talk) 05:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Theknightwho: wait – do you mean that without the parameter no archaic forms are displayed at all? That is not a good idea, because the only reason for using the conjugation table is to indicate in entries what the archaic forms are. If a verb has no archaic forms, then the table shouldn’t be used at all since all the information about inflection is provided by {{en-verb}}. — Sgconlaw (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw Not necessarily. Some have dialectal variations outside of those that are just too messy for the headword. Good luck sourcing shittedst. Theknightwho (talk) 10:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw - more seriously, it's useful for defective verbs such as must. It looks silly, but it's a much more intuitive way to convey the point. Theknightwho (talk) 11:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Theknightwho: in that case, could you please arrange a bot run to add the |old= parameter for verb entries that have archaic forms which have been created? Thanks. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Will do - it seems only around 10% had the template anyway, so I'll ask Ben Wing. Theknightwho (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Theknightwho: thanks! — Sgconlaw (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

"To be used on all regular English verbs"

You've got to be joking. Forms like 'returnedst' don't need to be glossed at all on the main lemma entry for modern English. At most, they should be linked as archaic alts from the past tense entry (here, 'returned'). What is the possible value of this template? — LlywelynII 00:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

It says “may be used”, not “to be used”, and yes, it should only be used in entries of irregular verbs or verbs with archaic forms. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw This template should only be used for verbs with archaic forms; this is what we agreed to previously, and I have fixed the documentation accordingly. Benwing2 (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Benwing2: apart from entries of verbs with archaic forms, isn’t the template also used in entries of irregular verbs like be? There can’t be many cases like that where a separate conjugation table is required, though. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw That is probably the only one. There aren't any other verbs irregular enough to regular a conjugation table without any archaic forms. Benwing2 (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Benwing2: OK, great. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)