Template talk:en-conj-simple

Feature for accelerated entries added incorrect part of speech

Hi, @Erutuon, I used the accelerated entry feature in this template to create the form moisteth but it used a "Conjunction" heading instead of a "Verb" heading. Any idea why the template has suddenly started doing this? — SGconlaw (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: Just because of the Conjunction header. That's a part of speech and the gadget doesn't skip part-of-speech headers when determining what part of speech to put in the accelerated link. — Eru·tuon 19:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Erutuon: I’m not really following. If a new entry is being created, there isn’t a pre-existing “Conjunction” section, so why is one being created? The accelerated entry feature didn’t use to have this problem. — SGconlaw (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: Sorry, that was very unclear. The Conjunction header that I'm referring to was in the entry moist above the conjugation table. The gadget grabs the first header that it guesses is a part-of-speech header (in this case Conjunction above the conjugation table) and puts that in the URL of the accelerated link. Then when you click the accelerated link, the gadget puts that supposed part of speech in the entry it creates. I guess you've never encountered this problem before because it's unusual for a conjugation table to be underneath a Conjunction (rather than Conjugation) header. — Eru·tuon 00:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Erutuon: oh, I see! I had no idea the accelerated entry feature worked like that, and also didn’t realize I had mistyped the header. Thanks. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Why is the imperative here?

Why is the imperative included in this table? The imperative is always utterly identical to the infinitive, isn't it? It feels a bit Romance-centric to list it separately. This, that and the other (talk) 04:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I don’t really feel qualified to express a view since I’m not familiar with linguistics, but if more knowledgeable editors think it’s redundant we should remove it. Or perhaps change the label in the table to “infinitive and imperative”. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: by the way, I hope the changes you're making to the template are backwards-compatible? I noticed that you changed the names of some parameters. — Sgconlaw (talk) 09:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I changed the name of one parameter which (according to an insource: search) was not used anywhere except the testcases page. I've also added two new parameters. This, that and the other (talk) 09:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: ah, OK. The last time I edited the template to provide for irregular verbs, I tried to align the parameters with {{en-verb}}. Perhaps it's a good idea if we continue to do that? — Sgconlaw (talk) 09:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

en-verb doesn't support archaic/obsolete 2sg and 3sg forms, so we'd need to make up our own parameter names for those (as was already done here, and as I have been doing just now). I hope they are logical enough! This, that and the other (talk) 09:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

— Sgconlaw (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

To do list

• bring should not show "brang" under past participle
• need to support past_ptc3