Template talk:feminine plural of
Discussion
editI'm not convinced of the benefit of creating a new template for every single possible form - there will literally be dozens of dozens of such templates - wouldn't it be more efficient to use only e.g. {{ inflection | feminine plural of | <whatever> | <being displayed as...> }}? For example one then doesn't have to memorize eleventy different templates for this task only. In particular it'll be beneficial for newbies, I believe.
Well, just my two ¢ \Mike 19:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that sometimes it is difficult to remember the many different template names in use in Wiktionary. However, I believe a complete standard set of Category:Form of templates is preferable to relying on editors to use consistent wording for "form of" definitions.
- A complete set of Category:Form of templates ensures that all "form of" definitions that use them will have consistent wording and style.
- For example, all "feminine plural of" definitions in Wiktionary will have identical wording and capitalization if we use "
# {{feminine plural of|bueno}}
", but not that consistency would not be guaranteed is we encourage "# {{word form|feminine plural of|bueno}}
".
- For example, all "feminine plural of" definitions in Wiktionary will have identical wording and capitalization if we use "
- A complete set of Category:Form of templates allows us to change "form of" styles and verbiage consistently throughout the project.
- For example, we can easily change "
# {{feminine plural of|bueno}}
" from displaying as "Feminine plural of <span class="mention">[[...]]</span>.
" to "feminine plural form of <span class="latin-script-mention">[...]</span>
" (note verbiage change, capitalization change, punctuation change, and css style change) but "# {{word form|feminine plural of|bueno}}
" does not allow such flexibility.
- For example, we can easily change "
- A complete set of Category:Form of templates allows us to categorize or to perform reviews or maintenance of words by their form, if we so desire.
- For example, "what links here" on
{{feminine plural of}}
would give us a quick list (ala "what links here") of the terms that editors have claimed are feminine plurals, so we could more easily spot-check those claims than we could if all "form of" definitions use something general like{{word form}}
.
- For example, "what links here" on
- A complete set of Category:Form of templates makes it easier to choose the right one than it is to remember the right wording for their parameters.
- If an editor cannot remember the correct wording between "
{{feminine plural of}}
" and "{{plural feminine of}}
", the incorrect wording will appear as a broken template link during preview. There is no such benefit with a general approach like{{word form}}
. Likewise, a quick check of the self-documenting Category:Form of templates will reveal the permissible options.
- If an editor cannot remember the correct wording between "
Please let me know if the above points do or do not address your concerns. Rod (☎ Smith) 23:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm, oookay, I see your point. Well, it seems reasonable; thanks for your response. \Mike 11:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- On the last point,
{{plural feminine of}}
could easily redirect to the correct template. It's not necessary to hash out every permutation, but if someone prefers the reordering there's no reason not to allow a self-correction. I've added a couple unhyphenated to hyphenated template redirects for convenience. - I have no problem with
{{form of}}
for inflections or what have you that don't fit the mold, but standardizing them is a worthwhile endeavor. DAVilla 19:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Note: Category:Form of templates is now at Category:Form-of templates. - dcljr (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Could we please have it with "|lang=es", as in {{plural of}}
? JackPotte 02:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Right. Can we, please?—msh210℠ (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- But wouldn't that depend on the language? Spanish, for example, now uses Category:Spanish adjective forms (which is usually added by the headword line, e.g.
{{head|es|adjective form|g=f|g2=p}}
). —RuakhTALK 19:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)- Wow. I must have been really tired, or something, when I wrote that. I have no interest in categorization of this sort, and didn't mean to request it. What I wanted — and want — is that the link go to the correct section when lang is specified. (Somehow I misread JackPotte's request as that.) Anyhow, can we have what I want?
:-)
—msh210℠ (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)- And for template:inflected form of.—msh210℠ (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Wow. I must have been really tired, or something, when I wrote that. I have no interest in categorization of this sort, and didn't mean to request it. What I wanted — and want — is that the link go to the correct section when lang is specified. (Somehow I misread JackPotte's request as that.) Anyhow, can we have what I want?
- But wouldn't that depend on the language? Spanish, for example, now uses Category:Spanish adjective forms (which is usually added by the headword line, e.g.
{{look|nocat=y}}