Template talk:cs-conj

I have created this template to make some pages containing Czech conjugation more compact.

The template currently features present, future, and past tenses.

The template is fully non-automatic; for some automatic Czech conjugation templates, see the category of this template.

This template is incomplete, as it is missing imperative form and perhaps other forms. --Daniel Polansky 12:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have now removed the links from the conjugated forms of the template. The idea that there is a Wiktionary entry for every Czech conjugated form makes me dizzy. Let us first find whether the idea is supported in the English Wiktionary in general, accross languages. The Czech templates in the Czech Wiktionary do not have these links. --Daniel Polansky 13:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Fact is, Wiktionary is planned to have entries for all the inflected forms. So the links might as well be put back. --Daniel Polansky 08:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am adding the main conjugation templates around 30. I have put the links inside these templates because I think it is better to have no link on jsem, budu, etc. that are in every conjugation and would overload the table. And also only one link per word form like past participle. What do you think ? --Thomas was here ☺ 12:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

The current naming of conjugation templates -- "-at" and "-ovat" -- is perhaps not fully telling. If there should be dedicated conjugation templates for single patterns at all, then they should follow the patterns, IMHO. The patterns for verbs are:

• prosí
• trpí
• sází
• tiskne
• mine
• začne

and more. A link to an article on these patterns would be helpful. --Daniel Polansky 07:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Documentation of conjugation patterns: W:Czech verbs, specifically W:Czech_verbs#Verb_classes.

For example, I added it to moci. But I wonder if it is useful for every verb. A good middle way would be to do like on the German wiktionary for Czech entries like de:moci where you have only the main conjugations and a special page de:moci_(Konjugation) for the full conjugation in case the verb is frequently used. ThomasWasHere 18:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think consensus around here is that we're fine with having the full conjugations of verbs, and that it is useful - see {{fr-conj-er}} which is possibly the biggest such template we have. I plan to add full conjugations to all Czech verbs, and then auto-add using a bot all the conjugated forms. Ideally, all the useful information you have put at moci should be put into a templated form, for consistency reasons and also because it makes finding all similarly-conjugated verbs a lot easier. Personally, I will keep an eye on the German conjugation pages to see if they have anything we can add here. Thanks, too. --Keene 19:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have seen what you have done for the French verbs and I like it a lot = ). I am French so if you need help to check some entries don't hesitate. If you plan to do the same for the Czech verb, it would be good for you to have a look at About_Czech for the way how to enter a verb and its conjugated forms, decide if it is necessary to enter the conjugated form and also decide if the cs-conj is enough or we need first to expand it. Seems that Daniel is ok for this but will only help to check the results. For the Czech conjugation patterns, it is unfortunately quite difficult but no more than French : ). I will do some search for algorithm and mail you what I found. Thanks. ThomasWasHere 11:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think it would be worth adding the negace form in these tables. All tenses have this negative ne- form, right? If so, manipulating the table to accomodate for them should be a piece of cake. --Keene2 17:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't think we should have a link to Wikipedia in the NavHead that looks like plain black text. IMHO, it should be blue because users will click it to expand the table and not expect a link. Maybe we could copy the approach of {{fr-conj-table}}? —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 19:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Reply