Template talk:form of

This template seems to be introcuding an extra return char that I can't eliminate. DAVilla 17:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm... appears magically fixed now... maybe delay in updating. DAVilla 17:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please provide some parameters such that one can make the template do no capitalization and amot the dot at the end. Sometimes one wants to use it in a sentence context. E.g. see listen#Danish. H. (talk) 13:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's actually already been done for this template (use {{form of|form-name|]|nocap=1|nodot=1}}), though not for all the form-of templates. —Ruakh_TALK 15:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Similar to the recent changes to {{t}}, {{form of}} should probably accept an “sc” and a “tr” parameter. Thoughts? Rod (A. Smith) 19:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. It's been very annoying having to add <span class="use-with-mention> et al manually in order to use {{he-link}}. (Though on the other hand, this might not actually accomplish anything for Hebrew, since with Hebrew the spelling of the link-text is not the same as the spelling of the target page. Maybe we need a separate {{he-form of}}.) —Ruakh_TALK 20:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I had created {{kor-form of}} in a poor attempt to solve similar problems for non-lemma Korean entries, but since {{t}} seems to address non-roman script translations well with the parameters “sc”, “tr”, and “alt”, I expect {{form of}} can do the same. Rod (A. Smith) 21:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I was totally unaware of the {{{alt}}} parameter. Taken together, those three parameters would solve everything! —Ruakh_TALK 21:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I intend to start a new version of this at (edited again:) {{stylized mention}} which is to be called by all form-of templates. {{form of}} would remain for pages that call it directly. The split is necessary to make determinations of emerging patterns under the latter use, which cannot currently be distinguished from indirect use in Whatlinkshere. At the same time that these changes are made, I expect to implement other standardizations, possibly including some sweeping and radical changes. See WT:RFDO#Finnish categories gone wild. DAVilla 11:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for taking this on, DAVilla. Since you mentioned standardizations, please keep in mind the need for parameters “sc”, “alt”, and “tr”, as noted above. Rod (A. Smith) 17:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done, although untested. In what languages is alt necessary? DAVilla 22:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hebrew, Latin, and perhaps Greek entries will use “alt”. Rod (A. Smith) 22:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

To add to what Rod has said: in Hebrew, vowels and certain other features are only hinted at by the spelling; to fully indicate them, there exist special diacritics that are used in children's books, poetry, prayer-books, and dictionaries. So, we use the normal spelling for the page name, but include the vowels in the displayed text. Similarly, in Latin, the spelling doesn't distinguish between long and short vowels, so our page names don't; but in displayed text, we indicate the long vowels with macrons. And by "we" I don't mean any group that includes myself, since I don't actually speak Latin. —Ruakh_TALK 23:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can someone make the same changes I made to the {{third-person singular of}} template to this template please? Thanks in advance. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

This template has supported those parameters for a while now; it just needs to be documented. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 19:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Strange. It doesn’t seem to have been passed on to {{past of}}, which transcludes this tempate. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can we change

{{#if:{{{nocap|}}}|{{{1}}}|{{ucfirst:{{{1}}}}}}}

to

{{#if:{{{nocap|}}}|{{{1|form}}}|{{ucfirst:{{{1|Form}}}}}}}

?—msh210℠ 22:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good to me. If no one objects within a few days, I'll do it. (This template is transcluded up the wazoo, so I don't want to make a change without waiting for people to point out problems.) —Ruakh_TALK 02:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I forgot about this, and now DAVilla's mooted it with an entirely different set of changes. —Ruakh_TALK 01:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Whatever recent changes were made, it doesn't look right in practice - the text at exploitent now says "Third-person plural present subjunctive exploiter.", with no "of" before "exploiter" - please fix this. --Keene 14:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Fixed, thanks. —Ruakh_TALK 01:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

It was only generating section links if sc was specified (someone left out the other case). Fixed. (This does mean it generates a lot of #English links that aren't really needed.) Robert Ullmann 14:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

For foreign scripts, wouldn't it be good to add the gloss and "tr=" parameters, to match the behaviour of {{term}}? Examples include батярка (f. of батяр) and бацяр (alt. spelling of батяр). —Michael Z. 02:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

{{{tr}}} is supported. —Ruakh_TALK 11:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oops—I confused this with {{plural of}}. Thanks. —Michael Z. 19:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

• I echo the request for meaning gloss, which is necessary when an inflected form resolves to several same-spelled lemmas. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Currently, language-specific templates which employ this template all get placed in Category:Form of templates. Since the template already accepts the lang= parameter, it will be fairly easy to refine the categorization where this parameter is specified so that the templates get categorised into a language-specific form-of templates category. __meco 13:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Note: Category:Form of templates is now at Category:Form-of templates. - dcljr (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

It seems that if the target term's entry doesn't exist, this template puts the term in bold. Shouldn't it create a normal red link instead, to allow the reader to click through and search or start the entry? —Michael Z. 2010-01-22 21:53 z

I think the {{#ifexist|…}} predicate is being used as a poor man's {{isValidPageName|…}}, to avoid re-linkifying the parameter if it's already a link (as used to be standard practice). —Ruakh_TALK 04:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can we use isValidPageName instead? Right now, not only is there no link, but {{{3}}} doesn't work, either! (The latter problem can be fixed by changing {{#ifexist:{{{2}}}|]|{{{2}}}}} to {{#ifexist:{{{2}}}|]|{{{3|{{{2}}}}}}}}, but why not use isValidPageName?)​—msh210℠ 16:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

By all means, be my guest. (To clarify: I was only trying to explain why it might be this way, not advocating leaving it this way.) —Ruakh_TALK 01:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Because this is so very widely transcluded and I'm no expert when it comes to syntax, I just want to confirm the change here before effecting it. I'll be changing {{#ifexist:{{{2}}}|]|{{{2}}}}} to {{#if:{{isValidPageName|{{{2}}}}}|]|{{{2}}}}}, is that right? (The change from language name to language code is merely to match the earlier part of the template, where language code is used. One of the two should be switched, and this one is less essential, merely linking to a section (and hence to the top of the page if there's an error), than the earlier, which determines, via {{Xyzy}}, a choice of script.)​—msh210℠ 15:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Effected.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

The following discussion has been moved from the page User talk:Msh210.

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.

---

Hi there. You edit of this template on 15th July has made it do strange things to some Italian verb form entries. See dispregiamo as an example. SemperBlotto 21:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Bother. I suppose I should revert my change to the template, but I still think change is, for the most part, for the better. But then those Italian (and perhaps other) entries will need to be fixed. Do you have any idea how many of those there might be? (I suppose I could try cajoling someone who knows how to analyze the dumps to find a list of all entries that have foo#bar as the second parameter in that template, and then go about fixing them all.)​—msh210℠ 16:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I should think there are tens of thousands of them. I thought that French ones had the same format, but Keenebot (or whoever) didn't use #French. I have stopped using #Italian in any new ones, but that doesn't solve the problem! SemperBlotto 18:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

The problem seems to be foo#Italian|foo without ]. I can't tell you why that is, though. The optimal system seems to be {{form of|first-person singular (blah blah)|foo|lang=Italian}} as the lang=Italian only works when ] is not wikilinked. lang=it doesn't work, it produces ]. In som cases you'd need {{count page}} as well. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do you know where the dumps are nowadays? —Ruakh_TALK 11:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

http://dumps.wikimedia.org.​—msh210℠ 16:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. We used to have nightly dumps (something Robert created on a server run by Amgine), but I guess we don't anymore. Anyway, we finally got a dump the other day, so I just now generated a list of the 241 pages with this issue … and when I looked at the first entry on that list, ], I found that NadandoBot (talk • contribs) had already fixed it. Judging by its contributions, I believe it went through them all in order and fixed them. So, you should be O.K. now. —Ruakh_TALK 21:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah. I went back to restore my change to template:form of, only to discover that no one had ever reverted it.​—msh210℠ 15:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

With no language specified and the second parameter unlinked, the template currently generates a link to #English: {{form of|x|y}} = {{form of|x|y}}. With a link: {{form of|x|]}} = {{form of|x|]}}. Can this be fixed, please? Nadando 02:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Fixed how? Should it link to #English anyway? (That's hard AFAICT.) Should it not link to #English in any event? (That's probably advisable IMO, and easy AFAICT.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, it should definitely not link to English by default, ie, {{form of|x|]}} and {{form of|x|y}} should both simply link to y. Nadando 17:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

During February 2011, I have changed some French and Italian uses of this template to the more structured {{conjugation of}}. I was surprised how many places used this template. --LA2 00:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

See the related discussion at Wiktionary:GP#Form of templates or April 2011 archive when so archived. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Can this template have the from= parameter that Template:standard form of, etc. have? Thanks. DerekWinters (talk) 08:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

See Template talk:deftempboiler#RFM discussion: July 2012–June 2018.

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion (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.

---

Unused or barely-used form-of templates

I've been trying to clean up the various form-of templates. In the process I discovered several that are either completely or almost completely unused, and are often badly defined. We have the more general {{form of}} and {{inflection of}} templates for obscure grammatical forms, so there's no need to have a dedicated template for every possible form, and having all these templates hanging around is a maintenance headache.

What I'd like to do is rewrite the small number of uses using {{form of}} or {{inflection of}}, and then delete the templates.

First off are a bunch of templates for uncommon grammatical cases. None of these add the page to any category, and most of them are badly defined (they use {{form of}} when they should use {{inflection of}}). Note that the ones that actually exist are somewhat random; e.g. we have abessive singular/plural but no adessive singular/plural or inessive singular/plural.

Template	#Uses
Template:abessive plural of	0
Template:abessive singular of	1
Template:associative plural of	0
Template:associative singular of	1
Template:comitative plural of	0
Template:comitative singular of	1
Template:comparative plural of	0
Template:comparative singular of	1
Template:distributive plural of	0
Template:distributive singular of	1
Template:exclusive plural of	0
Template:exclusive singular of	1
Template:oblique plural of	2
Template:oblique singular of	7
Template:terminative plural of	0
Template:terminative singular of	1

Next are three templates for "ancient", "early" and "late" forms. It's not clear to me what these even are intended for.

Template	#Uses
Template:ancient form of	1
Template:early form of	2
Template:late form of	1

Next are some templates for inflected forms of past participles. There are in principle a huge number of such possibilities, and I don't think it's reasonable to have dedicated templates for each. Note that there are two more such templates that are heavily used, which I am leaving alone: {{masculine plural past participle of}} and {{feminine plural past participle of}}, with about 7,400 uses each, exclusively (AFAICT) for French inflected forms.

Template	#Uses
Template:masculine animate plural past participle of	6
Template:masculine inanimate plural past participle of	5
Template:masculine singular past participle of	3
Template:neuter plural past participle of	5

Finally are some misc random other inflected forms, which are isolated in that parallel templates that you might expect to exist don't exist.

Template	#Uses
Template:dative dual of	4
Template:dative plural definite of	2
Template:dative plural indefinite of	1
Template:paucal of	2
Template:second-person singular of	1

Benwing2 (talk) 06:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'd like it if we used only {{inflection of}} and deleted all of these (not just the little-used ones) so definite support. —Rua (mew) 11:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned and deleted. Benwing2 (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply