Template talk:fr-verb-form
flexibility, please
I think that the first parm should be modifiable (still defaulting to PAGENAME). Example : at "égarer", the reflexive form would be {{fr-verb-form|s'égarer}}. --Jerome Potts 20:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
RFDO discussion: May 2014–June 2015
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others (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.
This is just a shortcut to {{head|fr|verb form}}. It has no functionality that {{head|fr|verb form}} does not. It never has, as far as I know, either. Italian gets by fine on {{head|it|verb form}} why can't French too. The 'good news' is that it just doesn't matter whether we keep or delete this or not; it is identical to {{head|fr|verb form}}. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Looks like many languages create such shortcut also. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes but careful. Some of them have parameters that head doesn't. Just French isn't one of them. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Circeus, Connel MacKenzie, Mglovesfun, Yair rand, Metaknowledge Pinging the authors of this template. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes but careful. Some of them have parameters that head doesn't. Just French isn't one of them. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Kept with favouritism as a commonly used template. --Type56op9 (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
RFD discussion: September 2016–May 2017
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.
Does nothing that {{head}} doesn't do, and its documentation even says so. —CodeCat 20:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'd happily delete this and
{{fr-adj-form}}but when I nominated them, they both passed. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)- Wonderfool unilaterally passed them. I wouldn't put too much thought into that. —CodeCat 13:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- He certainly did. I think he was running a bot at the time, and didn't want to change his offline bot code. These days, Wonderfool couldn't care less about it, and would be happy to see them deleted. --Derrib9 (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Wonderfool unilaterally passed them. I wouldn't put too much thought into that. —CodeCat 13:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Deprecate and keep, preventing further use through abuse filters. - DaveRoss 12:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)