Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Template talk:inflected form of. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Template talk:inflected form of, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Template talk:inflected form of in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Template talk:inflected form of you have here. The definition of the word Template talk:inflected form of will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTemplate talk:inflected form of, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
RFDO kept
Latest comment: 8 years ago22 comments10 people in discussion
This template is widely used for German adjective forms, but it doesn't actually say anything about what form. The reason is, presumably, because a single German adjective form can have a variety of different functions, as can be seen at roten. However, I don't think that's really an excuse to just give up and say "it's just some form, we can't be bothered to tell you which". So I think this should be deleted, or at least orphaned for German entries. I don't know if it's used for any other language.
Alternatively, if there isn't an agreement on actually showing the inflections, we could rename all German uses to {{de-inflected form of}}. Then we can re-evaluate whatever transclusions of this template remain for other languages. Presumably if it's only used for German, we don't need this. —CodeCat21:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
I don't mind renaming it {{de-inflected form of}}, but I do prefer having a single line saying "inflected form of rot" to 26 lines listing every possible form. Either way, the user isn't going to find what they're looking for, but with a single uninformative line at least they realize that fact quickly and can click through to rot to find the inflection table, while with 26 lines, they're going to spend 15 minutes perusing them all trying to figure out which one of those 26 forms they're looking at in their text before giving up and going to the inflection table at rot. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 04:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Angr Kephir did get the number at roten down to 11, which is more manageable.
In any case, I've now started to rename all the German uses to {{de-inflected form of}}, which I just created. There seem to be a few other German-like languages that also use this template, like Luxembourgish and Yiddish. But there's far less entries for those. But I'm thinking, if it's too much to actually show the list of forms, what we could do at least is give them some abstract name. For example, roten would have something like "-en form" and rotes gets "-es form". That way there's a bit more information than just "inflected form of" at least. What do you think of this? —CodeCat14:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Down to 11 is better. "-en form" and "-es form" is easy to read but not very informative since anyone can see roten ends in -en and rotes ends in -es. It's a little tautological. I suppose what would be ideal would be to repeat the inflection table at the inflected form. (I know we don't normally do that, but we could make an exception.) That way the definition line could just say "inflected form of rot (see table below)" and then the user would open up the table and all the instances of roten would be in bold face and everything else would be a link. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
I agree that "-es form" would be stupid. (It would also, AFAICT, be our own idiosyncratic invention; I can't find any references in German or English that use such a designation.) I don't like the idea of duplicating inflection tables, either. I think the idea, previously discussed, of having a line like "inflection of x" and then collapsed subsenses is probably the best balance of übersichtlich(“easy to look over”) and yet informative. - -sche(discuss)23:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
It would have already implemented the collapsing behaviour if not for a certain editor who claims the sky is falling with everything I do. —CodeCat23:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
It seems to be a useful template - I don't remember using it, but it would speed up adding word forms. As Aɴɢʀ says above - a one line "form-of" puts the user one click away from an inflection table, and would speed up creating all those inflected forms! If its renamed to {{de-inflected form of}} I would, if I followed that route, have to create an {{el-inflected form of}} ! — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk14:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
I don't see what it's useful for, other than if you're actually creating form-of entries by hand (why, I don't know) and feel to lazy to give a proper definition. You should use {{inflection of}} for Greek entries. —CodeCat15:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Keep for a general use by the editors who prefer these sort of form-of entries that do not indicate which form it is, and merely direct the reader to the lemma with an inflection table. Do not rename to {{de-inflected form of}}. Stop removing the uses of the template. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
This is not a matter of preference. Form-of entries should always give information about the form. This is the established practice and has been forever. If we want to start allowing editors to put {{inflected form of}} instead of the appropriate definition, whenever editors feel like it, then there should be a consensus and a vote to change the format of form-of entries. —CodeCat23:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Providing the specific inflected form is not the sole established practice. CodeCat's removal of more than 5000 uses of the template shows otherwise. Even now, the current uses of {{de-inflected form of}} and similar show that there are two practices established. I asked before in a failed vote that CodeCat's bot is debotted, and I ask, somehow in vain I feel, again. CodeCat's bot made changes without consensus; CodeCat's suggestion that the state being changed was somehow forbidden or not supported is denied by verifiable evidence. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Keep but discourage. It is better to show specific information about an inflected form, but this information is not always known by the editor and there may be other scenarios where it would make sense. --WikiTiki8911:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Maybe the use of this template could put the entry in a cleanup category alerting editors to the fact that a more specific template is needed. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
This is a !vote on what should be done with this template. The question of whether or not a !vote that just says "this is a !vote" but doesn't say "delete" or "keep" is a useful !vote can perhaps be answered in the same way as the question of whether or not a template that just says "inflected form of" but doesn't say "dative", "plural", "definite", etc is a useful template. - -sche(discuss)16:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
In other words: "Is it useful to say 'this is a vote' instead of 'keep' or 'delete'?" may have the same answer as "Is it useful to say 'this is an inflected form of' instead of 'this is the dative case of'?" - -sche(discuss)21:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
