This template is intended for use on form-of templates, which it automatically categorizes as such. It is included in the new form-of entry template.
Use For more information on the standards for these templates, see Wiktionary:Form-of templates.
{{subst:new form-of|descr}} to create a new “descriptive form of” template, where descr is the abbreviation of the description.
There are six unnamed parameters. The second, third, and fourth parameters are the linked root, the name displayed, and the transcription, respectively. The fifth parameter is the script. These parameters are required, but can be blank.
In the usual "form of" construction, the second parameter equals {{form}} of, and the first is the description, everything before "form of". In certain constructions, the second parameter is the general type, everything from the first "of" onward, including a trailing {{form}} of, and the first parameter is the specific type, everything before the first "of", excluding {{form}}. Note that if the root is blank, only the the specific type is displayed.
Much to my chagrin, User talk:DAVilla#Orthography of mentioned words suggests that we need a different fromat for mentions of roman script terms and phrases from inside definition lines and mentions of roman script terms and phrases in running text elsewhere. Hopefully, we can select one default style for mentions and a small number of other styles for mentions that appear in specific locations. To achieve this, we'll need to split the CSS class 'mention' into something like 'mention' and 'mention-from-def'. Since {{stylized root}} appears to be intended for use within definitions, we should probably the class it uses from 'mention-roman' to something like 'mention-from-def'. Note also that the current 'roman' suffix seems redundant, since all mentions in non-roman scripts that should be stylized by one of the Category:Script templates. Rod (A. Smith) 00:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Besides, the ISO code is 'Latn'. Rod (A. Smith) 00:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
{{stylized root}} with that in mind. Rod (A. Smith) 17:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC){{nth s sim pres of|talk|nth=3}}” produces this:
Should this be {{stylized base form}} instead, or maybe something else? The root isn't always a word. DAVilla 06:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
It is very annoying that one has to enter the linked root. Surely templates should be able to do this for you, right? H. (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
{{w}}, I think), but not a requirement, and make sure experienced editors know they should enter that link if the page only contains the template. Often, pages are large enough to count anyway (e.g. marche). H. (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Does this templates use use-with-mention and mention? It doesn’t look right according to my preferences. H. (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
{{Latn}} is meant for mentions of Latn script terms within running text, but not within “form of” definitions, which seem to need a unique style according to feedback. Assuming we must maintain those different styles, we should clarify the CSS class currently named ".mention" by renaming it to something like ".mention-definition-Latn" (or some similarly named class that indicates it only styles mentions of Latn script terms within definitions) to MediaWiki:Common.css. This template, then, would change as follows:
{{form of}} and its progeny, and when a month has passed so that readers' caches of Common.css are updated, we can abandon the ambiguous ".mention" CSS class. Does that make sense? Rod (A. Smith) 19:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)