Where is the kitty pic that was on here for like a day? Can I request for it to be placed back? :) Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 05:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
nl:w:Wikipedia:Humor_en_onzin#Commandocats, commandocat is ambushing a cheezburger. A brilliant article by the way, I love the Lade part.
Anyway, why is paranoïde removed from the mewbot list? 81.68.255.36 11:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Hm, strange. I thought it could handle the template I used. Anyway, meer paranoïde and meest paranoïde sound best to me. 81.68.255.36 21:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Why? What's the problem? I thought the bot could recognize the "comparative" and "superlative" parts of the template and just create the entries. I do see the entries. 81.68.255.36 16:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
<< Undo revision 9268526 by AugPi (talk) - Not sure why these were removed, they haven't been done yet >>
Sorry about that: I should get back to feeding the MewBot soon, or eventually... AugPi 02:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I made some changes to {{nl-adj-form}}: I realized what you meant by (partially) broken code: I hadn't accounted for compounded use of parameters. The code works now for all combinations of parameters as I documented on the documentation page. The only problem is that you (or Jamesjiao, or someone else...) might find a sentence such as this one:
Partitive form of the comparative form of goed.
kind of awkward, so then I tried to revert to {{nl-adj-form}} as it was before my latest round of edits , but when I tested it, I became puzzled because I am noticing anomalies that I had never noticed before I started my round of edits:
Comparative form form of Template:wlink.
Superlative form form of Template:wlink.
InflectedFAQ form of Template:wlink.
Partitive form form of Template:wlink.
InflectedFAQ comparative form form of Template:wlink.
Partitive form comparative form form of Template:wlink.
InflectedFAQ superlative form form of Template:wlink.
...such as duplication of the "form" word. However, my guess is that the way you would want the template to work is more or less like this:
Comparative form of Template:wlink.
Superlative form of Template:wlink.
InflectedFAQ form of Template:wlink.
Partitive form of Template:wlink.
InflectedFAQ comparative form of Template:wlink.
Partitive comparative form of Template:wlink.
InflectedFAQ superlative form of Template:wlink.
or perhaps more like this:
Comparative form of Template:wlink.
Superlative form of Template:wlink.
InflectedFAQ form of Template:wlink.
Partitive form of Template:wlink.
InflectedFAQ comparative form of Template:wlink.
Partitive comparative form of Template:wlink.
InflectedFAQ superlative form of Template:wlink.
The last set is probably less "awkward" than sentences such as this:
Partitive form of the comparative form of goed.
However, my only objection is that is should be more like this:
Comparative form of Template:wlink.
Superlative form of Template:wlink.
Inflected formFAQ of Template:wlink.
Partitive form of Template:wlink.
InflectedFAQ comparative form of Template:wlink.
Partitive comparative form of Template:wlink.
InflectedFAQ superlative form of Template:wlink.
i.e. for the third example just bring the "form" into the link, that is all. Just let me know what you think... AugPi 03:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, this whole business of modifying {{nl-adj-form}} was triggered by Mglovesfun putting that {{nl-adj-entry-infl}} up for deletion... and that business seems to be over now... except that Mglovesfun was probably right about one thing: that I shouldn't be using that template any more, because MewBot does it better... because the new idea is to centralize all the inflected forms of Adjectives: that is the point of the compounded forms of {{nl-adj-form}}... and {{nl-adj-entry-infl}} doesn't do that... so with this new "centralization," templates {{nl-adj-comp}} and {{nl-adj-sup}} would have to stop being used too, which probably means no WT:ACCEL creation of Dutch comparatives and superlatives ... so Mglovesfun was right about a second thing: use MewBot more... AugPi 03:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Could this bot change the links in Anagrams sections (which currently use ]) to use {{l}}? Is that within its purview? I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 09:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Feeding zonderling