| Wiktionary:Grease pit/2013/November Nov 2nd 2013, 02:40, by -sche | | | | Line 6: | Line 6: | | | : {{diff|23683459|3=Done}}, though could we remove some of the wikilinks? I find them distracting. Also shouldn't the name be {{temp|ro-adj-form of}}? [[User:Mglovesfun|Mglovesfun]] ([[User talk:Mglovesfun|talk]]) 11:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC) | | : {{diff|23683459|3=Done}}, though could we remove some of the wikilinks? I find them distracting. Also shouldn't the name be {{temp|ro-adj-form of}}? [[User:Mglovesfun|Mglovesfun]] ([[User talk:Mglovesfun|talk]]) 11:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC) | | | :: I support de-linking these words ("feminine", "plural", "nominative", etc.) in form-of templates and inflection tables, reader of a dictionary must already know what they mean. --[[User:ZxxZxxZ|'''Z''']] 12:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC) | | :: I support de-linking these words ("feminine", "plural", "nominative", etc.) in form-of templates and inflection tables, reader of a dictionary must already know what they mean. --[[User:ZxxZxxZ|'''Z''']] 12:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC) | | | + | ::: I've delinked the words. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 02:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC) | | | | | | | | == Separate articles for inflected forms == | | == Separate articles for inflected forms == |
Latest revision as of 02:40, 2 November 2013 In feminine#Romanian, this template displays "feminine pluralnominative form of feminin", "feminine pluralaccusative form of feminin", etc. There should be a space between "plural" and "nominative", etc. - -sche (discuss) 08:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC) - Done, though could we remove some of the wikilinks? I find them distracting. Also shouldn't the name be
{{ro-adj-form of}}? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC) - I support de-linking these words ("feminine", "plural", "nominative", etc.) in form-of templates and inflection tables, reader of a dictionary must already know what they mean. --Z 12:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- I've delinked the words. - -sche (discuss) 02:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Separate articles for inflected forms[edit] I have mentioned this before, but I wasn't convinced. In my mind, articles such as incalzai and salmodiaba have any function at all that is not achieved by a redirect and the presence of a conjugation table on the main article - all the information is provided elsewhere, ergo the article is not needed. I feel these articles - which judging by the "hit-rate" of this type of article when using the Random entry feature take up at least 50% of all articles on the entire wiki - are just unneeded, and should be replaced with indirects in all cases, except for when there is a justification not to (such as the presence of multiple etymologies of the word or specific idiomatic usage of a particular wordform). itsacatfish - Perhaps there is a way to prevent soft redirects from showing up at Special:Random? --WikiTiki89 21:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Different words can share one or more inflected forms and the lemma form of one word can be identical to the inflected form of another word. In the latin script at least, we cannot safely predict which inflected forms that will not conflict with other words; and it would give the reader the wrong idea if a word redirected when it shouldn't. In short, redirects are a bad idea. Ideally, the software would have been designed fundamentally different so that inflected forms were added automatically from the inflection tables rather than being created manually or by bot. That way, we could also treat pages containing only inflected forms as non-content pages. --Njardarlogar (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC) 
 |
