Category talk:Conjugation and declension templates/Inflection, conjugation, and declension template names

Inflection, conjugation, and declension template names
Category:Inflection templates are used immediately after the POS header to show the headword and a brief summary of its key forms. Most are named with the language code, a dash, the part of speech, and the inflection class (e.g. )), but some also include "infl" (e.g. ).

Most Category:Conjugation and declension templates contain "-conj-" or "-decl-" in their names and are used in a separate section to show a table of the headword's various forms.

Unfortunately, some templates (e.g., , and ) blur the separation of the two template types by having inflection-template-like names but displaying as a declension table.

For consistency, I propose the following naming conventions for inflection, conjugation, and declension templates:
 * Inflection templates are named with the language code, followed by a dash and the part of speech, followed optionally by a dash and the inflection class.
 * Examples: ,
 * Conjugation templates are named with the language code, followed by "-conj-", followed by the conjugation class.
 * Examples: and
 * Declension templates are named with the language code, followed by "-decl-", followed by the declension class.
 * Examples: and  after their language code.

For yet more consistency, I hope we can decide whether the inflection line should consistently display as a table (like ) or like a traditional dictionary inflection line (like ). I expect that issue has been discussed at length to no resolution. If we have agreed to disagree regarding the traditional/table style for inflection lines, I propose we use CSS magic to allow users to choose whether they want to see tables. How does that sound? Rod (A. Smith) 19:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine, but is an inflection template, for usage on the inflection line. &mdash;Vildricianus 19:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Great. I was confused because it displays a declension table. I suggest moving the declension table from it into, which would display in its own "Declension" section to match the format of languages with large declension and conjugation tables. I'd be quite happy to do the work, but I think I need approval before I start splitting up templates like that. Does that sound OK to you? Rod (A. Smith) 20:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I see you're meaning to introduce more uniformity across languages. I can only encourage that :-). I thought the table to the right of the inflection line was pretty nice, but it's probably equally nice in its own section. &mdash;Vildricianus 00:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)