Category talk:Gothic inflection-table templates

RFM discussion: December 2011–January 2012
For a long time, we've only distinguished the categories Category:Gothic conjugation-table templates and Category:Gothic declension-table templates. The former is used for verbs, the latter is used for everything else. I don't think this really makes much sense, because in most languages adjectives need different templates from nouns. That's why I created Category:Gothic noun declension-table templates and Category:Gothic adjective declension-table templates. For a while those two categories were still added to the main declension-table category, but as that category came to be left empty I decided to change it so that noun declension-tables goes directly in Category:Gothic inflection-table templates, and deleted the now-empty category. The examples about Gothic here apply to many languages, too. So I would like to propose renaming and restructuring these categories:


 * Category:Gothic inflection-table templates -> Category:Gothic inflection templates
 * Category:Gothic adjective declension-table templates -> Category:Gothic adjective inflection templates
 * Category:Gothic noun declension-table templates -> Category:Gothic noun inflection templates
 * Category:Gothic conjugation-table templates -> Category:Gothic verb inflection templates
 * Category:Finnish declension-table templates -> Category:Finnish nominal inflection templates (for languages where nouns and adjectives inflect identically and use the same templates)

The reason I propose to name the new categories 'inflection templates' is because they could eventually contain headword-line templates as well. I realise this goes back to the situation we had long ago, where Category:English headword-line templates used to be called Category:English inflection templates, but this new category is supposed to be for anything inflection-related, headword-line, table or otherwise. A template such as could be categorised in both headword-line templates and inflection templates in the new situation. —CodeCat 17:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless someone has any objections I'll go ahead with this soon... —CodeCat 12:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hang on (for a bit), I think the addition of 'table' was to make it clear that only tables go in these categories, like but NOT headword-line templates like . So you're effectively proposing to annul that change. Having said that... why not? It's another way of splitting the templates up, by part of speech instead of by the type of template. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Merging inflection-table and headword-/inflection-line categories is counterproductive, in my opinion. --Yair rand 20:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not proposing to merge them. Headword-line templates will still have their own category like they do now. The only change to them is that they would also be added to the corresponding inflection template category. This makes sense because it keeps all the inflection-related things together, and makes it easier to see all templates that are concerned with noun inflection at a glance, for example. I like the idea of looking in Category:Catalan verb inflection templates and seeing both and  there. On the other hand,  would also be located in Category:Catalan headword-line templates as it is now. —CodeCat 20:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I oppose the change from "inflection-table" to "inflection", since headword-line and inflection-table templates are very different types of template that are already sometimes difficult to distinguish by name. (Imagine you encounter in a category called Category:Hebrew inflection templates. Which type of "inflection template" do you expect it to be?) And headword-line templates don't always have inflection information, anyway. But I'd definitely be on board with "see also" links between headword-line and inflection-table template categories. I am neutral toward any change in the POS-wise subcategorization of (e.g.) Category:Gothic inflection-table templates; I think it makes sense for each language to handle that differently, and I have no dog in Gothic. —Ruakh TALK 20:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose, mostly per Ruakh. Let us keep headword-line templates separated from those templates that belong to any of "Inflection", "Declension" and "Conjugation" sections, which turn out to be templates that show tables. If "Category:Gothic noun declension-table templates" gets renamed to "Category:Gothic noun inflection templates", the resulting name nowhere suggests that the category cannot contain headword-line templates. --Dan Polansky 13:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I used Category:Lithuanian noun declension-table templates because of the sheer number of them. Eventually, I'll have another for adjectives, but that'll be a huge undertaking, considering the number of forms per table, the 4 stress patterns, numerous declension patterns, optional comparatives and superlatives, etc. I think splitting the categories is a very smart idea for languages like Russian and Lithuanian, who have such concerns. —  [Ric Laurent] — 16:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I oppose the cross-language recategorization, per Ruakh. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. What exactly do you oppose? The proposition renaming the categories or the proposition of adding headword-line templates to those categories? —CodeCat 23:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding headword-line templates to the same categories as the inflection tables. I assumed the renaming was only to be done if that was to be done (i.e., that this was one proposal not two). &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, even if that doesn't go through, the renaming could still be done, or with 'inflection-table' instead of 'inflection'. —CodeCat 01:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. When you started this discussion, you said that you had already implemented the "inflection-table" renaming for Gothic, and you didn't ask for any input about that; so that seems to imply that this discussion is inherently not about renaming categories to "inflection-table". (And no one seems to be objecting to the "inflection-table" part, anyway.) Furthermore, in that same discussion-starting comment, you also wrote, "The reason I propose to name the new categories 'inflection templates' is because they could eventually contain headword-line templates as well"; which seems to imply that you are not proposing that rename except for that purpose. Have you changed your mind? That's fine, if so, but in that case I think you should start a new discussion with your new proposal(s), or else it's just hopelessly confusing! —Ruakh TALK 02:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh... maybe I wasn't that clear then... I was proposing to rename the categories, and I was saying we could drop 'table' from the name, so that in the future we could possibly also add headword-line templates to those categories. I haven't made any changes to Gothic yet, as you can see from the red links above. Sorry for the confusion. —CodeCat 02:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Please vote for one or more of these options:

Keep the current inflection-table category names

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose generally: let each language decide for itself. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Rename to (POS) inflection-table templates

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support —CodeCat 01:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose generally: let each language decide for itself. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Rename to (POS) inflection templates

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support —CodeCat 01:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose generally: let each language decide for itself. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Rename to (POS) inflection templates and also add headword-line templates to them when applicable

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support —CodeCat 01:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose altogether. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)