Module talk:it-headword

Was it intentional to remove the boldface for plural forms? I preferred it for consistency's sake (compare with other languages at e.g. vandalismo). —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, accidental. Fixed. SemperBlotto (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Automatically generated forms?
Lua can remove endings from words and decide which new ones to add depending on other factors. So, for example, it is possible to make it so that all nouns ending in -o automatically get -i in the plural, but allow for this to be overridden if there are any exceptions. That way, no extra parameters are needed other than the gender, at least not for most nouns and adjectives. Would it be ok for me to make this? You can look at and  as an example for how this might work in practice. 20:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I came with the same question; on I tried just, expecting it to work out the inflection and it doesn't. I'd've thought it was perhaps the best feature of Lua for inflection-line template such as it-adj, it-noun and so on. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Bug
How can I fix the display of "~", which shouldn't be seen? [ ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑ ˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔ ˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔ̟t̪ːo ] (parla con me) 10:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Finally fixed. [ ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑ ˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔ ˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔ̟t̪ːo ] (parla con me) 15:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Gender of surnames
can there be the possibility to input  as the gender to it-proper noun for things like surnames? Gender requests are currently full of them. Catonif (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * IMO surnames should use  since they can be either masculine or feminine. If you agree, I will fix those by bot. Remaining terms should all be given a gender since they do have one. Is there a rule for things like cities and states (e.g. are cities always feminine)? If so, I can fix them by bot. Benwing2 (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that treating surnames as  would be theoretically incorrect, since Rossi  means "a man whose surname is Rossi", Rossi  means "a woman whose surname is Rossi", so the  definition should be "a person whose surname is Rossi", where as the actual definition that we have, which is a surname, is genderless by its very nature. Actually, if we were to refer to the surname directly it would actually be always masculine, eg: "Rossi  sounds better than Bianchi " even if such conversation is held by two girls about their surnames. I also wonder if readers seeing the m or f will come to the conclusion that it is a characteristic of that particular surname, and that other surnames might be limited to only one gender. I hope I don't sound like I'm nitpicking...
 * Cities should all be feminine: I don't have any reliable source claiming that, but I can't think of any masculine one, except for the Cairo. Countries can definitely take both genders, just like regions, rivers, volcanoes, etc. Catonif (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What you're proposing does feel a bit nitpicky and semiotics-y to me. When you say, for example, "Rossi sounds better than Bianchi " this is not specific to surnames but applies to every word used as a word rather than for its meanings, and is the sort of edge case we shouldn't be catering to. When Wiktionary defines Rossi as a "surname" rather than "a person whose name is Rossi" and similarly for given names like Maria and Luigi, this is not intended to be interpreted literally but simply as a shortcut to writing out a longer definition. BTW I just changed the handling of   to display "by sense" next to the genders with a gloss "according to the gender of the referent" which might help in cases like this. Also I don't get your point about readers seeing m or f and thinking that other surnames are gender-limited, and in any case my plan is to use   by all surnames. Benwing2 (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * See biatleta for an example. Benwing2 (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making mfbysense finally display differently from mf, I was wondering since a while ago why that wasn't already the case. If you feel confident about your claim, I encourage you to make the bot work, as I, on the other hand, am not particularly confident about mine. Also now that by sense is visible and has a gloss I feel like the confusion would be less. Catonif (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Past participles for reflexive verbs
Can we add the full past participle form for reflexive verbs? Take for example, rivelarsi, currently we generate "rivelato", whereas, the full form would be "rivelatosi". Ideally the f. & p. forms would be there too, i.e. "rivelatosi/asi/isi/esi". This is how it's done by Olivetti, see. Cpetty-wiki (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)