Module talk:la-headword

Missing parameters
Could someone Lua-capable please add the functionality of head2= and gen2= parameters to this module, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

local gender_names
Re, shouldn't we also have m-s, f-s, n-s, c-s, and ?-s, for singularia tantum? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I was wondering about that, if not exactly for that reason but instead because it would allow the user more options without causing errors. — JohnC5 13:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Also a good idea. How 'bout it? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Proper nouns in singularia and pluralia tantum categories
User:Mnemosientje was commenting on Discord that Category:Latin singularia tantum was full of proper nouns. The  function doesn't exclude proper nouns when adding this and Category:Latin pluralia tantum. This looks like a mistake and can be easily changed, but I thought I should comment here first to let you know, in case there's something I'm missing. Also pinging User:Metaknowledge, who also replied to Mnemosientje on Discord. — Eru·tuon 21:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Arguably most proper nouns *are* singularia tantum or pluralia tantum. Maybe you want a separate category Category:Latin singularia tantum nouns that excludes proper nouns? Benwing2 (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That argument is logical, but I contend that it is not logic that serves our readers or matches with how Latin works. Proper nouns' plurality is dependent on semantics rather than being a function of the word's own paradigm. Creating a new category solves this problem, but it is unnecessary when the (noun+proper noun) category does not serve a purpose. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Gerund forms are not in Category:Latin non-lemma forms
J3133 (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested code change to verb headwords
Could line 524 be changed to if conj ~= "irreg" and subtypes.irreg then ? This would stop verbs like from appearing with the tautological "irregular conjugation, irregular". This, that and the other (talk) 03:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Broken since revision 71269132
Your latest change appears to have broken at least immanis. Remmyfoo (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for noticing! Catonif (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

" irregular short imperative"s that aren't

 * The code at line 612 currently inserts the "irregular short imperative" note simply by checking if the lemma ends in "d[īū]cō$", meaning the note turns up wrongly on entries for first-conjugation verbs with unquestionably regular imperatives such as, , , . Is there some way to make this only be added for third-conjugation verbs? Or maybe it would be worthwhile to just check for matches of the entire relevant verbs, since it seems that irregular short imperative forms may not be well attested for compounds of dīcō in the first place. Urszag (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Should be fixed. In terms of checking only for specific verbs, I'd need a list of verbs; from the link you gave, it looks like derivatives of duco have short imperatives except for in Plautus, but it's not clear for derivatives of dico. Benwing2 (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I checked and as you said, it looks like all third-conjugation words ending in -dūcō are compounds of dūcō and have short imperatives after Plautus/Terence, so I agree checking the end should be good for these. And while compounds of -dīcō seem less certain, there aren't as many of these, and some of them are cases that would probably be more accurately written as two words (e.g. ) in which case the short imperative is probably best. So just checking the end of the word and the conjugation seems good to me here too. I just noticed though that I can't see the note anymore at the headline for verbs like and, even after doing an edit with zero changes to update the page. Is that expected?.--Urszag (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I forgot that they are internally handled as irregular; fixed. Benwing2 (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Hovertext on lemma gloss
@Benwing2 I'm not convinced that hovertext gloss is necessary. I feel like its presence makes sense to Wiktionary editors but would leave anyone else scratching their heads - "don't all dictionaries do that?" (That's if they know what the word lemma means.) I'd like to remove it, just leaving first-singular present indicative as bare text. This, that and the other (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @This, that and the other That is fine, I just thought it would make it clearer why it says "first singular present indicative" next to the headword. Benwing2 (talk) 02:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Benwing2 I'll take it out for now, but of course we can put it back in if there is confusion. This, that and the other (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)