Talk:se cacher

se cacher
SoP, not idiomatic, cacher (to hide) + se (oneself). WT:About French also says not to make these entries but list them under the infinitive without the pronoun se. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed but before deleting, pronominal (reflexive) senses should be added to the infinitive entries (done). --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

In French, it's considered as a verb. Most dictionaries don't include them separately (for space reason), but fr.wikt accept such entries, espacially in such a case. Also note that French pronominal verbs are not always reflexive, this is one of the four possible cases. Much information of interest can be given about these verbs. Lmaltier (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you think About French (verb section) describe this well? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It was decided a long time ago that we do not accept separate reflexive entries and all reflexive meanings should be included in the main entry. This should've been shot on sight. I will make the appropriate changes. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 23:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyway, we somehow missed this one. Anyway, I've created a redirect for it. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 23:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't mind them to be shot on sight if there is a policy but lemma forms should cover any reflexive/pronominal senses. There are two senses of the English verb "to hide" - transitive (conceal, 藏, cacher) and intransitive (hide (oneself), 躲藏, se cacher), both should be covered by French senses, even if both are in the same entry (the about page explains how). I added the pronominal sense earlier at [[cacher]]. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would've done the same thing had it been missing at the time of me creating the redirect. In fact, I have always done it this way - move any missing information from the reflexive/pronominal entry to the nonreflexive entry and create the redirect. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 02:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Definition is the same for both senses. How are readers supposed to understand the sense of each definition? Lmaltier (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the and  context tags give it all away, doesn't it? I am going to change it to  instead, as the English intransitive sense is really the same as 'to hide oneself', which is reflexive. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 02:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * One argument for keeping these pages is that they allow the inclusion of anagrams. Again, these forms are considered as verbs in French. And I think that all verbs are includable, including their anagrams. Lmaltier (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to raise it in the WT:Tearoom. However, I will not be converting them back to their own entries if a vote is passed/a consensus is reached to revert the previous decision. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 02:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Another argument is that readers might look for them at S in categories. If cacher and se cacher' both exist, it's easier for readers to find what they look for, whether they look at S or at C. Lmaltier (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair point, but how likely is this? It's more likely for them to search for the term, be it cacher or se cacher, in the search box. For someone with a lick of knowledge in French, they should know se indicates a reflexive or pronominal verb and the word following it is the lemma form. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 02:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Should somehow reveal the usage, depending on the language, like "cacher" showing "se cacher" if "lang=fr" ? Not all users are trained enough to understand contexts. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact (after multiple edit conflicts): One thing I tend to do (although I have not been consistent with it and I really should be) is to include the actual spelling of the reflexive form in the context template. For example, . I guess it is programmatically possible to do what you described. Is it worth it though?  Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 02:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * looks good, perhaps it should become a policy. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)