Template talk:archaic past of

Unused, needs a total overhaul. But on reflection, why not use. --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Replacing it with that might make the 'archaic' category almost useless if there are many verbs with an archaic past form. —CodeCat 20:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Useless for having too many entries in it, you mean? Well maybe, do we also want, et al.? Note, this is unused but there most be some out there; mist for missed, past for passed, for example. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We could also add an extra parameter archaic=1 to those templates. —CodeCat 12:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Do we really want to increase dependence on a small number of templates? We could use less-transcluded templates for experimenting with changes. For user-response testing, it might even be appropriate to have multiple versions of the most widely transcluded templates covering, say, 1%, 5%, 20%, 74% of the total uses of the original template. DCDuring TALK 16:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Soon to be speedied as unused template --ElisaVan (talk) 11:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)