Template talk:de-form-adj

What's with the {{#switch:{{1|}}}|pc|ps= (note there's only two {'s before the 1)? Is this a typo? --Yair rand 21:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine it being intentional... -- Prince Kassad 21:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is it that we have to ask about obvious things instead of just fixing them? — [&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 21:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikicracy... -- Prince Kassad 21:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wiktionary: The free dictionary anyone who has never edited before can edit freely, but if they've been voted into administration, they absolutely must ask before doing anything! — [&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 21:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Should this use  or whatever it is? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If you care enough to add it, I do believe this is one of the ones that would use it. — [&#32;R·I·C&#32;] Laurent — 13:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

RFD discussion
German adjectives have inflected forms that can be used in a bunch of ways, but displaying them on separate lines is just plain stupid. For example, at the adjective section of, there are 26 definition lines using this template. Instead, we should switch over all German entries to use the format we already use for closely related languages like Yiddish, and which SemperBlotto already uses for German, which can be seen at a page like. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We've had this discussion before and I still agree: is the right way to do this; the current version of  is the wrong way. The inflection tables at  and  are sufficient to show which forms exactly end in -en. Beyond seven lines or so it's an information overload and becomes unusable for the reader. —Angr 09:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I note that de.Wikt does spell out all of the forms each string constitutes (see e.g. de:einzigen). I have no strong opinion on whether en.Wikt should or not. What Angr suggests is the easiest thing to do. - -sche (discuss) 18:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. How is having a list with 26 definitions worse than forcing users to look for the word in a table? As I’ve suggested before, if the clutter is too troublesome, it’s better to merge definitions (e.g. “weak masculine singular genitive, dative and accusative form of recht.”) — Ungoliant (Falai) 18:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with a merger like that, but it would still amount to the complete reconstruction of this template and editing of all of its uses (about the same as deleting it). Angr, what do you think about that suggestion? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe something along the lines of would work? It has special parameters that allow you to combine cases and such. Aside from that it can be used for all nominal parts of speech, not just adjectives.  00:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't mind merging some of the senses if we can get it down to a maximum of seven lines. More than that and the reader's eyes will start to glaze over. One thing I think we can always eliminate is the "mixed" forms since these are always identical to either the strong form or the weak form. —Angr 14:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I could live with a template though that hides all the definitions until you click on "Show all grammatical contexts" or something along those lines. Longtrend (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Kept as there are opposers and no supporters. --Back on the list (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)