Template talk:de-inflected form of

RFD discussion: March–May 2019
This template should not exist. It's incorrect to just say "inflected form of"; the particular forms need to be specified. Unfortunately it's used on thousands and thousands of pages auto-created by User:SemperBlottoBot, so it's gonna be a total mess to fix it. Benwing2 (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep all (or migrate to ). It's not "incorrect" just because you don't like it. For the High German languages, showing each individual homographic inflected form of an adjective is extremely overwhelming to users and messy, resulting in entries that look like this. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it's incorrect "because I don't like it". It's incorrect because it doesn't follow the pattern of all other languages, and IMO it's unhelpful for users to specify only "inflected form of". The page you gave does a particularly bad job of handling German syncretisms. Since weak and mixed forms are almost always the same, you can combine them when they overlap (actually I don't think you need to mention mixed forms at all, they do not form a declension so much as they are a peculiarity of 'ein' words). Likewise almost all weak case forms are the same, and you can combine them. Benwing2 (talk) 03:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep or deprecate and migrate to as per Metaknowledge. Not incorrect, merely out of certain pattern whose utility is questionable. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What about adding a parameter to inflection of (something like toomany) that results in something like "(several- see inflection information in entry for details)" after the term. That would save having extra templates and make things much clearer. Just saying "inflection of" makes it look like you're just not bothering to provide the usual details for some unknown reason- it doesn't even mention that there's more than one. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a possible solution. I would much rather figure out a way to specify all the actual inflections, since at least for Russian this is super-useful, but if that's not feasible then toomany might work. Benwing2 (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * See User:Benwing2/billigen. This lists the same information as here but with only 5 inflectional lines instead of 26, taking advantage of the pattern of syncretism of these inflections. Benwing2 (talk) 05:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:lb-inflected form of
As above, this shouldn't exist either. In this case however there are less than 100 inflected forms so cleaning it up won't be too hard. Benwing2 (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:yi-inflected form of
As above. There are about 200 inflected forms. Benwing2 (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * First ping didn't work. Benwing2 (talk) 02:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Lazy keep. At least Yiddish wouldn't be as bad as German if we specified them all. I talked about this once with and he wasn't keen on it. —  [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 16:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, wasn't keen on what? Creating inflected-form entries? I remember someone (maybe User:Wikitiki89?) specifically asking me about adapting my Russian-inflection-creating script to create Yiddish inflected-form entries. Benwing2 (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wasn't keen on specifying each homographic inflected form separately. Obviously inflected forms should be created, as part of Wiktionary's mandate to cover all words. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete all and additionally delete, in favour of actually specifying the grammatical properties of each form. If there are too many, then we'll just have to find a way to deal with it, omitting it is sloppy on our part. I intend to do this for Dutch as well, which currently also has its own template. —Rua (mew) 19:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep or deprecate. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * is deprecated, along with . No more uses remain. Benwing2 (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)