Template talk:definite and plural of

RFDO discussion: May 2014–May 2017
This was just created. But given the wild growth of form-of templates for any random combination of inflections that we had in the past, I'm very reluctant to keep this template. 21:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably means definite singular and plural form of [adjective], if it's used for Danish or Norwegian. I usually list them separately, on two lines. Donnanz (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Currently only used at hyggelige, Danish. An example of formatting of a similar Danish entry is engelske; see also Category:Danish adjective forms. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The wording used is far too vague anyway. Donnanz (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Put it on two lines. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: If it can be used in multiple places, best to have it Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 15:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Care to clarify? Why should the template be used instead of what is currently being done at engelske? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Conversely, why doesn't engelske consolidate things into a single definition? And why can't users have the option of choosing between multiple templates?  And why are we so quick to delete templates that being are used?  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 17:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Because usage alone doesn't determine how desirable a template is. 18:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per Angr. - -sche (discuss) 17:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is very important for the Danish language. If you delete it, all my work on this adjective form will be deleted. Are you guys kidding me? Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete and put on two lines. Two different definitions, two lines. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @Ready Steady Yeti no need to 'delete' anything, just modify by bot and put onto two lines. This is a wiki; everything is constantly being reviewed! Renard Migrant (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Do NOT delete. I know there is already a way to say "definite and plural of" with another template but trust me, it's much more complicated, and I need that template, so don't delete TEMPLATES, why would you delete useful templates? Keeping this template will help the project in the Danish language field. If you still think this should be deleted then how should I make an alternative, because there was no other way to do this before, and there are thousands of Danish adjectives that have no definite and plural form entries, but are still listed on their head templates. Please do not delete, either that or make another easy alternative.
 * I understand everything is constantly being reviewed. But this must not be deleted. Every Danish adjective form has a definite and plural form so it would be useless to make two separate lines. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And how often do they coincide? Is it on the order of magnitude of English "-ed" forms (where passive participle coincides with past tense)? — Keφr 16:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're spot on when you say "I need that template". You're thinking about what's best for you, not what's best for the wiki. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And even for English, the template is language-specific: . 17:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You realise of course that this argument can be turned on you by suggesting a rename of the nominated template to . — Keφr 17:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I would be ok with that, although in that case the wording still isn't ideal, because it still underspecifies what is meant. 17:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said above, the wording is far too vague. If this template were to be kept, it should read "definite singular and plural form of". The same applies in Norwegian and maybe Swedish, but I always split it in Norwegian into two lines, and will probably continue to do so in Danish. I suspect a short cut is being looked for here. Donnanz (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Is the plural also definite, or only the singular? 17:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The plural form can be either definite or indefinite. The spelling varies when used in singular form, depending on the gender of the noun the adjective is used with, or whether it's used in definite form. The definite singular and plural form always have the same spelling, with very few exceptions. But there are also indeclinable adjectives, which don't vary in spelling, no matter what. They're the easiest ones to deal with. Donnanz (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I'm a very wrong human being that should never have existed. I'm extremely abnormal.

Anyhow, I think is acceptable. I do want what is best for the wiki. That's why I'm here. Sorry, sometimes I get hyper like this. I'm pretty sure that all Danish adjectives that have one form with the suffix -e (which most do), they all are definite and plural so my argument is there's no point in making two separate lines.

I really was planning to apply for sysop privileges here in like 3 or 4 years but it doesn't look like I'm at a good start right now. I hope I can get better at this. I really, I promise, I want to help this website change the world of words and language. You can quote me on that. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Can we have this deleted per consensus? Result from above: Delete: CodeCat, Dan Polansky, Aɴɢʀ, -sche, Renard Migrant; Keep: Purplebackpack89, Ready Steady Yeti. Not perfectly clear: Donnanz (seems pro-deletion), Keφr (seems pro-deletion). --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Since this doesn't seem to be resolved, I would like to add that I, too, would like to Keep this template, or, alternatively, (or some other wording), if those editing Norwegian do not want to use this. This is one form which happens to be used in places that some other languages like German use different forms for. There is no reason to treat them as separate forms.__Gamren (talk) 11:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * These are conceptually very different forms with different roles; why should we conflate them? Simply because they are homographic? - -sche (discuss) 08:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 08:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * We should keep the template, in some form and by some name, because it represents one form! Please listen to one who speaks this language, and if you do not trust my judgment, then ask someone else. Your assessment that these are "conceptually different" is quite subjective and probably influenced by your having other languages as your reference frame. You ask me why I conflate them; I ask you why you separate them. I find your decision to be rash and ill-advised.__Gamren (talk) 08:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed with User:Gamren. You may not be knowledgable enough in Danish to fully understand what he and I are talking about, @User:-sche, but it is silly to put two separate definitions for one form. The -e form (or whatever else) is always the same, "definite singular and indefinite plural of", there is never a case in Danish where there are two distinct forms for definite singular and indefinite plural for adjectives. I think this should page should be revived, as it was a rash decision made by an admin who appears to have little knowledge of the language, and the people who did oppose this deletion were all fairly knowledgable of the language. The rationale was to "clear up bandwidth or search space" or whatever, but in this case it's irrational. I say we create a new, Template:da-definite and plural of and Template:da-adj-2 (as a shortcut template). In fact, I'd be willing to say that we should go back and change all of the existing entries that have two definition lines, because they're not separate definitions, they are just different ways of saying the same form. Philmonte101 (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that definite singular and indefinite plural are always identical in Danish is irrelevant. They're grammatically distinct and it makes no linguistic or lexicographical sense to have a template for this random set of forms. inflection of even allows us to put disparate forms on a single line, so you can even write XYZ and get the exact same output, without the need for a template that can only be used in one language. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * From what I gather, it's the definite form in singular and plural. Basically, there is "the" definite form, for all genders and numbers, while the indefinite forms differ by gender/number. —CodeCat 22:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * We're talking about adjectives here, not nouns. I said the wording was too vague back in 2014, which it was. I don't see any need to resurrect the template, unless the wording (which appears in the entry) is made more precise - "definite singular and plural of" a certain adjective. The definite singular and indefinite plural of nouns are never the same. DonnanZ (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about nouns? And if it is not clear, I have no objection whatsoever to a rename. Angr, you say that it makes no lexicographical sense, but Nudansk Ordbog, Den Danske Ordbog and Retskrivningsordbogen, to take three prominent dictionaries, all follow this convention. Different languages make different distinctions, and what makes "lexicographical sense" varies from language to language. That a template can only be used for a few languages is not a good argument that it should be deleted.__Gamren (talk) 09:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It makes no sense when you can achieve exactly the same result with a cross-linguistic template we already have. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I was trying to say that the template could be restored, as long as it is made to read "definite singular and plural of" in the entry. This happens with and, reading "neuter singular of" and "definite singular of" respectively. DonnanZ (talk) 11:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * @ User:Angr, You ask why an extra template should be here. But the question is, why are you so paranoid about one extra template? I mean what do you think, that the entire Wiktionary site is gonna get a virus in its FTP if one extra template is added to the site? I don't think "delete all the even slightly inconvenient (for some people'' templates is a good argument at all. Philmonte101 (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * @ User:Angr, sure I don't have any opposition to Template:inflection of, but it's not my personal preference most of the time, and to say the least, a lot of users here don't prefer it. This is exactly what I was telling you guys in the Template:neuter singular of deletion discussion. Philmonte101 (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Kept as a redirect. --Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)