Template talk:el-future-form

RFD discussion: December 2017–February 2024
This template is used for definitions that should not exist, as they are simply showing how the particle can be used with verb forms to create other forms. It would be like having a template for showing a definition at for will come. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, same reasoning as Template_talk:el-dep/documentation. --Barytonesis (talk) 11:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It isn't so much a definition as an example of usage - isn't that a useful thing for someone new to a language to find — "" illustrates — Salt  marsh . 06:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it is a definition, because that's just how Wiktionary works. But it obviously doesn't deserve to be one. And I don't think it's that useful, because learners will have to apply a little grammar in order to conjugate, that's just how it is. Our job is just to provide and document the words, which these are not. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 07:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Now modified to give usage example - rfd removed. — Salt  marsh . 18:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a lot better, but I still think we'd be best off removing it altogether. I'm willing to accept this, but I'm reinstating the RFD because I'd prefer to let it run its course. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to hassle you, but why do you feel this is different from, which you agreed to see removed (as per the template talkpage linked above)? --Barytonesis (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * My purpose was to illustrate a usage and its a shorter way of achieving this with resorting to which requires a translation. —  Salt  marsh . 06:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, you can use --Barytonesis (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Removed all uses. This can finally be deleted Denazz (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)