Template talk:en-past of

Documentation
Use this template to show the simple definition for an entry that is the past tense or past participle inflection of a primary entry.

For most past tense entries, use in the definition line: # E.g., on "lionized":
 * Verb
 * Verb
 * Verb

Note that users can customize how the output of this template displays by modifying their monobook.css files. See “Form of” templates for details.

Parameters
This template is not language specific, but, if used with the lang parameter the relevant category can be applied to the article in which the template is included.


 * = used to specify the langauge i.e. English, Scots etc.

An example:

For the English word clamored (simple past and past participle of clamor):



This would place the article clamored in category:English simple past forms & category:English past participles

Past participle
This shouldn't be included in this template. {past and past participle of} would be better, but the past participle should be listed on a separate line anyways. DAVilla 01:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

inflected form
As some point in the deep dark past history of this template, I remember it using the inflected form, if the target exists. Is there some reason someone took out the "to " from this template? Perhaps I should have checked first - I hope it wasn't me. Admittedly, it seems very hard to have the "to " also be part of the wikified text (which it should?) --Connel MacKenzie 02:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes the to should be there always in English as should the a for Romanian, and I forget what word for Icelandic. The whole lot including the to should be italicized but the to should not be wikified. I was just about to add it myself but despit being a good computer programmer I can't figure out this template wizardry at all! )-: &mdash; Hippietrail 20:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Example of to wikify

no dot parameter
Some templates like this (I don't remember which) have a no dot parameter, which can be set to suppress the closing period. This enables the template to appear in a sentence, which I have found useful for entries that need some clarification, for example, which etymology the lemma form is. If someone has the time and knowledge, I'd be obliged. DCDuring TALK 16:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. It seems to have a nodot parameter. Time to clean my screen and recheck. DCDuring TALK 16:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Parameter for pointing into a page
Is there a parameter for pointing into a page? Example: template past of is used in deserted to generate "Simple past tense and past participle of desert.". The link is to the page for desert, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/desert, but it would be better if the output from the template could point to the section for the verb on that page, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/desert#Verb --Mortense 16:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it should always point to the #verb section, even if there is no other section. Then you wouldn't need to change anything. SemperBlotto 16:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, some 3 years later, how about it ? That is, point to the #Verb anchor, instead of to the #English one ? Pretty please ? Or else remove the edit protection restriction and let us commoners edit the source ourselves. --Jerome Potts (talk) 02:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no guarantee that #Verb will lead to the right section. #English always will, on the other hand. 03:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there much of an argument for staggering the anchor names to reflect indentation, so that it would be #EnglishVerb, #EnglishNoun, #FrenchVerb, etc? Equinox ◑ 21:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If the software supported it, sure. Then we could do that for any language. 21:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In what circumstances would #Verb not point to the English Verb section? According to About_English for words in multiple languages, English will always be listed first (except for Translingual), so #Verb will always point to the English one. See, for example man. I've opened a discussion on this at the Grease pit. JesseW (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Not only past tense but also present and future passive voice!
Will any administrator please amend this
 * simple past and past participle of

into a more accurate and rarelier misleading
 * simple past and passive and past participle of?

Thanks 2003:44:CE18:4D00:89:4A52:6178:20CF 20:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In English grammar, the past participle is understood to be passive for some verbs. However, it's not necessarily always passive. For example, there is no passive meaning in or in .  21:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

RFDO discussion: June 2014–June 2015
Per WT:RFDO. This is the same principle, just the template is more widely used. Two definitions, two lines. Not combined onto one line.

It would be very easy to replace this by bot. Quick, no; easy, yes. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Common practice for language-specific templates is very different from general ones. Language-specific templates can and should cater to the specific needs of that one language, that's why we have them. 17:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: per CodeCat
 * KEEP per me too. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Kept but admin needs to remove RFD tag --Type56op9 (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent change
I'm not sure what you've been working on, but could you return this template to the old style? Ioaxxere (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with the change I made? It is logically two separate inflections, and normally we list them separately in such cases. Benwing2 (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * For one thing, no one calls them "inflections"; most English speakers probably wouldn't even recognize the word. Second, having three lines bloats the page for no obvious benefit. Third, it's inconsistent with our headword template which groups "simple past and past participle" together. Finally, the template doesn't work at all with quotations, usage examples, etc. (see left). Ioaxxere (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I brought this up in the BP. Benwing2 (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Give the BP discussion a couple of days for people to respond and then I'll put it back if the consensus leans that way. Benwing2 (talk) 07:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)