Template talk:es-noun-m

Showing plural inflection
Any objections to having this output without the definite article? It's unnecessary at best and confusing at worst (since the word isn't always used with the def article). Widsith 17:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No objections, so long as the others in Category:Spanish inflection templates are consistent. When I created them, I noticed that some mini dictionaries use the "el/la/los/las" format for showing the plurals, but most use "m/f/pl", so I included both instead of choosing one. (Even better would be for us to be consistent across all of the Category:Inflection templates.) Rod (A. Smith) 17:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems like an impossible dream, I know. But most currently output without definite articles and I know Paul has some concerns that might imply that it can only be used in this way. I just think they're not needed. I have never really used the Spanish templates before so I'm just trying them out...I agree it should be the same for all of em. Widsith 17:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Auto-linking to #Spanish section
Does anyone have a problem with having the Spanish noun inflection templates (,, and ) autolink the non-lemma forms to the #Spanish sections, like does? I could change the by myself, but  is protected. Also, after Rod's change, uses  for all it's linking, which is a problem for auto-editing link, but maybe a good solution would be to only  the lemma and then auto-add the #Spanish to the inflection links. Thoughts?--Bequw 16:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I support auto-linking to the #Spanish section and using only for the headword.  (If it weren't for EncycloPetey's objection at WT:GP, I'd use this as an opportunity to make the parameter names consistent (i.e.    for the alternate headword markup,    for the plain plural entry name, and    if alternate text or complex markup is required for the plural.  Given the objection, though, I suppose that change would be inappropriate.)


 * Anyway, I don't know whether any existing entries already include code like  , but presumably not many do so.  Could you change  first?  Then, I'll unprotect  for you.  How does that seem?  Rod (A. Smith) 20:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. I checked several pages and they all seem to work. The only thing I don't quite like is that when the template is used on a non-lemma page (eg amiga) the wikilink referring to itself != PAGENAME (because it has the #Spanish) so it doesn't remove the hyperlink. --Bequw 20:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This community doesn't yet have a clear vision about what constitutes a main (lemma) vs. secondary (non-lemma) entry, or how to format secondary entries, so I'm not too concerned at the moment about the way amiga: displays. In other words, well done.  :-)  I've relaxed the unprotection of .  You should be able to edit it now.  Rod (A. Smith) 21:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * and are changed. It's a little slow propagating the changes, but works. Let me know if there's a problem. --Bequw 18:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Multiple plurals
Could this be modified to give support for multiple plurals? memorándum can either be memorandos or memorándumes. Nadando 19:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:es-noun-mf
Now this one (to me at least) is really weird. Spanish nouns don't decline differently whether they're masculine or feminine, also these don't categorize in Category:Spanish masculine nouns or Category:Spanish feminine nouns which don't even exist. These should be replaced with. Furthermore it's a very easy replacement for a bot, basically {{es-noun-m becomes {{es-noun|m (and the same for f). {{temp|es-noun-mf}} may take a little more thought because of the way its used. It's not a problem though, as deals with all of these. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I would certainly love to see these merged, I would hope that {{temp|es-noun}} would be able to cope with plurals which are not plurale tantum (we should have a page for {{term|maracas}} as well as {{term|maraca}} and both should be able to utilize this template). That isn't here nor there, I am willing to help with the cleanup and so vote migrate and delete. - {{User:TheDaveRoss/sig}} 14:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge/migrate/delete all. (But unlike TheDaveRoss, I don't think these templates need to support plurals.) —Ruakh TALK 12:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I am curious about that Ruakh, {{template|en-noun}} et al support plurals, why would we not want other language PoS templates to do the same? - {{User:TheDaveRoss/sig}} 19:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, why not. But haven't we had this discussion before? The plurals were always the issue. Nadando 19:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm baffled as to why we would want such a template to not support plurals. Do you perhaps mean auto-plurals, such as reservación > reservacións (wrong). If so, same would apply to {{temp|fr-noun}} doing nezs for nez. You just have to not do it wrong in the first place! Mglovesfun (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

RFD failed, three people want to delete the templates, none want to keep them; Nadando one of our two most prolific Spanish editors commented but didn't express an opinion; Matthias Buchmeier, the other prolific Spanish editor was made aware of this debate but didn't comment. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC) {{archive-bottom}}