Template talk:es-verb form of

Name
I don't like the parentheses much. Why not simply "es-verb form of"? Dmcdevit·t 18:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm 100% fine with that; please feel free to make the change. (Note that there are a few subtemplates that should be moved as well; see Special:Prefixindex/Template:es-form of (verb).) —Ruakh TALK 20:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Third person verb forms with second person pronouns
Spanish grammar books describe usted and ustedes as second person pronouns that take third person verb forms. Could these templates be updated accordingly? Rod (A. Smith) 07:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that this is the inherited tradition: e.g. tosen. You are correct that the forms usted takes are the same as the third-person forms. However, functionally, there is nothing third-person about them. Nowhere are they referred to as third-person in the modern day, only conjugated as such. Don't confuse the grammatical form with the word meaning. Therefore, splitting the third-person definition line into the second-person sense and the third-person sense allows us to give the accurate meanings of the word. We're here to give the meaning of the word, not obscure it with etymological traditions that insist on calling the form a third-person one. Dmcdevit·t 07:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's absurd. Should our English verb forms ending in -s be described as second person formal verbs because they are used with "Your Honor" and "Your Majesty"?  Spanish grammar books describe the verb form as third person.  There's no need for original research here.  Rod (A. Smith) 07:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, what? The exact words I used, that the usted forms are "functionally second-person", are how it is taught. When I say "ustedes tosen," I am talking about using a form expressing the second-person, you cough. That is what the word means. Just because we include them in the same article does not mean we must give them the same definition line with the wrong meaning. Dmcdevit·t 07:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The very link you provided supports my position in saying, “[usted and ustedes] are third person in form but second person in function and that they take a third person subjunctive in the functional, second-person imperative.” Our non-lemma definitions are given only in terms of their grammatical relationship to the lemma (their "form", as described in your link).  When you say, usted tose or ustedes tosen, you are saying something very similar to Your Majesty coughs or Your Majesties cough, which are second person in function but contains third person verbs.  We should not add a second definition to coughs to show that it can be used functionally in the second person, neither should we add a second definition to tose or tosen to show that they can be used functionally in the second person.   Rod (A. Smith) 16:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Bare infinitive
I do not know why you insisted for the infinitive to be entered as a wikilink. I removed that condition, making sure both forms are ok, but I’d prefer the infinitive not to be wikilinked, it makes the usage of the template more confusing. Maybe I should put the page in the cleanup category if the wikilink is there? H. (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I don't think Spanish has any defective verbs, so we'll always want to have the template link to the lemma infinitive entry, i.e. we shouldn't need to specify the link ourselves. It might be better to use  around that parameter, though.  Rod (A. Smith) 18:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is apparently a convention for templates, though not one I'm fond of, for technical reasons. Indeed, last time I asked about it, I ended getting roped into adding the brackets for all s with pywikipedia. :-) I don't mind either way, but I think you might have to make your case on GP/BP if you don't want to have to face objections in the future when others notice. Dmcdevit·t 00:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If memory serves, the reason Connel asks editors to add brackets around the lemma argument in definitions is to force MediaWiki's stats to count the page as a valid entry.  Nobody, so far as I know, opposes having  templates automatically wikify their arguments, and I'm pretty sure that  is the easiest way to make everyone happy.  Rod (A. Smith) 01:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand why it's good to have compatibility with both forms, but I'm just saying that, even though I don't like it either, it seems that wikifying the parameter entries is always preferred. So having it be put in a cleanup category for having wikilinks is wrong; in fact, the opposite is more correct. Dmcdevit·t 02:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That is correct. The discussion is rather convoluted now though.  The English form-of templates are supposed to consistently use the brackets.  The Spanish templates ran into problems when they were missing, because of the added "#Spanish" hooks, right?  And the reason Dmcdevit got roped into doing that was for consistency.  I don't see how  has crept back into the discussion, precisely.  But I'll try to look deeper, later.  --Connel MacKenzie 03:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Output wording
This should return the phrase "second-person plural informal" instead of "Informal second-person plural". An informal plural means an informal or colloquial way of speaking, while 2nd-p pl informal refers to the use of the tú form. The syntax in the template is too difficult for me to fix it myself. —Stephen 17:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Adding the explicit pronoun to clarify still does not make it right. The term is the second-person informal and the second-person formal. Moving the adjective to the front gives a different meaning, namely a formal or informal term or speaking style, not the tú/usted form. Adding the pronoun only makes it sound like a formal way of saying the usted form, as though there should also be an informal way of saying the usted form. "Deme la manteca" is informal (although it uses the second-person formal), and "dame el dinero" is formal (although it uses the second-person informal). —Stephen 20:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Capital wrong
As of now, on manes, there is no capital, though the nocap parameter is blank. H. (talk) 10:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Matthias Buchmeier 08:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Language-specific links
This template previously did not use language-specific links. This is less than optimal when linking to headwords with multiple languages on the page, such as orar. I just tweaked the code to point to  verb  instead. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Categorizing via region parameter
This template realy shouldn't call to add the region parameter as label, as this will flood categories and render them useless. I remember that this wasn't the case with earlier versions but someone seems to have changed it not thinking about the zillions of verb forms that would get added to the Spanish regional categories. I've reverted 's recent edit in order to make the template call instead of. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

new version working now
[moved from User talk:Benwing2/test-es-verb form of]

Awhile ago you asked me about redoing es-verb form of. Please give me any feedback you may have. The way I implemented it identifies third-person forms as simply third-person rather than containing an additional line for forms. This is consistent with how we handle non-lemma forms e.g. in Italian and French. It seems to me that pretty much anyone interested in knowing what these forms are will know that usted and ustedes take third-person forms; this is certainly one of the very first things taught to new learners of Spanish. Benwing2 (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I love it! It looks great and it's so much cleaner than the existing mess, thank you very much. I'm okay with dropping the extra mention of usted if is. My only issue would be that dársela con queso links to the individual words and not dársela con queso, but those verbs don't usually have individual conjugations so I'm not sure how important that is in reality.
 * On a separate note, while you have Spanish verb conjugations on your mind, do you know what would need to be changed to make our conjugations for erguir match the RAE's entry on erguir (specifically the forms yergamos and yergáis)? JeffDoozan (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good, I'm happy to not give usted its own line. Forms of dársela con queso et al should link to the infinitive; no need to make someone type it into the search bar when it's right there. Ultimateria (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll fix the linking of dársela con queso, that is easy enough. I'll take a look at erguir, I may have to add an entry for it in the irregular verb section. Benwing2 (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Benwing2 (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Would it be an easy change to make the accelerated editor use es-verb form of instead of inflection of? See recently created amaneraremos, derritás, mufaban JeffDoozan (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This took a fair amount of hacking but should be fixed now. Could you clean up those recently-created entries? Benwing2 (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I'll clean up the recently-created entries. Did you happen to make a change that would affect the CSS or formatting of es-conj? I see some visible  <span class="Latn form-of lang-es...  weirdness on arrepentirse and on the Template:es-conj examples. JeffDoozan (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops, let me see what I can do about that. Benwing2 (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Should be fixed now, see . Benwing2 (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Uff, glad you managed to get it working without having to untangle Module:accel. Thanks again for the great work in general and specifically for your recent Spanish verb forms cleanup. JeffDoozan (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Gerund
The output for gerunds is a bit verbose (see, ) and, as I understand it, "First-person singular gerund" only makes sense for compound words but not simple gerunds. Should the output not simply be "gerund of pasar"? Hvergi (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)