Template talk:feminine plural of

Discussion
I'm not convinced of the benefit of creating a new template for every single possible form - there will literally be dozens of dozens of such templates - wouldn't it be more efficient to use only e.g. ? For example one then doesn't have to memorize eleventy different templates for this task only. In particular it'll be beneficial for newbies, I believe.

Well, just my two ¢ \Mike 19:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that sometimes it is difficult to remember the many different template names in use in Wiktionary. However, I believe a complete standard set of Category:Form of templates is preferable to relying on editors to use consistent wording for "form of" definitions. Please let me know if the above points do or do not address your concerns. Rod (&#9742; Smith) 23:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A complete set of Category:Form of templates ensures that all "form of" definitions that use them will have consistent wording and style.
 * For example, all "feminine plural of" definitions in Wiktionary will have identical wording and capitalization if we use " ", but not that consistency would not be guaranteed is we encourage " ".
 * A complete set of Category:Form of templates allows us to change "form of" styles and verbiage consistently throughout the project.
 * For example, we can easily change " " from displaying as " " to " " (note verbiage change, capitalization change, punctuation change, and css style change) but " " does not allow such flexibility.
 * A complete set of Category:Form of templates allows us to categorize or to perform reviews or maintenance of words by their form, if we so desire.
 * For example, "what links here" on would give us a quick list (ala "what links here") of the terms that editors have claimed are feminine plurals, so we could more easily spot-check those claims than we could if all "form of" definitions use something general like.
 * A complete set of Category:Form of templates makes it easier to choose the right one than it is to remember the right wording for their parameters.
 * If an editor cannot remember the correct wording between "" and "", the incorrect wording will appear as a broken template link during preview. There is no such benefit with a general approach like . Likewise, a quick check of the self-documenting Category:Form of templates will reveal the permissible options.


 * Hmmm, oookay, I see your point. Well, it seems reasonable; thanks for your response. \Mike 11:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * On the last point, could easily redirect to the correct template. It's not necessary to hash out every permutation, but if someone prefers the reordering there's no reason not to allow a self-correction. I've added a couple unhyphenated to hyphenated template redirects for convenience.
 * I have no problem with for inflections or what have you that don't fit the mold, but standardizing them is a worthwhile endeavor. DAVilla 19:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: Category:Form of templates is now at Category:Form-of templates. - dcljr (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Spanish plurals
Could we please have it with "|lang=es", as in ? JackPotte 02:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. Can we, please? &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But wouldn't that depend on the language? Spanish, for example, now uses Category:Spanish adjective forms (which is usually added by the headword line, e.g. ). —Ruakh TALK 19:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow. I must have been really tired, or something, when I wrote that. I have no interest in categorization of this sort, and didn't mean to request it. What I wanted — and want — is that the link go to the correct section when lang is specified. (Somehow I misread JackPotte's request as that.) Anyhow, can we have what I want? &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And for template:inflected form of. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

look