Template talk:form of

Extra return char
This template seems to be introcuding an extra return char that I can't eliminate. DAVilla 17:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... appears magically fixed now... maybe delay in updating. DAVilla 17:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Capital and punctuation
Please provide some parameters such that one can make the template do no capitalization and amot the dot at the end. Sometimes one wants to use it in a sentence context. E.g. see listen. H. (talk) 13:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's actually already been done for this template (use ), though not for all the form-of templates. —RuakhTALK 15:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Use with non-roman scripts
Similar to the recent changes to, should probably accept an “sc” and a “tr” parameter. Thoughts? Rod (A. Smith) 19:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It's been very annoying having to add  et al manually in order to use . (Though on the other hand, this might not actually accomplish anything for Hebrew, since with Hebrew the spelling of the link-text is not the same as the spelling of the target page. Maybe we need a separate .) —Ruakh TALK 20:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I had created in a poor attempt to solve similar problems for non-lemma Korean entries, but since  seems to address non-roman script translations well with the parameters “sc”, “tr”, and “alt”, I expect  can do the same.  Rod (A. Smith) 21:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I was totally unaware of the  parameter. Taken together, those three parameters would solve everything! —Ruakh TALK 21:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

New version
I intend to start a new version of this at (edited again:) which is to be called by all form-of templates. would remain for pages that call it directly. The split is necessary to make determinations of emerging patterns under the latter use, which cannot currently be distinguished from indirect use in Whatlinkshere. At the same time that these changes are made, I expect to implement other standardizations, possibly including some sweeping and radical changes. See WT:RFDO. DAVilla 11:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking this on, DAVilla. Since you mentioned standardizations, please keep in mind the need for parameters “sc”, “alt”, and “tr”, as noted above.  Rod (A. Smith) 17:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Done, although untested. In what languages is alt necessary? DAVilla 22:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hebrew, Latin, and perhaps Greek entries will use “<tt>alt</tt>”. Rod (A. Smith) 22:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * To add to what Rod has said: in Hebrew, vowels and certain other features are only hinted at by the spelling; to fully indicate them, there exist special diacritics that are used in children's books, poetry, prayer-books, and dictionaries. So, we use the normal spelling for the page name, but include the vowels in the displayed text. Similarly, in Latin, the spelling doesn't distinguish between long and short vowels, so our page names don't; but in displayed text, we indicate the long vowels with macrons. And by "we" I don't mean any group that includes myself, since I don't actually speak Latin. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 23:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The nocap and nodot parameters need to be added
Can someone make the same changes I made to the template to this template please? Thanks in advance. <font style="color:darkred">†  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This template has supported those parameters for a while now; it just needs to be documented. :-) —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 19:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Strange. It doesn’t seem to have been passed on to, which transcludes this tempate. <font style="color:darkred">†  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

plain old "Form of"
Can we change to ?&mdash;msh210 &#x2120; 22:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. If no one objects within a few days, I'll do it. (This template is transcluded up the wazoo, so I don't want to make a change without waiting for people to point out problems.) —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 02:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I forgot about this, and now DAVilla's mooted it with an entirely different set of changes. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 01:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

there's no "of" in "form of"
Whatever recent changes were made, it doesn't look right in practice - the text at exploitent now says "Third-person plural present subjunctive exploiter.", with no "of" before "exploiter" - please fix this. --Keene 14:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixed, thanks. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 01:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

section links
It was only generating section links if sc was specified (someone left out the other case). Fixed. (This does mean it generates a lot of #English links that aren't really needed.) Robert Ullmann 14:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Gloss and transliteration
For foreign scripts, wouldn't it be good to add the gloss and "tr=" parameters, to match the behaviour of ? Examples include батярка (f. of батяр) and бацяр (alt. spelling of батяр). —Michael Z. 02:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * <tt></tt> is supported. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 11:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops—I confused this with . Thanks. —Michael Z. 19:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I echo the request for meaning gloss, which is necessary when an inflected form resolves to several same-spelled lemmas. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Categorization of templates
Currently, language-specific templates which employ this template all get placed in Category:Form of templates. Since the template already accepts the <tt>lang=</tt> parameter, it will be fairly easy to refine the categorization where this parameter is specified so that the templates get categorised into a language-specific form-of templates category. __meco 13:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Category:Form of templates is now at Category:Form-of templates. - dcljr (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Suppressed red link
It seems that if the target term's entry doesn't exist, this template puts the term in bold. Shouldn't it create a normal red link instead, to allow the reader to click through and search or start the entry? —Michael Z. 2010-01-22 21:53 z 


 * I think the <tt>&#x7B;&#x7B;#ifexist|&hellip;&#x7D;&#x7D;</tt> predicate is being used as a poor man's, to avoid re-linkifying the parameter if it's already a link (as used to be standard practice). —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 04:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Can we use isValidPageName instead? Right now, not only is there no link, but doesn't work, either! (The latter problem can be fixed by changing   to , but why not use isValidPageName?) &#x200b;—msh210℠ 16:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * By all means, be my guest. (To clarify: I was only trying to explain why it might be this way, not advocating leaving it this way.) —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 01:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Because this is so very widely transcluded and I'm no expert when it comes to syntax, I just want to confirm the change here before effecting it. I'll be changing  to , is that right? (The change from language name to language code is merely to match the earlier part of the template, where language code is used. One of the two should be switched, and this one is less essential, merely linking to a section (and hence to the top of the page if there's an error), than the earlier, which determines, via , a choice of script.) &#x200b;—msh210℠ 15:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Effected. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. You edit of this template on 15th July has made it do strange things to some Italian verb form entries. See dispregiamo as an example. SemperBlotto 21:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Bother. I suppose I should revert my change to the template, but I still think change is, for the most part, for the better. But then those Italian (and perhaps other) entries will need to be fixed. Do you have any idea how many of those there might be? (I suppose I could try cajoling someone who knows how to analyze the dumps to find a list of all entries that have  as the second parameter in that template, and then go about fixing them all.) &#x200b;—msh210℠  16:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I should think there are tens of thousands of them. I thought that French ones had the same format, but Keenebot (or whoever) didn't use #French. I have stopped using #Italian in any new ones, but that doesn't solve the problem! SemperBlotto 18:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem seems to be foo#Italian|foo without . I can't tell you why that is, though. The optimal system seems to be as the lang=Italian only works when foo is not wikilinked. lang=it doesn't work, it produces foo. In som cases you'd need  as well. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you know where the dumps are nowadays? —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 11:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * http://dumps.wikimedia.org . &#x200b;—msh210℠ 16:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We used to have nightly dumps (something Robert created on a server run by Amgine), but I guess we don't anymore. Anyway, we finally got a dump the other day, so I just now generated a list of the 241 pages with this issue … and when I looked at the first entry on that list, [[domesticate]], I found that had already fixed it. Judging by its contributions, I believe it went through them all in order and fixed them. So, you should be O.K. now. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I went back to restore my change to template:form of, only to discover that no one had ever reverted it. &#x200b;—msh210℠ 15:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Auto linking to English sections
With no language specified and the second parameter unlinked, the template currently generates a link to #English: =. With a link: =. Can this be fixed, please? Nadando 02:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed how? Should it link to #English anyway? (That's hard AFAICT.) Should it not link to #English in any event? (That's probably advisable IMO, and easy AFAICT.) &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it should definitely not link to English by default, ie, and  should both simply link to y. Nadando 17:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Stats
During February 2011, I have changed some French and Italian uses of this template to the more structured. I was surprised how many places used this template. --LA2 00:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Bring into line with plural of et al.
See the related discussion at GP or April 2011 archive when so archived. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

from=
Can this template have the from= parameter that Template:standard form of, etc. have? Thanks. DerekWinters (talk) 08:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

RFM discussion: July 2012–June 2018

 * See Template talk:deftempboiler.

RFD discussion: March 2019
I've been trying to clean up the various form-of templates. In the process I discovered several that are either completely or almost completely unused, and are often badly defined. We have the more general and  templates for obscure grammatical forms, so there's no need to have a dedicated template for every possible form, and having all these templates hanging around is a maintenance headache.

What I'd like to do is rewrite the small number of uses using or, and then delete the templates.

First off are a bunch of templates for uncommon grammatical cases. None of these add the page to any category, and most of them are badly defined (they use when they should use ). Note that the ones that actually exist are somewhat random; e.g. we have abessive singular/plural but no adessive singular/plural or inessive singular/plural.

Next are three templates for "ancient", "early" and "late" forms. It's not clear to me what these even are intended for.

Next are some templates for inflected forms of past participles. There are in principle a huge number of such possibilities, and I don't think it's reasonable to have dedicated templates for each. Note that there are two more such templates that are heavily used, which I am leaving alone: and, with about 7,400 uses each, exclusively (AFAICT) for French inflected forms.

Finally are some misc random other inflected forms, which are isolated in that parallel templates that you might expect to exist don't exist.

Benwing2 (talk) 06:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd like it if we used only and deleted all of these (not just the little-used ones) so definite support. —Rua (mew) 11:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Orphaned and deleted. Benwing2 (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)