Template talk:fr-adj-al

Deletion debate
This is probably influenced by fr:Modèle:fr-accord-al. But because our fr-adj is much better designed, this is redundant. See the two following examples:


 * Mglovesfun (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm for deleting it, with Template:fr-def-verbform and maybe also Template:fr-det. The other French templates seem OK to me. Pharamp 14:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The only entry using fr-det is at RFD, and fr-def-verbform should probably go. I'll list that below, not here
 * A third opinion? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep in order to save keystrokes. It's the only reason, but very editor-friendly. MG, you like to delete many things when there's no need to --Rising Sun talk? 00:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose the main problem is it complicates something pretty simple. The only advantage is that it saves two keystrokes, and the disadvantage is having multiple templates to do the same job makes it harder for new editors. That's why redundant templates should get deleted; they cause confusion among newer editors. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not wanting to sound haughty or anything, but I consider myself more important than new editors, at least when it comes to creating French entries. This reminds me of something I gotta do...--Rising Sun talk? 01:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I said, take something simple and make it more complicated. It might help you, but less experienced editors will be disadvantaged. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well they don't have to use it now, do they? --Rising Sun talk? contributions 22:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Kept for purely selfish reasons. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 19:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:fr-adj-eux
RFD with a 2-1 no consensus in February 2010. The user voting keep was. All three call on directly, and could be orphaned with a simple. Deletion logic: let's not use four templates where one will do. I'd compare it to (what was its name?) which automatically created an -es plural instead of -s (for boxes, for example) whereas nowadays we just do. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How is this different to declension templates for other languages, like Category:Russian declension templates? They have gazillions. --Parttimer 21:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, these aren't declension templates. S'pose they're not bad templates in themselves, just they complicate things rather than simplifying them. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So don't use them. Template work like that: if you don't know how to use it, don't use it, ignore it. In my ideal Wiktionary, everything could be done in a template. --Parttimer 09:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)