Template talk:fr-conj-er

Compound Present Participle
Why not do: (} --Hagindaz 14:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

RFDO discussion: March–December 2016
Has been replaced in all cases with. I see no reason why we'd ever go back to the non-Lua versions. Pretty much all the templates should go in time when the modules are complete, unless there's a reason not to. This one is however orphaned already as fr-conj-auto handles all cases where it is used. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * and seem to be also orphaned. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 13:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * . Renard Migrant (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC) (apologies for not signing at first)
 * Delete. — JohnC5 03:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Eventually, should be moved to . --WikiTiki89 19:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I concur. — JohnC5 03:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Deprecate but keep. Use AbuseFilter to deprecate it on the technical level by preventing saving pages that contain the template if possible or explain why it is not possible. Point: make page histories legible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should worry too much about old page histories being legible. Delete, even though I made loads of those templates back years ago. --AK and PK (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind Dan Polansky is the only user who prefers deprecating to deleting, and the reason is we'd have to do a lot of harm to Wiktionary in order to do that. That's why he's the only one. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I remember User:TheDaveRoss also preferred deprecation, but I may be wrong. Anyway, where is the stregth of the argument? Of course we would not do any harm to Wiktionary by deprecating templates by technical means. No harm has been explained. Let Renard explain the harm in clear terms. Let Renard explain why deprecation via AbuseFilter would not work. One great feature of wikis are the revision histories: let's keep them legible so that looking into them isn't painful. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is true, I prefer non-breaking changes to breaking changes when possible. It is true that it is hard to manage deprecation.  - TheDaveRoss 11:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is you have to leave the templates as-is, i.e. do nothing. You can't even change them to outside the main namespace only. I wholly reject Dan Polansky's proposal as intrinsically bad for Wiktionary as it means keeping everything ever for no real value. Page histories are actually readable as long as you know what the red links mean, and anyone who doesn't is unlikely to be looking at page histories. There's a reason he's the only person on any wiki ever to make this argument. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You want to remove the template from the mainspace as obsolete and make sure via technical means it does not return. That is not exactly "do nothing". That's not "keeping everything ever"; that is keeping most of the templates that were more broadly used. The reader may find the argument with "the only person" as conspicuous as I do, a logical fallacy. Of course, we decide by consensus and if I'm the only person, the template will be deleted, but "there's a reason he's the only person" really is not a substantive argument but rather admission of lack of substantive arguments. And indeed, phrase like "keeping everything ever" that conspicuously fail to differentiate suggests good arguments are sorely missing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In, nominated for deletion by Renard Migrant, I am, luckily so far, no the only person supporting keeping. Keeping term is much more urgent than the presently discussed conjugation template since the argument of term is the foreign-language term being referenced and hence after template deletion the actual content becomes invisible in the revision history as shown. I think Renard has to do a real rethinking of his position in view of legibility of revision histories, especially for templates like term. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Though I want to keep term, I'm one of the keepers. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Has already been deleted --Derrib9 (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)