Template talk:fr-noun

Please
Why can't this be as flexible as ? Any attempt at something a bit more complex (e.g. word that can be countable or not) is impossible to obtain. It is also impossible to substitute in the singular. Circeus 07:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Substituting in the singular is indeed possible — for example, is the same as  — but yeah, it's a pain. Part of the problem is that the template makes too many assumptions, e.g. that every noun has a plural, and then all of its parameter values work toward that assumption, e.g. by having a second argument of - mean that the plural is identical to the singular. Of course this could be changed, but that would break existing pages; or we could adopt another special character for indicating uncountability (or alternation between countability and uncountability), but then that would just make the template even harder to learn for those familiar with its analogues. Maybe after the next XML dump we can get a report of what entries are using what features of the existing template, and work from there? —Ruakh TALK 03:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, maybe it would be best to create and  (and ), and start migrating to them? Conceptually it makes sense to have a single template for both, but migration is a slow process, and I'd rather not have  or something in the meantime. :-P   —Ruakh TALK 03:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I found out after the fact. (this is an old post). Currently, two features would be really nice additions: something to cover always plural words, and something to cover mass/mostly singular ones. Apparently there is already  for the latter, though. Also, something for epicene and/or ambiguous words (e.g. cantaloup, météorite, oasis, alvéole are in actual usage, of inconsistent gender). It's also not possible to cover the feminine form of a noun with it (though I would rather use  for that as well as for the plural, and use the definition line to link to the original). I think we should try to see just how best to cover all cases, and then alter the existing templates, what do you think? Circeus 04:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I also think it would be nice to have the potential to not add anything, in case the contributing editor doesn't know it, as with me at galimatias. - Oreo Priest  talk 04:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, it turns out that "mf" for epicene nouns work (but confusingly classifies words into Category:French invariable nouns). Could we start by UPDATING THE DOCUMENTATION so we know what is and is not needed?? This is definitely one of the aspects I like less about wiktionary. Circeus 04:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

other gender plural?
Isn't there a way to indicate other gender plural? 70.51.8.110 05:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup, use fplural=. (Not the best name, but it gets the job done.) —Ruakh TALK 03:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Can someone add othergenderpl parameter? 76.66.195.159 11:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Detailed documentation.
This template produces the following:


 * The current headword in bold.
 * A gender note — either, , or — if 1= is provided, and is one of m., m, <tt>f.</tt>, <tt>f</tt>, and <tt>mf</tt>.
 * Inside parentheses:
 * If <tt>type=plural</tt>:
 * The word undefined: in italics, followed by the singular form (<tt>sg=</tt> if provided, otherwise <tt>single=</tt> if provided, otherwise <tt>2=</tt> if provided, otherwise gibberish wikisyntax) linkified and in bold.
 * Otherwise:
 * The word undefined: in italics, followed by the plural form (<tt>pl=</tt> if provided, otherwise <tt>plural=</tt> if provided, otherwise the current headword if <tt>2=-</tt>, otherwise the current headword plus <tt>2=</tt> if the latter is provided, otherwise the current headword plus &lt;s&gt;) linkified and in bold.
 * If <tt>f=</tt>, <tt>fem=</tt>, <tt>othergender=</tt>, or <tt>3=</tt> is provided, in that precedence order, calling the overall value undefined::
 * A semicolon, followed by the word undefined: or undefined: in italics (whichever is the opposite of the above-described <tt>1=</tt> ), followed by othergender linkified and in bold.
 * If not <tt>type=plural</tt>:
 * A comma, followed by the word undefined: in italics, followed by othergender's plural form (<tt>fplural=</tt> if provided, otherwise the same calculation as above, except using othergender rather than the current headword ). &larr; It doesn't quite make sense to use the same calculation here as above, seeing as e.g. <tt>2=-</tt> for a masculine-only noun probably doesn't imply <tt>2=-</tt> for its feminine counterpart, but that's the current design. I'm guessing some copy-and-paste took place.
 * The category Category:French nouns (with no sort key).
 * The category Category:French nouns lacking gender (with no sort key) if <tt>1=</tt> is not provided or is empty, and the category Category:French masculine nouns, Category:French feminine nouns, or Category:French invariable nouns (all without sort key) if <tt>1=</tt> is <tt>m</tt>, <tt>f</tt>, or <tt>mf</tt>, respectively. &larr; Note that this logic does not cover all the possibilities one might expect. For example, <tt>1=m.</tt> produces the right gender note but doesn't add the gender category, and <tt>1=masculine</tt> fails to add any gender note but doesn't add the lacking-gender category. &larr; Also note that "invariable noun" is a misleading category name.
 * The categories Category:French noun forms and Category:French plurals (both without sort key) if <tt>type=plural</tt>.
 * The category Category:French plurals (without sort key) even if not <tt>type=plural</tt>, if the plural form (as calculated above) is equal to the current headword, except that a provided-but-empty <tt>2=</tt> will not cause this category to be added. &larr; I assume this last detail wasn't intentional.

should only be used for pluralia tantum (or even better, never) as we have for that. Perhaps this feature predates, among its problems, it categorizes in French nouns, and we don't do that for plurals. So if kept, it we should remove the singular parameter that accompanies. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

fonts
Can someone figure out what's wrong at fonts ? TIA, --Jerome Potts 04:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You needed to specify a second parameter, which is the singular noun. I am going to make that no longer compulsory... —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 22:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a widely transcluded, protected template. In the future, please propose edits on the talk-page, and then wait a bit (at least a day) before making them, so that other editors have a chance to raise objections or concerns. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 23:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

fr-noun templates

 * The following discussion was originally posted at Grease pit

I'd like to make more like other noun template, in particular add a switch for  to allow "-" for uncountable, "?" for plural not known and "inv" for invariable. Currently we have three templates; fr-noun  and. The only real problem is that currently when 2=- (for example ) i sets the plural and the singular to be identical. So first job would be to change all instance when 2=- to pl=. Is it worth it? Well, probably, but it won't be easy. Best solution I can think of is something like  which would be a hidden cat, then deleted once it's cleared. Objections? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Template talk:fr-noun gets a fair bit of traffic, so you should probably raise this there rather than here. But as a first step, I'd recommend going through a database dump and gathering data about how the template is currently used. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 19:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

moved to Template talk:fr-noun


 * Sounds like a good idea. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ</> 14:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Turning out to be tougher than I thought. For one reason, gâteaux uses . I've somehow broken the feminine form, too. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem was that you tried to put the category inside . It should be fixed now. I'm not sure what the problem was with gâteau in particular. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 03:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I came here with the same topic in mind. I'll leave it for today (sunny, do not want to be inside all day) but tomorrow I shall start trying to unify the functions of fr-noun-inv and fr-noun-unc into this. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

plural parameter broken
Setting plural=- does not output 'uncountable' as advertised. Kaldari 02:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, seems to work now. Kaldari 05:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That would be because fixed it; see Template:fr-noun?action=history. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 19:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Missing span classes
Hi. Singular and plural have a class attribute to the span tag (respectively class="form-of plural-form-of lang-fr" and class="form-of plural-form-of lang-fr"). Can some admin add the same kind of classe to the feminine and feminine-plural forms? That would be class="form-of feminine-form-of lang-fr" and class="form-of feminine-plural-form-of lang-fr" respectively. The modification would allow the "accelerated creation" gadget to work properly for the two last forms. Thank you. BTW, can't this template be editable by established editors, like fr-adj? — Xavier, 17:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think the feminine/masculine equivalents of nouns can be created that way. We don't have princess defined as "feminine form of prince". 17:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, princesse is not given as the feminine of prince. Personally, as long as the word is given as a "f" parameter to fr-noun, which reads "feminine: xxx" in the masculine entry, I have nothing to object to a "feminine form of" in the feminine entry. If I get you correctly, the reason why thoses classes are missing is to keep red links from becoming green, so that users don't easily create "feminine form of" entries ?
 * I have a couple of options come to mind:
 * Why not let users create those entries the accelerated way, and let other users render them more politically correct? I think that a "feminine form of" entry is better than no entry at all.
 * Why not change the accelerated creation a feminine nouns so that the entry reads "female (masculine-word)" or "female equivalent of (masculine-word)", instead of "feminine form of (masculine-word)". Not sure the former is better than the latter but I can provide you with the corresponding code if you agree with this.
 * Any other option? — Xavier, 20:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest bringing this up on the BP. 20:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We did used to have these, they've been dumped. I don't think we need a BP discussion to reinstate them so much as to confirm the validity of dumping them unilaterally in the first place. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. I didn't even consider this was intentional. Can you point me to the discussion that led to this situation? Thanks. — Xavier, 20:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's my point; there hasn't been one! Mglovesfun (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Now there is one :-) Anything to object to my options above? — Xavier, 21:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My objection is that the gendered forms are separate lemmas, so to treat one as just a form of the other doesn't make sense. It's not like with adjectives, where the gender is determined by grammatical agreement. With nouns the distinction is semantic, so there is really no "feminine form". Rather there is one word used for male people and one for female people, and there is a distinction in meaning which warrants a lemma with a unique definition for each. 21:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (unindent) I understand this, and I would not be discussing if there was no "f" parameter to this template. If a masculine noun can't have a "feminine form", then why this f parameter? My point is: as long as someone use that f parameter, that someone suggests that a feminine form exists and there is no reason to not accelerate its creation. WHat about option #2: "female equivalent of (word)", or a better formulation? — Xavier, 21:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It also has an m= parameter, though. So we would also end up with masculine forms. It would become really messy. 21:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see any m= parameter. Anyway, I don't understand your answer wrt my question: if a feminine form is declared with the f= parameter, why not accelerate its creation? — Xavier, 21:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

neuter
In this edit a typo ('n' for 'm') was allowed by fr-noun, marking it as a neuter noun. It shouldn't allow neuter! Renard Migrant (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --WikiTiki89 21:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Uncountability

 * Would it be possible to replace "usually uncountable" (the current output of ) by "usually singular"? PUC – 15:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)