Template talk:he-Past of

Template:he-Past of
Surely a bad copy of. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, this trancludes . The difference is that when using it through the first letter of the definition line is capitalized. --Yair rand (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that it then? There is the  parameter that we can add to templates. See . Mglovesfun (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just discovered . What's wrong with ? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Several of the Hebrew templates come in pairs, capitalized and not. What seems to be the problem? &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, nothing specific. The fact that already has a   option does make it fully redundant though. It's 100 % useless, but it's not harmful or bad, it just achieves nothing. I think you can in fact just add   and it converts it to . Mglovesfun (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I created both of these templates, and I don't consider them redundant. The  option in  is nothing but an implementation detail, there to support . I mean, if someone wants to use  in entries, they can, but I think it would be odd. —Ruakh TALK 12:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps (well, certainly) I'm missing something. This seems intended to be redundant to . Since I don't edit Hebrew it doesn't affect me. Perhaps as I suggested creating a would get around this issue, as then all the individual verb ones, cap or not, would be redundant to the master templates. How about that? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what issue you're referring to, sorry. If the issue is redundancy, then I don't see how we could get around it by adding yet more redundancy. (And anyway, not all "redundancy" is bad. We approved adding LQT, for example, even though it's "redundant" to regular talk-pages.) Also, would be kind of a mess, since the different tenses don't all inflect for the same things. (For example, the present tense only inflects for gender and number, not for person.) If these forms were being added by a bot, then that might not be a problem; but such a bot would have to be much more sophisticated than its Romance counterparts, and I haven't seen anyone volunteer to write it. ;-)   —Ruakh TALK 15:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * By "this issue" I mean it would make this RFDO unnecessary. Anyway, I've made my point, safe to say if nobody agrees with me, we can wrap this RFDO up pretty quickly with a keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Kept, although I still hope this later gets replaced by. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)