Template talk:inv

Rename? I think not
If we wanted to eliminate all three letter templates with no capitals, diacritics or punctuation, we should rename this to or something. However, I see absolutely no advantage unless it ever becomes an ISO 639 code. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Link
Would it be better to link the "inv" to a page containing information about what it is? (either to indeclinable
 * inv . 

or to a section in some appendix about "indeclinable-ness" or a page about abbreviations used in wiktionary) --Xoristzatziki (talk) 08:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:inv
This template is supposed to be a gender-and-number template. However, "invariable" is neither a gender nor a number, it's a declensional class much like "second declension". I can't really think of a legitimate use for this... it seems that it's mostly used when something like is more appropriate. 14:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. It's our way of saying "We didn't just forget the declension table; it really doesn't decline." I have no idea why you want to get rid of a template that's widely used and conveys information of high lexicographical importance. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 16:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand my point. I am not saying that we shouldn't indicate that words are invariable. What I object to is treating it as though it were a gender. One Italian entry I found used this template as part of the gender, using and displaying "m, f and inv". That seems just totally wrong. Our normal practice is to indicate genders after the headword, and inflectional information goes in the brackets after that, or in a dedicated inflection section. Invariable declension is a feature of inflection, pretty much on par with "uncountable" or "not comparable". This template, essentially, would be equivalent to displaying "second declension" as a gender, or "weak class 1" or even "not comparable". So, most uses of  should probably be converted into something else.  16:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So fix it. "Fix it" meaning migrate it to a non-gender-or-number-template form or whatever. That doesn't mean "delete it entirely". I think (hope?) we can agree that we want the information the template displays to be in the headword, as it currently does. You haven't proposed any replacements for it that do the same job. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree; it sounds like it should just display differently rather than being deleted. —Angr 17:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I would leave it alone. To me, "m,f,inv" means:- it is both masculine and feminine, and the plural is exactly the same. I don;t see a problem. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So should I take this as a de facto endorsement for the creation of and so on?  17:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No; first-declension nouns can be identified as such by their principal parts. Since invariable nouns are invariable they don't have distinct principal parts, and if we don't tag them as inv or something, readers won't know if the lack of principal parts means that they don't have any or merely that we forgot to add them. —Angr 17:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you also misunderstand. My point is specifically addressed towards treating this as a gender/number template. I have never implied not tagging it with something. I am only saying that it should not be considered a gender, but rather a type of inflection. Currently, some uses of this template are actually in translation tables; so if we already include declensional information there, should we extend this to include more information? I mean, if "invariable" is ok as a gender, why not "first declension"? Or are you suggesting that we include the principal parts in translation tables as well? 17:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is an example fix: . So the information is not removed, just changed from being treated as a gender to being treated as inflectional information. 18:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That looks good. I agree "invariable" isn't gender (but then neither is plural although we treat it as if it were), but the info ought to be somewhere in the headword line, just as things like the genitive singular (often) are. —Angr 18:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Plural is more gender-like than declension class though. More specifically, what we call genders are really "congruency classes" - bits of information that are carried over to other words and that affect their inflection as well. English is commonly thought not to have gender, but it does still have two congruency classes: singular and plural. Romance languages have four (m, f, m-p, f-p), Swedish has three (c, n, p), German has four (m, f, n, p), and most Slavic languages have at least six, but Polish has eight (m-anim, m-inan, f, n, m-p-pers, m-p-impers, f-p, n-p) and Slovene has ten (m-anim, m-inan, f, n, m-du, f-du, n-du, m-p, f-p, n-p). Bantu noun classes are also congruency classes so we include them as genders (, etc). But invariability is not a congruency class; a noun that is invariable does not transfer this over to an adjective.  18:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been looking at the template and its uses and it seemed that the majority of uses were like the diff I showed above. So I made the same replacement, moving the "invariable" text from the gender into the inflectional information. I also edited a few templates (Swahili, Greek and French) that used this template as part of their display; I made the same replacement there too. What remained then were a few scattered uses in translation tables, which seem out of place (we don't include other inflection information there, after all). So I removed it there. As it turns out, after those two changes, the template no longer has any transclusions. So... can it be deleted now? 19:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently not: the consensus here seems to be to keep it. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Kept. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)