Template talk:ka-adj

Why is the declension table built in to this template? DTLHS (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

RFC discussion: June–July 2014
Check out the horror show in. A right floating drop-down box to the right of the inflection and not under a header. Yuck. Should be two templates? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed it should. Will start splitting it off soon. — Keφr 04:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There are quite a lot of entries which have a declension section along with this template. Will post a list soon. I am not sure what to do with these. Does the existing declension section take precedence or what? Pinging User:Dixtosa and User:Vahagn Petrosyan. (Pinging still works?) — Keφr 05:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about Georgian declension. --Vahag (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw you in the contributions list for the template, so I assumed you know something. Oh well. — Keφr 12:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like the headword-line table is only a subset of the forms in the main inflection tables- the principal parts, no doubt. Georgian is an agglutinative language, so inflection is bound to be very complicated and impossible to fit neatly into formats designed for European languages. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, pinging still works XD
 * Reply from User:Dixtosa: bytes=32 time=87ms TTL=54
 * Back to the point now XD.
 * @Keφr, why do you hurry? Can we have a little bit of talk before you mess things up? This template has had that shape for years, so there is no point in hurrying to change it.


 * First off, it does not look like a horror show to me.
 * I've included in  for tho reasons:
 * info provided as parameters of was enough to fill the table. Also, the adjectival declension is so primitive (only two rules and no exceptions) I thought it was not worth giving a space in any of the headers. It is much like having the conjugation table for English verbs.
 * Adjectives can have two declensions actually: adjectival and nominal (when an adjective is implicitly converted to a noun). And these two, combined under one header, where one template is a particle compared to the other is more horror show than what it is now.
 * Lastly, as you can see I tried my best to ease the removal of that subtemplate (you just need to comment out one line in ).
 * So, in my not humble opinion, either disappears or it stays where it is now.--user:Dixtosa 17:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I was somewhat hasty. Apologies. But to the point: if this information is so compact, why not make it part of the headword line? No other language has floating tables listing inflections. Also, I think I have seen some cases where inflections generated by contradicted those manually input into the entry in a declension template (, by the way — placed in its own subsection, like mommy told us to). I cannot find them now. So of those two options you gave, I think I would choose "disappear". — Keφr 20:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Dixtosa again: so what am I supposed to do now? Becuase the status quo is certainly unacceptable. — Keφr 19:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is it? As I said, I like the way it looks :D
 * As for compactness, if I squeezed those three declensional forms into headword line then, theoretically, ++ forms and for sure their description (assuming, say, one-word) would be present and thats Hitchcock in action.
 * The untouchable things is that those declensional forms should be somewhere there (= no more disappearings).
 * btw, I approve your changes on about making it a standalone template.
 * Again, I don't find it so ugly and who not let others say their piece. --Dixtosa (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)