Template talk:la-conj-form-gloss

Glossing inflected forms is inappropriate and could cause error if it falls out of synch with the lemma page. The whole point is that conjugated forms point to the lemma, not defining it there. Moreover, these are somewhat inaccurate because Latin grammar sometimes requires that, for example, a subjunctive be translated as an indicative in English. I think it would be better to do away with this template and all its subtemplates. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, and had been about to nominate this myself. (There must be some sort of Baader-Meinhof effect at work.) Delete. As I wrote on WT:RFC, for the dozens of inflected forms of Latin verbs to display all of the verbs' (potentially dozens of) senses "is a uniquely terrible idea and I can only hope there are already policies against it". The duplicated content is unmaintainable, prone to falling out of sync with the lemma. - -sche (discuss) 00:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You should also take a look at Special:WantedPages, page 1, items 324-600, beginning Template:la-conj for some other detritus of this effort. For some reason those don't show up on Special:WantedTemplates. There are other pages with both higher and lower numbers on Wanted Pages, but the concentration between 324 and 600 is notable. The listing might help track some of this down. DCDuring TALK 01:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This was a fairly major effort by User:AugPi, though not part of his recent contributions. He should be informed by e-mail. DCDuring TALK 01:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Note something else I wrote on RFC: "not all entries use la-conj-form-gloss in conjunction with our usual short "x-form-of" glosses; some (especially participles) use only la-conj-form-gloss... which makes it less than straightforward to remove by bot. But the sheer number makes it impractical to do by hand." perhaps a bot could strip la-conj-form-gloss from entries that also use the usual "form of" templates, and leave us to decide what to do with whatever was left. (Simply removing it from all entries, including entries that didn't use "form-of" templates, would leave the latter entries definitionless.) - -sche (discuss) 02:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, I've never liked this. Adds a lot more information to the pages in question without adding useful information. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete 18:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete (Per incorrigible flaw found by DCDuring, at least.) &mdash;AugPi 23:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)