Template talk:la-proper noun-form


 * This should behave like and not require gender to be specified, IMO. Do you guys agree? If so, let's fix it. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I had noticed and wondered about that before. I have not problem with changing it, though I can understand why it was done as most personal names are saliently gendered. — JohnC5 07:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to disagree, but I think that, rather, should be made to function like, and so require that gender be specified. Gender is vital grammatical information, but it is rightly omitted from the -generated definitions for nouns, since for any given noun-form entry, the gender will be the same in every definition. Including , , , or whatever in the headword line imparts this information without redundancy and without necessitating that one click through to the lemma's entry if inflectional information is all he needs. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * But given that such information is currently not provided and there would be a massive number of these if all noun forms were to be treated thus, I'd rather not display a question mark for all our users to see. Can we at least agree on that? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 15:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed. A hidden clean-up category would be better. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

RFD discussion: April 2019–June 2023
As above. This also requires a gender to be specified, which is wrong for non-lemmas. Non-lemmas do not require a gender, as it's just duplication of information from the lemma. —Rua (mew) 19:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it's wrong to include gender in non-lemma forms. It's more a matter of preference on the part of the specific subcommunity handling that languages. We do include gender/number specs in bot-generated non-lemma noun forms in Russian, for example. Benwing2 (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I see it as unnecessary duplication of lemma information on non-lemma pages. Avoiding duplication is a basic principle, and is why we do not include inflection tables, etymologies and usage examples on nonlemmas either. —Rua (mew) 17:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, gender is important for non-lemmas as well. The inflected forms m. and  f. differ by gender, similar with  m. vs. f. and  m. vs. f. --Der Zeitmeister (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - pointless duplication. Theknightwho (talk) 11:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Deprecate as redundant but widely used. &mdash; excarnateSojourner (talk &middot; contrib) 08:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Deprecated (~ 4,500 uses). Benwing2 (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)