Template talk:no-noun

=Comments=

Error with common gender
See stue. __meco 10:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Common gender is now added to the list, but please do see my edit to stue that shows how to deal with Nynorsk and Bokmål being inflected differently. --Eivind (t) 11:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see now. I misread your instructions, so there basically wasn't any problem. __meco 17:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Some comments

 * 1) I think it would be better to remove the "genitive" forms, since the ending s in Norwegian is really a clitic, and not a case ending. In addition, the ending is not the only way of expressing possession. If the "genitive" forms are removed, we may not need the table, since the four remaining forms may easily fit on one line, as was done before.
 * 2) If we are to have separate Bokmål and Nynorsk entries, it may be better to always use either the Bokmål and the Nynorsk template, instead of this combined template.
 * 3) To follow the standard naming conventions,  and  should be moved to  and
 * 4) As far as I can see, the template works for all kinds of nouns, with the exception of nouns like nøkkel (nøkkelen, nøkler, nøklene). Kåre-Olav 18:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether the s is a clitic or not should have no bearing on the possessive forms' inclusion. "I'm/you're/he's" etc are all using clitics and they are all included in this Wiktionary. Also, someone without basic knowledge of Norwegian who wants to find out what bilens means will have no way of knowing that the trailing s should be stripped before entering a search term. __meco 19:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with meco on genitive, since this is en.wiktionary – what we do at no.wiktionary is something totally different. As to your other comments: 2. Yes, if we go for separate entries this template will no longer be necessary. 3. Yes, but we can't move the templates before all entries linking to and  is fixed. 4. Yes, that is true. I will see if I can fix it. --Eivind (t) 11:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Change the name?
Maybe we should consider moving this template to, while reserving for the information coming immediately after the L3 header. This seems to be the standard for other languages (e.g. Latin, Greek). Take a look at Inflection templates Kåre-Olav 12:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can do. I can change the name used in the entries using a bot. --Eivind (t) 12:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Updated
I updated this template, so that it now in theory can be used with all Norwegian nouns. However, if you find a noun which does not fit in, please leave a message below. Especially, I added the irregular nouns. I also split the common class (c), so that you now must choose both m1 and f1 (bru) or m1 and f2 (bakke) for Bokmål nouns which can be both masculine and feminine. Otherwise, the template is as it was, except that I changed the parameters "nb-class1" and "nn-class1" to "nb-class" and "nn-class", since in most cases only one class will be used. Kåre-Olav 08:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Bug report
The template does not behave as expected at nabovarsel. Also, for irregular nouns it doesn't specify gender. __meco 11:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is possible to specify the width of the table using (I've added it to the documentation). With regards to the gender, it should be fairly easy to add a gender parameter,  for example. I'll have a look at it someday, if someone else doesn't fix it. By the way, the Norw. inflection templates are still somewhat experimental. UPDATE: Now the definite plural bracket forms should work with the irregular forms as well. Kåre-Olav 21:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that something should be done to avoid linefeeds in each cell. It makes the table appear messy. __meco 07:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And I particularly object to the new width= parameter. The template should decide appropriate width based on the parameter values, unless of course this is not technically feasible. __meco 11:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not new, it has been there all the time, but it wasn't mentioned in the documentation. Kåre-Olav 14:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Bug report 2
romjul shows that the code isn't interpreted correctly. __meco 11:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I added the "klammeform"/bracket form ([romjuli]) to the Nynorsk f1 definite singular. Kåre-Olav 12:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was thinking of the two genders of Bokmål. __meco 14:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind! I blingsed and didn't see the two sections within Bokmål. __meco 14:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Bug report 3
dogme shows an extraneous 'e' in one of the Bokmål plurals.__meco 15:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Kåre-Olav 15:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent! __meco 17:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Flag_of_Norway.svg|15px]] Forklaring: Du må legge til |stem= + ordet, men uten e på slutten (|stem=dogm i ditt tilfelle). [[Image:Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg|15px]] Explanation: You have to add |stem= + the word, but without the final e (|stem=dogm in this case) 9E2 21:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Doing away with the need for two templates?
Could we not implement the solution which the Swedish noun inflection templates use (see for instance etymologi) and have the inflection table on the far right of the same line which includes our current use of, thereby doing away with the need for a separate Inflection section? __meco 12:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally I'm (obviously) fond of such a solution, but as I once in a while heard people grumble about it, I asked in the WP:BP the other day about what the general opinion actually is. Sofar it doesn't look too bright for the right-floating tables, but perhaps you have something to contribute to that discussion? \Mike 12:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, now Swedish don't have such a complex inflection as Norwegian (since we have both Nynorsk and Bokmål inflections of most Norwegian words), so I reckon it's a good solution to have a separate Inflection section. --Eivind (t) 08:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure that is totally relevant. Even though what you say is right, the difference in the size of the infobox isn't that significant. I at least don't think I would consider a right-floating table to look bad. __meco 08:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is an example I set up to show why right-floating templates are such a bad idea. Look at the Catalan section, where I temporarily inserted a Swedish inflection table, along with the other right-floating items that can be placed with a noun entry. On my monitor, the table ends up in the Occitan section of the page (2 languages down), even though it is called in the Catalan section. --EncycloPetey 09:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I would think that this problem could be solved with the use of  (on the English Wikipedia w:Template:Clear). No? __meco 09:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No. Pushing all the non-Catalan content off the bottom of the screen with a huge gap of whitespace is not a solution.  Using an Inflection section is a solution. --EncycloPetey 09:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The example which you provide is unrealistic. Obviously the reference to the Catalan Wikipedia for its entry on apples is inappropriate, and the image of an apple on a non-English entry is gratuitous and could randomly be dispensed with in a contingent situation without giving rise to any argument of adverse consequence. This is what that page would look like with those two elements removed and the  code added for improved layout. Since it could be argued that other examples are conceivable where these elements couldn't as easily be dispensed with, I would argue that adding images to non-English entries would rarely be indispensable, and, with some careful contributions adding sections such as similar terms, synonyms, references, etc., the problem would dissipate in any case. __meco 10:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not unrealistic at all. Such links to non-English WPs and included images are regularly used, and even generated by bot.  You r argument, that the template would be OK through careful contributions of additional article padding, makes the use of the template contingent upon article length, which is inappropriate.  I have explained some of the reasons people are objecting to the right-floating boxes, and I am aware of (and disagree with) the counter-arguments. --EncycloPetey 18:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Dual identical patterns
I have some problem with brødtekst. The template doesn't seem to accept two inflection patterns, identical in both Bokmål and Nynorsk. __meco 10:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Kåre-Olav 23:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Genitive issue (nynorsk)
In the inflecton table for nynorsk, genitive shows up as  sin/sitt. Si and sine are also genitive words; sin is used for masculine words, si is used for feminine words (optional in bokmål), sitt is used for neuter words and sine is used for plural. In my opinion, genitive should therefore have been something like this:  si(n)/sitt/sine. 9E2 21:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks cluttered. Why not include only one and a footnote to the bottom of the inflection box where they could all be laid out? Is that a possibility? __meco 10:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good solution. 9E2 18:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The inflection table for genitive gives the impression that garpegenitiv: sin/etc. is correct in nynorsk and illegal in bokmål. The fact is that the s-particle is legal in both flavours of norwegian. sin is also accepted, although to a certain degree frowned upon, in both sub-languages. Ninni 11:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Singularia tantum
I just added snørr and I found the template lacking support for words that only come in singular form. blod will show the same problem when someone decides to expand its present entry. __meco 14:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I just added vås:. I'm mixing up singulare tantum with uncountables, but the issue remains for both. __meco 11:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Bug report 4
See lesbe. The stem= parameter doesn't cover all that it ought. __meco 10:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Same problem with potteplante. __meco 08:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Problems at brødskive. __meco 14:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we should rewrite all the Norwegian inflection templates. I would like to have a system like the Danish one, where is used on the entry line, while  gives the full inflection. Obviously, changing the current practice would take a lot of work, but I think it is a better long-term solution. Kåre-Olav 17:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Being perfectionists we don't mind a lot of mork (too much). This looks like an elegant solution. __meco 11:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it would be somewhat complicated, as we would have to edit all the occurrences of etc. to something else (using a bot?) before we could re-use that template. Besides, Norwegian is a lot more complicated than Danish. Making a new system would need some thinking in advance. It would be nice to have a veteran Wiktionarian take a look at it, but I don't know if any of them is working on the Norwegian entries. Kåre-Olav 21:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)