Template talk:no-verb

Bug report
Take a look at "få ut fingeren". I also think the self-reference is inappropriate. __meco 13:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't a bug; when there are two equivalent forms, one parameter must be named " " and the other " 2". I removed the self-reference. Kåre-Olav 18:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Another bug report: f%C3%B8le is missing Bokmål føltes and Nynorsk føla.

Burde
Some problems with bracket forms at burde. Imperative should also be optional, as should all passive inflection. --Harald Khan  Ճ  16:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Split infinitive
The split infinitive needs some planning. It is incorrect to list up main forms within brackets, it gives the wrong idea. I think perhaps the Nynorsk inflection should include both infinitives + the split infinitive. It could look something like this if we are on the page vere:

vera, vere [split infinitive: vera]

and if we are on the page vera, it'll look like this:

vera, vere [split infinitive: vera]

I think it would wise to connect the infinitives in a fashion similar to this. Either way, [vera] should never occur! --Harald Khan  Ճ  17:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * To ease confusion, the split infinitive should also be visible when it is similar to the e infinitive:
 * kasta, kaste [split infinitive: kaste] --Harald Khan  Ճ  17:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC discussion: March 2012–February 2018
See: tilhøre or forlate for example.
 * 1) This template should be named no-conj-verb or something like that. It is conjugation template but is used in the place for headword-line template (under L3 header).
 * 2) Something is wrong with the imperative.
 * 3) What is inflection 1 and inflection 2? They look the same.
 * 4) It is used under == Norwegian Bokmål == but the conjugation is for NB and NN. Maro 16:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved to RFD --Pas un coiffeur (talk) 10:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

RFD discussion: February–March 2018
Our resident Norwegian expert, User:Donnanz, has made this crappy template now orphaned. --Pas un coiffeur (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call myself an expert, but I agree with deletion. The template hasn't been used for a few years, and even when it was used editors had trouble mastering it, and I found many tables full of rubbish. DonnanZ (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Pinging, who made the last edits in 2010. DonnanZ (talk) 11:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * : I am personally in no rush to delete it. --Njardarlogar (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Not much I can say to that, except reiterate that there is no longer any need for it. DonnanZ (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * RFD failed. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)