Template talk:sh-adj-def

Unlinked?
I don't know anything about SC, but shouldn't the forms listed in the table be linked? --Yair rand (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Linking inflected forms is pointless and misleading because the targets contain nothing useful except soft redirects to lemma. --Ivan Štambuk 19:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it appears that most contributors don't see it that way at all, as most inflection templates do link to the inflected forms. Is there any particular reason specific to Serbo-Croatian not to link to the inflected forms? --Yair rand (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes: I don't like it and think it's pointless. I would disagree that most contributors think that there is any usefulness in linking to entries that contain nothing useful. --Ivan Štambuk 19:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The inflected forms can contain pronunciation. Even if they don't yet, I, too, think it's worth linking to them. &#x200b;—msh210℠ 19:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would honestly say that linking inflected forms is better, etymologically speaking. This is because many Serbo-Croatian words are formed from various different inflections of nouns and conjugations of verbs. Just a thought. --Kilibarda 23:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you talking about? --Ivan Štambuk 14:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * He means (I think) that certain forms of many words are also forms of other words, like e.g. the 1st person plural past indicative of Icelandic is vorum, which can also be the dative plural of . I think it can be useful to click the links to see what other words or word forms are homographs of it, especially with the consideration that one might want to check whether their pronunciation is identical or not. – Krun 17:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)