User talk:JohnC5/Sandbox2

Parameters
I would suggest using  and   to indicate that a word has only singular or plural forms. Other templates already use this. —CodeCat 14:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I was a little confused to be honest. The Ancient Greek templates all use form and the Latin, num. I chose the AG format because the behavior is slightly similar with, but I do prefer the brevity of n. Which other templates already use it, by the way? — JohnC5 15:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Latin is one, it only differs in the name of the parameter (I made it before I settled on the  name). Then there's Finnish, Slovene, Russian. There may be more. —CodeCat 15:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, you don't necessarily need different templates for different values of . You could just use one table and show "-" when there is no singular or plural. Alternatively, there could be two templates: one shows both singular and plural, the other shows just one of them. There's no real need for separate singular and plural tables then. —CodeCat 15:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am a big fan of the separate tables, to be honest. I find the having a whole mess of dashes distracting. I suppose an argument could be made that it is more clear to explicitly say the form doesn't exist, but I feel that not providing the forms along with a caveat like singular only is very clear. Do you have strong preference one way because I tried to implement it exactly how I thought it should be done?
 * I was also hoping you or Kenny could help me with the transition with one of your respective bots.
 * PS: do you prefer to be called Code, Cat, CodeCat, or something else? — JohnC5 15:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What I'm referring to is that and  are pretty much identical. They could be merged into one. Also, I think "table" should be added to the name to make it clear that these are only the tables, not to be used directly. —CodeCat 15:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Aha, I misunderstood. Yes, I will implement that when I get back from work. Should the new table be named or something like that? — JohnC5 15:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So far, I've named them . —CodeCat 15:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, could one of you use a bot to finish up the migration to the new declension scheme? It the only templates that need doing are , , and . I'm getting tired of doing it by hand. They each accept no parameters so the following should work in each case:
 * Then I can go through and remove whatever is left over. — JohnC5 04:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done and deleted the templates. --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I just noticed the interesting example of, which is genderless. I may have to add some functionality that allows genderless nouns and that parenthesizes the articles for proper nouns. — JohnC5 13:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out that entry. Its usage notes are actually [//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Facebook&diff=33820758&oldid=9109470 mistaken]. - -sche (discuss) 17:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done and deleted the templates. --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I just noticed the interesting example of, which is genderless. I may have to add some functionality that allows genderless nouns and that parenthesizes the articles for proper nouns. — JohnC5 13:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out that entry. Its usage notes are actually [//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Facebook&diff=33820758&oldid=9109470 mistaken]. - -sche (discuss) 17:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion
Planning to revolutionize Template:de-decl-adj+noun-m? (e.g. Toter) --kc_kennylau (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I could, but what all needs to be done?
 * Proper noun functionality
 * Singular table
 * Genderless?
 * Anything else?
 * — JohnC5 18:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can think of fixing repeated links. What do you mean by proper noun functionality? --kc_kennylau (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I just added the notes and prop parameters to the noun declension tables which add a notes section for the first and parenthesize the articles and adds the phrase proper noun for the second. I thought these would be nice to have.
 * As for the "repeated links," I was actually thinking of changing the noun template to include for all forms because I think the current situation looks weird, is coded poorly, and doesn't allow for German-direct linking. It seems far better to have all link than just a few. What do you think? — JohnC5 19:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you think about this linking issue? — JohnC5 19:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that multiple references to the same declined form should not be linked manifold. --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay there. Here are my issues about the current linking system:
 * It looks inconsistent and spotty.
 * The logic is not correctly implemented in several places (e.g. Junge and others that I don't recall at the moment).
 * It currently doesn't support the language-direct linking used in orange linking, and fixing that would be difficult.
 * Is the main complaint the added linking overhead or just the sheer redundancy of the extra links? — JohnC5 17:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't Junge using Template:de-decl-noun-m instead of Template:de-decl-adj+noun-m? --kc_kennylau (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been talking about whether to add links to all the forms in the noun tables as opposed to removing the extra from the adj+noun tables. I'm swinging ever further in the opposite direction from you, I guess. — JohnC5 18:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)