Template talk:en-verb2

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Ruakh doesn’t want it.… --Æ&Œ (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete. To be honest I think listing the archaic forms would be great, but this makes the headword line too long, so an inflection table would be better. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 22:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

keep Ruakh has never been a reason for doing anything, let alone deleting a template. -- Liliana • 22:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I hope I'm not your sole reason for voting "keep", because that would make your comment false! (See w:Liar paradox.) —Ruakh_TALK 14:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete, I think. The only use I could see for this would be a word that is mostly used with the archaic endings and rarely with themodern ones (e.g., it died out when the modern endings came into vogue) — but even for such a word (and can we identify any?) I doubt this is the way to do it.​—msh210℠ (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom, I guess? I'm kind of confused. Æ&Œ, as the creator and sole contributor, can request speedy-deletion if he wants it deleted; and if he doesn't want it deleted, then why is he nominating it? There's currently a discussion about it at Wiktionary:Beer parlour#en-verb2; I don't see why we need an RFDO discussion at the same time. —Ruakh_TALK 14:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Re "Æ&Œ, as the creator and sole contributor, can request speedy-deletion": in this case, likely, but not in general. If I'm the creator and sole editor of a template that others use (especially if many others use it over some time), it shouldn't be speedied IMO.​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

That's true. I'd considered writing "creator, sole contributor, and sole user", but then that ran into the problem that even he hasn't used it — he (quite properly) raised it for discussion first — and I ended up deciding not to bother figuring out how to word what I meant. :-P   —Ruakh_TALK 17:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that is what "sole contributor" meant. —CodeCat 15:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Ruakh, that is not true: I requested a speedy deletion for sæculier, an entry of which only I contributed to with the exception of one robot modification, but it became rejected. I am nominating the template because you wanted it deleted. My own feelings are irrelevant. And the ‘Beer Parlour’ discussion looks dead to me. --Æ&Œ (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: [[sæculier]]: I imagine that's because you requested it deleted on the grounds of "not enough citations" rather than on the grounds of "I'm the sole contributor, and I've changed my mind, I don't think this should exist."   Re: {{en-verb2}}: Why are your own feelings irrelevant? —Ruakh_TALK 18:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

That I may think that something ‘shouldn’t exist’ is hardly a good enough justification to delete something. People will demand reasoning, and a critic shortage of citations seem to be sufficient to speedy‐delete nonsense. And, I contend, that, your intelligence is superior to mine, and you possess a greater sense of caution compared to the reckless risk‐taking I pursue, thus your feelings are of higher value. And of course you are an administrator and a bureaucrat here as you know, the positions which are always earned by superior people. --Æ&Œ (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: "the positions which are always earned by superior people": I dunno. The only editor here that I've ever sincerely disliked was a CheckUser, which is considered a much higher position of trust (you even have to submit documentation to the Foundation); and I certainly wouldn't consider him a "superior person". People with privs are generally perceived as more-authoritative by people outside the community, so ideally they would be superior people, but in practice that's not how it works out. Once you're a member of the community, as you are, you have to apply your own judgment: judge people by what you see them do, not by the privs that others have awarded them. (And while I definitely agree that I "possess a greater sense of caution" than other editors, not everyone would agree that that's a good thing. CodeCat, for example, has a different philosophy of wiki-ing. Obviously I prefer my own philosophy, but that doesn't mean you have to substitute my judgment for your own.) —Ruakh_TALK 20:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. The creator of the template seems to want to use the template in such entries as "explain", "need", "study", "talk", "colour", and "breathe" to show obsolete inflected forms on the headword line, which I oppose. This intention is confirmed in es:explain entry in Spanish Wiktionary, modified by Æ&Œ (talk • contribs); see also a list of other pages in Spanish Wiktionary using "Plantilla:inflect.en.v.reg/2" (a link provided by Æ&Œ himself in Beer parlour). --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Trashed. --Æ&Œ (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)