Template talk:es-conj

About usage and reflexive verbs

Hi, I saw this template used on Template:es-conj-er (ser) (and Template:es-conj-ar (estar)), and though that this system was to be used instead of the old tables – and that I could adopt this system on no-wikt, because it seems smart. However, I soon discovered that this template is only used on a few pages (for a few templates), and not many, as I expected. So, I wonder:

1. What are your thoughts about using this template? Is this to be implicated in all conjugation templates? Or some similar template?
2. How are you to handle reflexive verbs with this? For me, it seems to be better to make it possible to use this template for reflexive verbs in this template (main) rather than the solution done with Template:es-conj-ar (andar).

I don't know who's working on Spanish verbs (and conjugation tables for Spanish verbs), but I hope to get some answers, as the idea seems good, and I hope to use it both here and on no-wikt. Mewasul 14:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

See User talk:Opiaterein/Archive 2009#.7B.7Bes-conj.7D.7D for a discussion of the difficulties that have slowed the progress of this template. Nothing insurmountable it just hasn't gotten done yet. --Bequw → τ 15:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Save space: infinitive, gerund and past participle in one row

Should this change be applied? --Tintero 15:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Pardonne mon anglais, but fuck no. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 16:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

{{fr-conj}} and {{it-conj}} (for example) also don't do this. Saving space isn't essentially, as the box is closed by default. 16:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Ignorance (as well as pretended ignorance) can be pardoned, but impoliteness is a serious issue. --Tintero 20:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I personally feel that implying someone's ignorance is far more impolite than using the dreaded f-word. Your idea has not met the welcome response you'd hoped for. Move on. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 15

59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

vos

The template is missing information about the vos conjugation (llamás comés salís etc.), which would be very worthwhile t include. --Persifal16 (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

We have to make the templates somewhat general. Nearly every language has major dialectical variations of the sort you're referring to. Including all of those in the templates would make them unwieldy. A simpler solution is to put that information into the Appendix that is linked from the front of the template. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• I made a couple of new templates with the changes : Template:es-conj with vos and Template:es-conj-ar with vos. Perhaps some additions can be implemented (I also added nosotras and vosotras to the table.). -WF

• • To see what it looks like on a real page, I put the newer version on esponjar. I think it looks beautiful! --OneOddOneOut (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe it's better to have parameters instead of vos1, vos2, vos3, to 5a, 35b, 58b, and make them optional. Sometimes, they are same, you see. For example with ir, it is vas for both tú and vos. I dunno how to do that, however -WF

vos subjunctive of venir

Currently the template for venir and its derivatives shows a "vos" subjunctive of the form "vingás". Although this is a vowel-raising verb, its subjunctive is irregular, so I believe it should rather be "vengás" with e in accordance with the vosotros form "vengáis". This is what the Spanish Wiktionary and WordReference's conjugation table show, too. Malhonen (talk) 12:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Remove garantir from the irregular list

The verb garantir should be shown as "regular or defective", not "irregular". All its forms (where they exist) are fully regular; its only quirk is the fact that some conjugations only exist in Argentina and Uruguay. I propose that the verb be removed from the irregular list in the source code, and instead the defectiveness should be added directly into the Wiktionary article. 139.184.180.37 16:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect form in the "combined forms" table

As of writing this, there is an error in the 1P imperative + 2P object pronoun form. Specifically, there appears to be deletion of the "s" in forms like "démoos", which should really be "démosos, since the "s" is only deleted when it precedes "-nos" and "-se". Thank you in advance to the person who ends up fixing this! MeepMeepMF (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikify voseo

Sorry if I haven't tracked this to the correct source, but Template:es-verb form of seems to use Template:es-conj as the origin of definitions such as for casate that look like

second-person singular voseo imperative of casar combined with te

I suggest that it would be useful to wikify voseo to link to Appendix:Spanish_pronouns#Voseo.

—DIV (1.145.121.82 01:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC))

Explicitly indicate tuteo?

At entries like cásate perhaps the definition should explicitly indicate tuteo, analagous to the handling of voseo? If so, that could also be wikified to point to an appropriate explanation of tuteo. —DIV (1.145.121.82 02:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC))