Template talk:he-Past of

Deletion debate

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Template:he-Past of

Surely a bad copy of {{he-past of}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this trancludes {{he-past of}}. The difference is that when using it through {{he-Past of}} the first letter of the definition line is capitalized. --Yair rand (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Is that it then? There is the {{{cap}}} parameter that we can add to templates. See {{past of}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Just discovered {{he-Future of}}. What's wrong with {{he-verb-form of}}? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Several of the Hebrew templates come in pairs, capitalized and not. What seems to be the problem?​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, nothing specific. The fact that {{he-past of}} already has a cap option does make it fully redundant though. It's 100 % useless, but it's not harmful or bad, it just achieves nothing. I think you can in fact just add subst: and it converts it to {{he-past of}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I created both of these templates, and I don't consider them redundant. The cap=uc option in {{he-past of}} is nothing but an implementation detail, there to support {{he-Past of}}. I mean, if someone wants to use {{he-past of|cap=uc| […] }} in entries, they can, but I think it would be odd. —Ruakh_TALK 12:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps (well, certainly) I'm missing something. This seems intended to be redundant to {{he-past of}}. Since I don't edit Hebrew it doesn't affect me. Perhaps as I suggested creating a {{he-verb-form of}} would get around this issue, as then all the individual verb ones, cap or not, would be redundant to the master templates. How about that? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what issue you're referring to, sorry. If the issue is redundancy, then I don't see how we could get around it by adding yet more redundancy. (And anyway, not all "redundancy" is bad. We approved adding LQT, for example, even though it's "redundant" to regular talk-pages.) Also, {{he-verb-form of}} would be kind of a mess, since the different tenses don't all inflect for the same things. (For example, the present tense only inflects for gender and number, not for person.) If these forms were being added by a bot, then that might not be a problem; but such a bot would have to be much more sophisticated than its Romance counterparts, and I haven't seen anyone volunteer to write it. ;-)   —Ruakh_TALK 15:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

By "this issue" I mean it would make this RFDO unnecessary. Anyway, I've made my point, safe to say if nobody agrees with me, we can wrap this RFDO up pretty quickly with a keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Kept, although I still hope this later gets replaced by {{he-verb-form of}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)