Template talk:ro-past

Attention

Why does this template always call attention? It's a bit like saying using this template is always wrong. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Anything that used it at the time I put that in had improper formatting. This was designed as a headword template, where the {past participle of...) part should go in the definition line. So in a way, the template is wrong. — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 00:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

RFD discussion: August 2013-June 2015

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.

---

{{ro-past}}

I notice that since this edit in 2008, the template automatically adds the entry to Category:Romanian terms needing attention. Presumably because it doesn't have a function not already covered by {{past participle of}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I've changed it to add the entry to Category:Romanian entries using Template:ro-past instead, since there were a lot of these; they made up more than 75% of the entries in Category:Romanian terms needing attention. —Ruakh_TALK 07:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Although it's clearly intended to be a headword template, some entries use it as a form-of template. —Ruakh_TALK 07:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Kept, no consensus to delete --Type56op9 (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)