"Definition 2" of the verb is just the usual (but dying) rule for the subjunctive. I'm not sure how best to clean this up, so I'm marking it rfc.
- It's an irregular subjunctive, so it's worth its own definition. I've reworded it. Colin 23:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Feedback.
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.
Other Wiktionaries make extensive use of templates for inflections. The English Wiktionary really needs to catch up in this regard. Compare the neatness of http://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/be with http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/be. The conjugation table is a straight Mediawiki markup table which is hard to edit. -188.8.131.52 19:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's not really a suitable comparison, since be is a highly irregular verb in the first place. Some of the French entry's neatness comes from having only three of the possible definitions, and from its lack of subjunctive forms in the conjugation tables. On the whole we do make extensive use of template tables, but not in English because most English verb entries don't need them. --EncycloPetey 06:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Northern England "was"
It says that "were" means "was" in the North of England. Are you sure? Actually I think that the Northern English are the best at using "was" and "were" when they should. The conditional tense should take "were". In most of the English-speaking world, people say "was". e.g. "I wish I was dead", "I think it was your job", etc. The North of England is about the only place where the average person says "were" rather than "was". I think that somebody's got confused with this entry. Should it be deleted 184.108.40.206 19:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)