Template talk:nl-verb

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
TK archive icon.svg

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup.

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


{{subst:notenglish}}: ik; wij; jij/u; jullie; hij/zij; zij. --Connel MacKenzie 19:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what cleanup you're asking for. The list you've given are the Dutch pronouns "I, we, you/you (formal), you (pl), etc." Each pronoun should proceed the corresponding verb inflection. I don't see anything to clean up. --EncycloPetey 23:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I think Connel's saying we should use the English labels "first person singular" and so on. I'm inclined to agree, actually, though I see both ways. —RuakhTALK 00:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
That would make the table very messy. Instead of saying "jij/u", we would have to say "second person singular familiar preceded by pronoun and third person singular formal preceded or followed by pronoun". Dutch has two second person familiar verb forms that differ depending on which second person pronoun is used; one (jij) precedes the verb while the other (je) follows the verb when it appears in a question. --EncycloPetey 02:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The table is already messy, but that aside: it is described in Dutch, not English. At least link the things to a special appendix, or do something to describe them in English. My preference, would be to see "I, we, you/you (formal), you (pl), etc." instead of the Dutch currently there. A less acceptable compromise would be "I (ik); we (wij); you (jij); you (formal; jiju); you (plural; jullie); etc." But listing only in Dutch belongs on nl.wikt, not here. --Connel MacKenzie 23:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Do not forget to also fix the derived templates {{nl-verb-refl}} and {{nl-verb-sep}}. H. (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


This template is obviously not very useful at the moment. I am currently trying to unify the behaviours of the four current headword templates {{nl-verb-strong}}, {{nl-verb-weak}}, {{nl-verb-mixed}} and {{nl-verb-irreg}} into this one. Try not to break anything until I'm done. ;) --CodeCat 20:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have by now provided such a unification. Conversion is as follows: {{nl-verb-xxx|yyy|zzz}} converts to {{nl-verb|typ=xxx|yyy|zzz}}. You might want to change the named parameter for typ= to, say, t= or type= or something else. —AugPi 15:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
To accommodate verbs which have more than one type of conjugation (yes, they exist) I wanted to do something more like this. {{nl-verb|st-1}} for strong class 1, {{nl-verb|wk|sep=1}} for a separable weak verb, and for a verb like zeggen you'd have {{nl-verb|irr|wk}}. So the numbered parameters specify the basic type and category (st-1 to st-7, st-i, wk, wk-cht, mix, irr) and then sep=, refl= etc. specify the other information. I suppose the class could also be specified separately using cl= or something. --CodeCat 16:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
What about using named parameters st=, wk=, mix=, and irr=. This way, the coding would be simpler. Also, st= could be assigned a number from 1 to 7 or i in order to specify the class. —AugPi 14:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I suppose I just have a different approach to the problem (being a programmer does that). I think it's more important to make things simple for the users than for the developers. So I think that having somewhat more complicated coding in the template is worth it if it makes using the template for the majority of wiktionary users easier. --CodeCat 16:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, let wk, wk-cht, mix, irr be input through unnamed (numerical) parameters, in any order, but let st= be set to a number from 1 to 7 or to i. How about that? —AugPi 00:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
You would object to my last proposal if... there are Dutch verbs which simultaneously belong to more than one class of strong verb. Are there such verbs? Keep in mind that If the different classes are due to different meanings or different etymologies of the verb, then that can be handled with multiple inflection lines, not with multiple st-x parameters in the same template/inflection line. —AugPi 00:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
But you yourself proposed possibly using a cl= parameter, which suggests that you might agree to using an st= parameter instead. —AugPi 01:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I found that it was better to use a cl= parameter. Your proposal has now been implemented. —AugPi 15:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I cleaned up the code significantly so it's easier to maintain. And as a result it has become a lot easier to just use st-1 to st-7, so I decided to make it that way. I think we can now definitively make {{nl-verb-weak}}, {{nl-verb-strong}}, {{nl-verb-mixed}} and {{nl-verb-irreg}} obsolete altogether. --CodeCat 18:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, I have added obsoletion notices to those four templates. —AugPi 19:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


The parameter past2 doesn't seem to work. See dissen (I typed it, and also copied it from the documentation). -- 11:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)