Template talk:en-past of

Documentation

Use this template to show the simple definition for an entry that is the past tense or past participle inflection of a primary entry.

For most past tense entries, use in the definition line:

# {{en-past of| }}

E.g., on "lionized":

===Verb===

# {{past of|lionize}}

Verb

1. (deprecated template usage) simple past and past participle of lionize

Note that users can customize how the output of this template displays by modifying their monobook.css files. See “Form of” templates for details.

Parameters

This template is not language specific, but, if used with the lang parameter the relevant category can be applied to the article in which the template is included.

lang = used to specify the langauge i.e. English, Scots etc.

An example:

For the English word clamored (simple past and past participle of clamor):

{{past of|clamor|lang=English}}

This would place the article clamored in category:English simple past forms & category:English past participles

Discussion

Past participle

This shouldn't be included in this template. {past and past participle of} would be better, but the past participle should be listed on a separate line anyways. DAVilla 01:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

inflected form

As some point in the deep dark past history of this template, I remember it using the inflected form, if the target exists. Is there some reason someone took out the "to " from this template? Perhaps I should have checked first - I hope it wasn't me. Admittedly, it seems very hard to have the "to " also be part of the wikified text (which it should?) --Connel MacKenzie 02:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes the to should be there always in English as should the a for Romanian, and I forget what word for Icelandic. The whole lot including the to should be italicized but the to should not be wikified. I was just about to add it myself but despit being a good computer programmer I can't figure out this template wizardry at all! )-: — Hippietrail 20:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Example of to wikify

no dot parameter

Some templates like this (I don't remember which) have a no dot parameter, which can be set to suppress the closing period. This enables the template to appear in a sentence, which I have found useful for entries that need some clarification, for example, which etymology the lemma form is. If someone has the time and knowledge, I'd be obliged. DCDuring TALK 16:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. It seems to have a nodot parameter. Time to clean my screen and recheck. DCDuring TALK 16:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Parameter for pointing into a page

Is there a parameter for pointing into a page? Example: template past of is used in deserted to generate "Simple past tense and past participle of desert.". The link is to the page for desert, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/desert, but it would be better if the output from the template could point to the section for the verb on that page, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/desert#Verb --Mortense 16:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it should always point to the #verb section, even if there is no other section. Then you wouldn't need to change anything. SemperBlotto 16:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, some 3 years later, how about it ? That is, point to the #Verb anchor, instead of to the #English one ? Pretty please ? Or else remove the edit protection restriction and let us commoners edit the source ourselves. --Jerome Potts (talk) 02:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no guarantee that #Verb will lead to the right section. #English always will, on the other hand. —CodeCat 03:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there much of an argument for staggering the anchor names to reflect indentation, so that it would be #EnglishVerb, #EnglishNoun, #FrenchVerb, etc? Equinox ◑ 21:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

If the software supported it, sure. Then we could do that for any language. —CodeCat 21:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

In what circumstances would #Verb not point to the English Verb section? According to Wiktionary:About_English#Special_treatment for words in multiple languages, English will always be listed first (except for Translingual), so #Verb will always point to the English one. See, for example man#Verb. I've opened a discussion on this at the Grease pit. JesseW (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Not only past tense but also present and future passive voice!

Will any administrator please amend this

simple past and past participle of

into a more accurate and rarelier misleading

simple past and passive and past participle of?

Thanks 2003:44:CE18:4D00:89:4A52:6178:20CF 20:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

In English grammar, the past participle is understood to be passive for some verbs. However, it's not necessarily always passive. For example, there is no passive meaning in fallen or in laughed. —CodeCat 21:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

RFDO discussion: June 2014–June 2015

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others (permalink).

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:en-past of

Per WT:RFDO#Template:definite and plural of. This is the same principle, just the template is more widely used. Two definitions, two lines. Not combined onto one line.

It would be very easy to replace this by bot. Quick, no; easy, yes. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep. Common practice for language-specific templates is very different from general ones. Language-specific templates can and should cater to the specific needs of that one language, that's why we have them. —CodeCat 17:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Keep: per CodeCat — This unsigned comment was added by Purplebackpack89 (talk • contribs).

KEEP per me too. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Kept but admin needs to remove RFD tag --Type56op9 (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent change

@Benwing2 I'm not sure what you've been working on, but could you return this template to the old style? Ioaxxere (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ioaxxere What is wrong with the change I made? It is logically two separate inflections, and normally we list them separately in such cases. Benwing2 (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Benwing2 For one thing, no one calls them "inflections"; most English speakers probably wouldn't even recognize the word. Second, having three lines bloats the page for no obvious benefit. Third, it's inconsistent with our headword template which groups "simple past and past participle" together. Finally, the template doesn't work at all with quotations, usage examples, etc. (see left#Verb). Ioaxxere (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ioaxxere I brought this up in the BP. Benwing2 (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ioaxxere Give the BP discussion a couple of days for people to respond and then I'll put it back if the consensus leans that way. Benwing2 (talk) 07:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

RFD discussion: July 2023–March 2024

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

English form-of verb templates

I have added support for language-specific tags, including those that expand to more than one tag set ("conjoined shortcuts"), and implemented a number of them for English. I propose replacing the existing English verb form-of templates with direct calls to {{infl of}} with these new tags. The archaic tags automatically generate an appropriate label (which currently displays "archaic" and links to w:English verbs#Archaic forms, for all three of the archaic forms listed below, but this can be customized), and automatically add to the appropriate category (e.g. Category:English second-person singular past tense forms for forms like openedst). In most cases the resulting Wikitext is actually shorter than the original Wikitext it replaces, and IMO is clearer, because the tag corresponds to the ending of the form rather than the grammatical function of the form, which is in my experience the way English speakers tend to think about these forms. The actual tag names themselves can be changed if people think others are clearer, as they're not yet in use other than in the definitions of the existing templates. Benwing2 (talk) 08:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Canonical template	#Uses	Suggested disposition
Template:en-archaic second-person singular of	1967	{{infl of|...|st-form}}
Template:en-archaic second-person singular past of	482	{{infl of|...|st-past-form}}
Template:en-archaic third-person singular of	1727	{{infl of|...|th-form}}
Template:en-third-person singular of	36021	{{infl of|...|s-verb-form}}
Template:en-simple past of	1933	{{infl of|...|spast}}
Template:en-past of	37687	{{infl of|...|ed-form}}
Template:en-ing form of	92	{{infl of|...|ing-form}}

Benwing2 (talk) 08:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@ExcarnateSojourner, Theknightwho, Vininn126, Ultimateria who have commented on previous similar deprecation proposals. Benwing2 (talk) 08:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Support using this new way of marking these and also delete these templates. Things shouldn't be spread out if possible. Vininn126 (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• Delete as proposed. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 20:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Support the changes; delete/deprecate the templates. Ultimateria (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Deprecated or deleted. Benwing2 (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Template:en-simple past of, Template:en-past of, and Template:en-third-person singular of don't appear to have been deprecated and are still being used in entries. Ioaxxere (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ioaxxere Oops, looks like I forgot to do the deprecation step. Will fix. Benwing2 (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

"spast" ? This better not be for use by humans. DCDuring (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)