User talk:Msh210/Archive/inflected forms of phrases

This page is an archive of old discussion. Please don't edit this page. If you wish to communicate with me (msh210), you can do so at User talk:Msh210. Thanks!

Entries for conjugated forms of damn by association and fudge the issue

Aren’t inflected forms of English multi-word idioms meant to hard-redirect to the lemma? It was my understanding that we aren’t meant to give them full entries… Did this convention change somewhen or something? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm unaware of such a convention. How is damn by association different from damn (the verb)? Note also that I made them form-of entries, not full entries in the usual sense.​—msh210℠ 17:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

See [[Wiktionary:Redirections#Redirecting between different forms of idioms]]. —Ruakh_TALK 18:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ruakh. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, both of you. I won't continue that practice (unless/until I forget).​—msh210℠ 18:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions:

1. Is it worth having the redirects at all for the conjugation of the verb for most of these?
2. If we want them, why not get a bot to create them?
3. I don't think of phrasal verbs as idioms. Some of them seem to warrant showing the inflection of the verb. Would that violate policy? DCDuring TALK 19:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

To answer your last question first, having a form-of entry for the inflected form seems (per discussion here) to violate policy. Having an inflection line does not, and I intend to continue adding them; see, e.g., [[give someone the slipper]], which I've just now created. As to the first question, I personally think we should have entries, or at least redirects, for these, yes, for those who will look them up. As to your second question, if they're to be redirects, then a bot can create them easily from the inflection-line links where those exist.​—msh210℠ 19:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think your answer to the 3rd speaks to/speak to phrasal verbs (arguably not truly idioms). An entry like that one, with an irregular verb, and a short pronoun to boot, seemed worth the inflection and the entries, especially for the -ing an -ed forms. Such forms often seem to be thought of/think of as separate from the verb. Please forgive my going on/go on about this. Who is the right person to the bot that would be carrying out/carry out the creation of redirects? DCDuring TALK 19:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't fully follow that. You're saying that the policy page linked to above applies to speak to but not to give someone the slipper, which should indeed have separate pages for its inflected forms? But the policy page uses burning one's fingers as an example of what to redirect. As to a botmaster, I don't know. (For verbs like speak to, it should be bot-doable sans inflection line, too: For any English verb that's another verb plus one of a set list of short prepositions, inflect per the shorter verb.)​—msh210℠ 20:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There are two questions about phrasal verbs (not verb phrases):

1. Are they idioms and therefore covered by the policy mentioned? (I don't think they are.)
2. Whether or not covered, should there be a policy against their inflected forms appearing as entries?

Relatedly, why is not "to burn one's fingers" in the "policy" page?

And, it's more of a suggestion ("guideline") than a policy anyway. DCDuring TALK 20:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the answers given by msh210. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

FWIW this policy has never been used much. I've seen loads of these entries and until now, I've never seen anyone question one. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)