Template talk:la-proper noun-form

@I'm so meta even this acronym, JohnC5: This should behave like {{la-noun-form}} and not require gender to be specified, IMO. Do you guys agree? If so, let's fix it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: I had noticed and wondered about that before. I have not problem with changing it, though I can understand why it was done as most personal names are saliently gendered. —JohnC5 07:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: I'm sorry to disagree, but I think that, rather, {{la-noun-form}} should be made to function like {{la-proper noun-form}}, and so require that gender be specified. Gender is vital grammatical information, but it is rightly omitted from the {{inflection of}}-generated definitions for nouns, since for any given noun-form entry, the gender will be the same in every definition. Including m, f, n, or whatever in the headword line imparts this information without redundancy and without necessitating that one click through to the lemma's entry if inflectional information is all he needs. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@I'm so meta even this acronym: But given that such information is currently not provided and there would be a massive number of these if all noun forms were to be treated thus, I'd rather not display a question mark for all our users to see. Can we at least agree on that? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: Agreed. A hidden clean-up category would be better. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

RFD discussion: April 2019–June 2023

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion (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:la-proper noun-form

As above. This also requires a gender to be specified, which is wrong for non-lemmas. Non-lemmas do not require a gender, as it's just duplication of information from the lemma. —Rua (mew) 19:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that it's wrong to include gender in non-lemma forms. It's more a matter of preference on the part of the specific subcommunity handling that languages. We do include gender/number specs in bot-generated non-lemma noun forms in Russian, for example. Benwing2 (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I see it as unnecessary duplication of lemma information on non-lemma pages. Avoiding duplication is a basic principle, and is why we do not include inflection tables, etymologies and usage examples on nonlemmas either. —Rua (mew) 17:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, gender is important for non-lemmas as well. The inflected forms Alten m. and Alten f. differ by gender, similar with Alte m. vs. f. and Alter m. vs. f. --Der Zeitmeister (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Delete - pointless duplication. Theknightwho (talk) 11:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Deprecate as redundant but widely used. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 08:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Deprecated (~ 4,500 uses). Benwing2 (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)