note that this is quite outdated, as it still presumes the right-floating boxes... I'll rewrite this section at some point...

done

• Created a "master template" for fully inflected adjective, in that {{sv-adj-irreg}} will work as the main template, the one which several other will call. That means that template will contain all the design stuff. At the same time, it will work as a normal template which deals with the irregular adjectives. (Properly irregular; those who merely change their stem can from now on be entered through (the temporarily named) {{sv-adj-new}}).
• All uses of {{sv-adj-irreg}} has been checked, and where possible the entries now use {{sv-adj-new}} instead.

to be done

• Find out what the new templates really ought to be called :)
• Create a template {{sv-adj-e}} (or whatever it should be called; it should be able to deal with both -en, -el and -er adjectives), which also call {{sv-adj-irreg}} for the display routines.
• Rework {{sv-adj-abs}} - at the moment it is called by {{sv-adj-new}} for periphrastic and absolute adjectives, but it doesn't really know how to deal with the input...
  • When that reworking is done, update all the articles which uses it.
• Check uses of various old templates (maybe get that done semi-automatically?) and change to the new ones.

Main plan

Four <insert>Five</insert> templates:

1. sv-adj-irreg which both is the meta template which contains format for templates 2 and 3, and does the irregular templates. Only numbered parameters, no real entering support. 10 numbered parameters, no named. All are necessary.
   • 1= positive common (attr and pred)
   • 2= positive neuter (attr and pred)
   • 3= positive masculine definite attr
   • 4= positive definite attr
   • 5= positive plural (attr and pred)
   • 6= comparative (attr and pred)
   • 7= superlative masculine attr
   • 8= superlative definite attr
   • 9= superlative plural attr
   • 10=superlative predicative
2. sv-adj-new (which should change name, what to? sv-adj, perhaps) is the main template. It deals with basically everything which inflects after gender/definiteness/number, except those adjectives which ends in -el, -en, or -er. It takes 2 to 4 unnamed parameters and up to 2 named:
   • 1= Necessary. The word stem. Namely, the part of the word which is common for the common and neuter forms of the positive
   • 2= Optional. If the common form differ from the stem, here one adds the letter which is needed to add to the stem to get the common form. This should presumably only be needed if the lemma form ends in -d or -dd?
   • 3= Necessary. The neuter ending, can be either empty (but as the template is designed at the moment, one still has to throw a null string into that parameter. Perhaps that can change?), or it can be t or tt.
   • 4= Optional. Used for "strong" inflections, that is, adjectives for which comparative and superlative use a different word stem from the positive. Here, one specifies the stem, that is, the part which is common for the comparative and the superlative.
   • type= [Not completely ready to use yet]. Use the value "abs" if the adjective isn't comparable, use "peri" if the adjective only take mer/mest when inflecting, not suffixes.
   • alt= A number of words tends to use weird changes in spelling when inflected. For example, the final consonant may double in all forms but positive common and positive neuter. If so, add that extra letter to this parameter.
3. sv-adj-e (what's a better name?) [Not yet written]. 3 unnamed parameters and 1 named.
   • 1= Necessary. The word stem. The part of the word without the final -el/-en/-er.
   • 2= Strictly speaking not at all necessary, but I chose to keep it to make sequence of parameters more intuitive. Supposed to always have the value "e", but as it isn't used, it is more a part of the mnemonic for how to use the template, because the use then would look like sv-adj-e|vak|e|n (on the page vaken).
   • 3= Last letter of the word, i.e. either l,n,r.
   • type= [Not completely ready to use yet]. Use the value "abs" if the adjective isn't comparable, use "peri" if the adjective only take mer/mest when inflecting, not suffixes.
4. sv-adj-0. [Not done yet]. For those adjectives which does not inflect for number/gender/definiteness, such as bra or kul. 1 numbered parameter and 1 named - one of the two has to be given:
   • 1= For comparables. Used to denote the stem for the comparative/superlative forms. Corresponds to parameter 4 in sv-adj-new.
   • type= For non-comparables. Value peri if perifrastic, value abs if absolute.
5. sv-adj-abs. [Not done yet; name may need to change]. The meta template for un-comparable and periphrastic adjectives; should most often be possible to call through the templates 2 or 3. Supposed to correspond to sv-adj-irreg, and shows a message "comparable by mer and mest" (just like the present {{sv-adj-peri}}) if the note= parameter is set to "peri". Otherwise, it has 5 numbered parameters and 1 named:
   • 1= positive common (attr and pred)
   • 2= positive neuter (attr and pred)
   • 3= positive masculine definite attr
   • 4= positive definite attr
   • 5= positive plural (attr and pred)
   • type= Necessary. Use the value "abs" if the adjective isn't comparable, use "peri" if the adjective only take mer/mest when inflecting, not suffixes.

Done

• Created a new version of {{sv-adv}}
• Updated all old uses of the template
• Add template into all present Swedish adverb entries

Underway

Not done

• Overhaul of design (formulation, ...) of "form-of" templates
  • Names: sv-adv-comp of=, sv-adv-sup of=?
• Check the present uses of form of-templates
• Check other entries categorized as "form of" (but not using the templates)
• Should {{infl|sv|adverb form}} be used even after a designated {form of}-template is in use in the definition?

...

• Verb forms or adjectives? Or a PoS of its own?
• Standardized way of adding the noun(s) of the same spelling? Or should the nounal use be put under the (hypothetical) special participle PoS? [I doubt...]

Update per July 24, 2009

Main plan

Two different kinds of templates, one inflection-line-based and one for use under a "conjugations" header:

1. Inflection-line-templates (2). To be based on a master template, {{sv-verb-custom}}.
   1. {{sv-verb-reg}} (for weak, regular verbs). Done!
   2. {{sv-verb-irr}} (for strong and irregular verbs). Done!
2. Conjugation templates (5) [since people won't accept a single, right-floating, inflection box :P]. To be based on a master template or three...
   1. sv-conj-ar
   2. sv-conj-er
   3. sv-conj-r
   4. sv-conj-s
   5. sv-conj-irreg
   6. (more?)

   To give the full set of inflections; see my talk. However there are some questions around archaic or unusual inflectional forms' names, prevalence, and also if one should add the old personal inflections - the ones which were around until the early 20th century (in writing, if not in speech).

Questions/Notes

1. Which forms should be given in the conjugation template? Five possible steps:
   1. "{infinitive, present, preterite, supine, imperative} x {active, passive}" + "present participle" + "past participle" is a minimal set; further steps would be to add:
   2. "{active subjunctive} x {present, past}" and then
   3. "{passive subjunctive} x {present, past}" and
   4. "{reciprocal/absolute} x {infinitive, present, preterite, supine, imperative}" - (though the reciprocal and absolute could join in one column, and with one exception this could also be merged into the passive column; perhaps one could call it "s-form" as has previously been suggested.)
   5. historical forms, namely, personal inflections.

   Now, I'm uncertain about the "historical" forms - they have, after all, not been constant until they all suddenly were abolished. It would add a huge amount of complexity to be able to mark how a given form changed over time.

2. Which set of conj-templates should be used? Should verbs which lacks passive or habitual/reciprocal use templates of their own, or should they use a special parameter?
3. Would it be better to use two templates for deponentia, -as as well as -s?
4. If subjunctives are added, it could be useful to have standard notes about them being rare/very rare, except in a few exceptional cases. But then, there are other forms which for some verbs are very rare - should they too be marked as such?