Do you guys think such combined case names as Essive-formal case, Essive-modal case, Instrumental-comitative case, Causal-final case and Distributive-temporal case, which are present in Hungarian, should be also included in this table?

--Adam78 01:59, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Strange layout 2 Layout 3 Formal case 4 Jussive case 5 Proposed new version

[edit] Strange layout

Is there a compelling argument for having the accusative and nominative cases tucked away at the bottom of the table under 'morphosyntactic alignment'? Would it not be simpler and more useful just to have the whole list alphabetical? Stevage 19:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no logical reason for having nominative and accusative tucked away at the bottom of the table.

[edit] Layout

This template has gotten quite long for a sidebar. Maybe it could be turned into a footer like, say, {{University of London}}. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 04:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is better idea. However, there is a lot of job to do for such design: To complete the list (AFAIK, even it is not complete, it seems that this is the most complete list of cases on the Internet and a lot of research is needed to complete the list and to remove all nonsenses); to categorize cases (former categorization was bad; now there is no categorization) and, finally, to remove old and to put new template in all of the articles (more then 50, maybe close to 100 after the list is completed). --millosh (talk (meta:)) 14:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Formal case

If someone has references for existence of formal case, please let him/her write them here. While googling for "formal case", i found only mentioning of formal case in the sense of Hungarian Essive-formal case. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 08:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jussive case

According to Google search, Jussive case is a verb category, not a noun category. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 20:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed new version

I cooked up a proper Template:Navbox-using version, which also has the cases arranged into groups (though somewhat arbitrarily, but this could always be changed / debated over later), which can be seen at User:Vystrix Nexoth/Case table (though that page itself isn't suitable for use as a template yet).

I'm inclined to be bold and go ahead and update it, but the current template is a sidebar, and my version is a regular bottom-of-the-page one. Should I make a new template for it, or just update this one (and, either way, go through and update the pages that invoke it so they do so properly)? – Vystrix Nexoth (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Your table looks great! I suggest the next: --millosh (talk (meta:)) 06:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Name it as {{new case table}}. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 06:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
2. When you do that, ask here for help: we will be adding new case table and removing case table. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 06:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
3. When we finish with that, we may copy the content from the new case table into case table and start with changing "new case table" into "case table". --millosh (talk (meta:)) 06:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, sounds like a plan. I'm willing to do most of the grunt work myself. I'll create {{new case table}} and start updating pages, then. – Vystrix Nexoth (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

While I prefer this layout, I'm a bit skeptical of the division into "Basic", "Adpositional" etc. classes. Do published sources follow this scheme? --Ptcamn (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I arranged them that way myself. They can always be rearranged later. My main concern at this point was getting the pages changed from a sidebar-based to bottom-of-the-page-based template. I've done that now: the pages that used {{[[Template:case table|case table]]}} now use {{new case table}}. I'll leave it to someone else to implement step 3 of Millosh's plan, above, or I'll do it myself later. Meanwhile, the new template is live, so feel free to change the groupings. – Vystrix Nexoth (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe "basic" should be renamed to "Nominative" or something similar. Hmm... Maybe as "Subject [cases]"? --millosh (talk (meta:)) 10:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the “basic” cases are the ones that reflect morphosyntactic alignment. If anything, “Morphosyntactic” would be a better term, though it's a bit long and thus may widen the table. Calling the whole group “Nominative” would be identifying the whole group by a single member of it. – Vystrix Nexoth (talk) 04:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, at the end, we may ask some of the bot owners to replace "new case table" with "case table". --millosh (talk (meta:)) 10:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

One morething: When there are no inclusion of the old case table, you should copy the content of the new case table into this template. And after that, we should rename inclusion. Also, you should make a redirect from the new case table template to the case table template. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 10:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I completed the transition and now {{[[template:case table|case table]]}} has the content of the new case table and {{new case table}} redirects here. Now, we need to remove the word "new" from the cases. I think that we may do that without bots (there is not a lot of work for that). The referent page for work is Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:New case table. I'll start from the end of the list, so if anyone is online, they may start from the top. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 11:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Everything is done. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 11:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)