Template talk:ine-bsl-decl-noun-a-f-mobile

Can this be sourced? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

RFD discussion: September 2013–March 2014

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion.

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:ine-bsl-decl-noun-a-f

Template:ine-bsl-decl-noun-i-mf

Template:ine-bsl-decl-noun-o-m

Template:ine-bsl-decl-noun-o-n

Template:ine-bsl-decl-noun-u-mf

According to the creator, all of this is original research. Imaginative guesswork, just like Chinese phonosemantic interpretations. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Postpone. Pereru and I have been discussing a possible change in practice concerning reconstructed terms. That would remove the need to delete these templates. He was going to make a BP post about it but he hasn't yet. In any case, if these are deleted, the categories they add should be maintained. —CodeCat 11:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see see what kind of relevance does the Wiktionary practice on reconstructed terms have with these templates. The endings used seem to be a synthetic work of a bunch of disparate theories you cherry-picked for your personal convenience. I've already told you how this can be solved: we can either use referenced paradigms (some of which are listed in Appendix:Proto-Balto-Slavic declension), or we can compile our own on the most recent scholarship but strictly with each ending being referenced and discussed. This kind of "educated guesswork" renders Wiktionary useless as a reference on etymologies, since it becomes impossible to separate established scholarship from whatever Wiktionary editors have decided to be true. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Kept for no consensus. —CodeCat 17:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)