[[Appendix:Proto-Slavic/zǫbъ|zǫbъ]], [[Appendix:Proto-Balto-Slavic/źambas|źambas]]

Also, here's a more general question. I see that alternate respellings of reconstructions (or even totally different reconstructed forms) already are in use in etymology sections of individual words, since I have come across some myself. So: should some kind of concerted effort be made to make everything consistent, i.e. should someone go looking for the "wrong" spellings of some reconstructed protoform and replace them with the "right" spellings? And what do we do if a source is cited, but it has the "wrong" spelling? (Maybe put the "right" spelling next to the "wrong" one in parenthesis? Or maybe leave the "wrong" spelling but link it to the "right" one?)

For several reconstructed languages we have a standard notation that is based on common practice (but never all; there will always be some that use another notation). That notation is described on the "about" pages, like WT:AGEM or WT:ASLA. There have been a few occasions where our standard notation has changed. The most notable is probably the use of ogoneks for Proto-Germanic. If etymologies use another spelling, I usually change them to reflect our standards. So far, I haven't had any that were sourced, but if they are, we should still use our own notation, and use the source's own notation when quoting it. Our etymology sections never directly quote sources, they are always paraphrasings, so converting the notation can just be part of that. I suppose it's assumed as understood that varying notations don't imply different reconstructions.