Appendix talk:Latin/lucta
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Renard Migrant in topic RFC discussion: November 2015
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup (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.
The page claims this word is reconstructed, but lucta has the same sense. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- In that case, it seems lucta should be RFV'd. If it passes, *lucta should be deleted, if it does not pass, then lucta should be deleted. The contents should be merged in either case. --WikiTiki89 16:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- I’m hoping we can avoid that if one of the Latin contributors can check and resolve it speedily (since it wouldn’t involve removing content, just moving it around). — Ungoliant (falai) 16:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see how that's any different. We're not removing content even if we RFV. It will get more attention at RFV than here. --WikiTiki89 16:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- According to our rules, this and this should serve as proof of lucta’s existence. I know of no reason why *lucta should have a separate entry unless we are going to start creating separate VL entries for all Latin words that descend into Romance. We could implement such a policy change, or we could just start putting VL information and inflections in the mainspace when the VL form directly continue the Latin form. —JohnC5 17:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- Gaffiot has it. It irritatingly translates it has French lutte which has quite a lot of meanings. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- According to our rules, this and this should serve as proof of lucta’s existence. I know of no reason why *lucta should have a separate entry unless we are going to start creating separate VL entries for all Latin words that descend into Romance. We could implement such a policy change, or we could just start putting VL information and inflections in the mainspace when the VL form directly continue the Latin form. —JohnC5 17:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see how that's any different. We're not removing content even if we RFV. It will get more attention at RFV than here. --WikiTiki89 16:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- I’m hoping we can avoid that if one of the Latin contributors can check and resolve it speedily (since it wouldn’t involve removing content, just moving it around). — Ungoliant (falai) 16:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
In Portuguese, luta was spelled lucta until 1911 (and even later in Brazil). There's no way this should be starred because that would mean it'd be a reconstructed form, which it isn't.