Talk:ⰰⰸⱏ

@Vorziblix: Hello. Shouldn't we turn these into alternative "spelling" entries, and keep only the Cyrillic ones as lemmas? Maybe we could use a template similar to {{pi-sc}}, which is used in अक्खि (akkhi), for example. What do you think? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Per utramque cavernam I think that’d be a good idea. Glagolitic was really the primary script with which Old Church Slavonic was written (most surviving OCS manuscripts are in Glagolitic), but given that it’s almost universally normalized to Cyrillic in modern publications, treating Cyrillic as the main script probably makes the most sense. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 02:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Vorziblix: Oh, I see. To be clear, my issue is only with the duplication of content. I'd be perfectly happy with Glagolitic-script entries as lemmas and Cyrillic-script ones as alternative forms, if it makes more sense that way. But if you confirm Cyrillic is the right script for lemmatisation, I can start moving things. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Per utramque cavernam: Yes, I would support lemmatizing at Cyrillic and making the Glagolitic entries alt-forms myself, for reasons of practicality if nothing else. However, were I you, I’d bring this up at the Beer Parlor, because it’s quite possible other editors might object (as happened back in 2013). While Ivan Štambuk’s suggestion back then to have all the appropriate content given at each script entry would be nice for the reasons he lists, in practice it doesn’t seem likely anymore that anyone would be around to create and maintain it, now that he himself is gone. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 02:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)