Talk:𐌰𐌹𐌽𐍉𐍃

RFV discussion: April–June 2017

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

𐌰𐌹𐌽𐍉𐍃

Unattested afaict. — Kleio (t · c) 16:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

If this is unattested and fails RFV, shouldn't it be "*𐌰𐌹𐌽𐍉𐍃" in 𐌰𐌹𐌽𐍃? Overwriting the form by "|f_nom_pl=*𐌰𐌹𐌽𐍉𐍃" or "|strong_f_nom_pl=*𐌰𐌹𐌽𐍉𐍃" or similar seems not to work -- unlike in Latin entries for first and second declension adjectives where one can use "|gen_pl_f=FORM" to overwrite the form and where one can add a * so it links to Reconstruction:Latin/FORM. -84.161.25.79 16:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Yup, I'm pretty much 99.9% sure that it's unattested, I only post these here and don't {{delete}} them because it's good to follow due process. As for the asterisks, this is indeed something of an issue. The functionality to manually override each form currently doesn't exist (afaik) for most Gothic inflection table templates, and it probably should at some point. It's honestly not too pressing though imo; most Gothic words inflect very regularly and those that don't usually have custom inflection tables or no table at all. So even though only the attested forms have entries, the other forms are still predictable enough that it just wouldn't be worth it to manually edit in asterisks for all of the 1500+ Gothic entries that include some form of inflection-table template (the vast majority of which list at least some forms that aren't attested -- there aren't all that many Gothic words with every form attested). It might however be worthwhile to add a note to the templates stating that only those forms that have their own entries (i.e. are bluelinked) are in fact directly attested. That is, unless someone really wants to go through the bother of editing asterisks into all those tables, which at this stage of Wiktionary's coverage of Gothic seems to me to be rather unimportant and not worth the time investment compared to adding new words and etymologies for example. — Kleio (t · c) 18:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

RFV failed, needs admin to delete. — Kleio (t · c) 19:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

 Deleted. @KIeio, please use {{delete}} in the future. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)