Talk:am

Math tag

Does anyone the purpose of the section starting with the <math> tag at the end of this article? -- Nick1nildram 16:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The following information passed a request 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.

---

am

Romanian section was RFD'd some time ago, but not listed here - the RFD reason was "rework entirely or remove" --Jackofclubs 07:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Strong keep, absolutely no reason for deletion. But yes, clean-up is definitely in order. —Ruakh_TALK 17:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Why should it be deleted? It lists the form of verb avea. --Lexyv

Keep. How lazy lol... "I don't want to rework it, so I want to delete it". — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 14:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

^ in other words, this should be at WT:RFC if anything — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 14:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Kept, should never have been there. WT:RFC#am is where it should have been. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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.

---

am#Romanian

am#Romanian, was at first nominated for deletion but blatantly exists. I'd think some templates would fix this quite quickly. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, you've already fixed it. Stephen has removed RFC tag --Volants 14:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sura

Which Sura?

Sura language may refer to:

• Mwaghavul language (Nigeria)
• Surjapuri language (India)
• Tatuyo language (Colombia)

LinguistManiac (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It's the first one, which (if you were aware of the existence of all the languages you mentioned above) should've been obvious given the nature of the references. Or you could've clicked 'Edit' to see that its ISO code is sur. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Then why not call it Mwaghavul right away? This kind of ambiguity is bad and if you require to look at the source for disambiguation ... funny. LinguistManiac (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

In this case, the name Mwaghavul is quite common (probably more common), so I agree a rename is in order and have started WT:RFM#Renaming_sur. - -sche (discuss) 20:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

RFC discussion: August 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.

---

am

Angas or Gerka. DTLHS (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Angas. It seems LinguistManiac (talk • contribs) didn't look at the language code, and just assumed "Angas" meant the family, and then assumed that that meant Gerka (even though Wikipedia puts it in a non-Angas family, and even though the etymology section already mentioned the Gerka word and it was different, and it wouldn't have made sense to mention the Gerka word if 'am' was the Gerka word, anyway... uh). It's a good thing they forgot to change the headword-line code, or we'd never have caught this. - -sche (discuss) 08:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)