Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/sъ(n)

RFM discussion: July 2014–May 2017

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits (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.

---

*sъ(n) → *sъ, *sъn

*kъ(n) → *kъ, *kъn

*o(b) → *o, *ob

I think it is bad practice to have parentheses in the entry titles. We should move these pages to one form and have the other be an alternative form. --WikiTiki89 17:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about this one way or the other, but the entry titles are inherently unattested, so I don't see harm in notation that enables the content to be fully centralized on one page. And the parenthetical notation is easy to understand, IMO; certainly there are weirder naming schemes out there, like Sino-Tibetan's — it has entry titles like Reconstruction:Proto-Sino-Tibetan/(s/r)-ma(ŋ/k) and Reconstruction:Proto-Sino-Tibetan/p(r)an/t ~ b(r)an/t. - -sche (discuss) 18:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that's even worse. I would say those should be moved as well, but they are also a different scenario, since they indicate different reconstructions, whereas in the cases that I nominated, they just indicate alternative forms. --WikiTiki89 19:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@CodeCat As the creator of those entries, I was hoping to get your input here. --WikiTiki89 17:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it's ok to move them, but which one should the main lemma be on? —CodeCat 17:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd say the one with the final consonant, since it's unpredictable. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm archiving this as stale, but feel free to move the pages if you want. I think they are tolerable where they are. - -sche (discuss) 01:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)