Talk:aufugero
Add topic
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
@Koavf, This, that and the other You wanted to delete this page. It was originally created with nonsense by User:SemperBlottoBot, but I fixed it in https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=aufugero&diff=prev&oldid=73492253 However, it seems like we are still confused and need to reach consensus.
- Copying my comments from https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Koavf&diff=prev&oldid=73492302 :
- How did aufugero get its deletion message? https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=aufuger shows 1 exact match and 13 conjugated matches attested across various authors.
- Alright, I reviewed the page. The contents of that page are indeed nonsensical. Both aufugero and fugō exist, but it should be aufūgerō < ab- + fugiō instead like fūgerō. The robot made a mistake in not knowing it's an iō-variant but I think it was acceptable to delete the if there was no desire to spend the effort to fix the robot-created junk.
- As I found the correct lemma aufugiō, I will fix and rescue aufūgerō like another user did for https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=aufugerat&diff=prev&oldid=49932756 . I will run WT:ACCEL on the non-lemma forms.
- You deleted aufugero before I got to start WT:ACCEL. I will now cancel my plans to do WT:ACCEL until consensus is reached.
- Delete? Good thing I realized there is no consensus. I thought I fixed the contents of that page with my https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=aufugero&diff=prev&oldid=73492253 edit. I will start a RFV for more input.
The original page was bot junk but the current page after I edited it is fine. WT:ACCEL should also be ran by clicking on the deleted non-lemma on the aufugiō page once consensus is reached. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Daniel.z.tg the headword line says "aufūgeriō", which does not match the name of the page. In any case, if you find speedy-deleted Latin verb forms that correctly belong to an attested verb, feel free to recreate them. Chances are the entry was exactly like this - a nonsensical bot creation with a wrong inflection, wrong lemma, or both. This, that and the other (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- @This, that and the other Oops, I meant to write "aufūgerō". I made a typo when adding the macrons. As for WT:ACCEL, I was first reviewing the attestation of some of the other forms before I was interrupted. I might continue reviewing tomorrow. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- WT:ACCEL done. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- @This, that and the other Oops, I meant to write "aufūgerō". I made a typo when adding the macrons. As for WT:ACCEL, I was first reviewing the attestation of some of the other forms before I was interrupted. I might continue reviewing tomorrow. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
RFV-resolved This, that and the other (talk) 04:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)