OCS alternative forms and spellings

What exactly is vague and contradictory in my distinction of spellings/forms? I don't see how having different headers is an issue at all. In case of OCS at least, the distinction makes a lot of sense. Yes in case of multiple PoS these would all have to be repeated, but most editors editing in multiscriptal languages apparently prefer it that way (and so do I). Just because it's called inflection line by convention doesn't mean that it has to contain only inflections.

Well, pretty much everyone who has commented on the vote about alternative forms/spellings and in the discussion leading up to the vote appears to be of the view that "alternative spellings" is a subset of "alternative forms". It doesn't make any sense for OCS to use a different definition of the terms than the rest of the Wiktionary.

Regarding the repetition of the different scripts, this is a good thing as not everybody will read every definition on every page - e.g. someone might only be interested in the verb and skip the preceding adjective and noun POSes. Thryduulf (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

spelling is not more specialized in meaning than form. Words with different spellings are the same words in different script or orthography. Variant forms of a word are different words, closely etymologically related but with different pronunciations, reflecting regional or temporal changes. The unification scheme that you're advocating mixes different scripts, and mixes wikilinks to additional and different information (variant forms) with wikiliks with identical content in a different script.