User talk:Mnemosientje/2019

The following discussion has been moved from the page User talk:Mnemosientje.

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.

---

This page shows conversations on my talk page from 2019.

Could you please help me a tiny bit on a Dutch rhymes page

Hoi Mnemosientje, hope you've been well. My Dutch isn't so good that I'd want to say certain words don't exist, but I was wondering if you could tell me if the new words added in this diff look Dutch to you? It's a page of rhymes on -eek. Isomorphyc (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Clearly someone who didn't know what they were doing. I've undone it. —Rua (mew) 23:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Rua, I appreciate it, and hope you've been well too. Mnemosientje, many congratulations or condolences (as you prefer) on your new administratorship. Isomorphyc (talk) 03:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Isomorphyc Hey, I've been well, thanks - the adminship hasn't proven to be much of a strain at all. I see Rua already fixed the issue you brought up, but anyway it's good to see you still occasionally check into this place. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad it's working out; thank you for all of the work that you do here! I do hope to be back later this year, but unfortunately things have kept preventing me for much longer than I might have expected. All best, tot later! Isomorphyc (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Social justice

Thank you for removing those disgusting usage examples. You're the Martin Luther King of Wiktionary. I am proud of you. --Vahag (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, please keep it out of mainspace in the future. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Help

@Mnemosientje I'm relying on you, a sysop in en.wiktionary, because I'm currently being victim of an abuse in en.wikipedia. My IP range was blocked by a sysop names "Ohnoitsjamie". What I did was to revert a user's edits back to some time ago because currently there's a new consensus about such edits. The edits were about Italian phonetic transcriptions containing the sound "ɱ". In the past it was transcribed by "m" for simplicity, but now it was consensually decided to transcribe it just as it is, not to talk about the fact that the Help:IPA page about Italian now has such a sound listed. He blocked me because I was correcting a phonetic transcriptions he knows absolutely nothing about, and blocked my full range when I reverted his edits. I can't even make an appeal for this block because I'm prevented to edit my own talk page! Please, do something to help me, even just a suggestion about what I can do now. It's absurd but it's real, and it's Wikipedia (alas!)... 5.170.44.205 21:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Being a Wiktionary sysop, Wikipedia procedures and disputes aren't really the things I deal with so I have no idea how I might have been of use here, but anyway it looks as if your IP range has been unblocked already. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 08:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

e#Swedish

Regarding [1]: I figured enough information was given through T:lb and T:pronunciation spelling of. Is the etymology section really needed here?Jonteemil (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jonteemil You're correct that the etymology description doesn't add much, but it's customary here to separate the etymologies nonetheless; compare for example the Westrobothnian entry on that same page which has no etymology information below the headers at all except at the first etymology header but is nonetheless separated by etymology. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 21:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Then I’ll rather have it the Westrobothnian way with bothing at all. It’s that fine?Jonteemil (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jonteemil Sounds fine to me — Mnemosientje (t · c) 21:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

👍🏻, I’ve changed.Jonteemil (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

IP blocks

Just a note that it isn't good practice to indef block IPs, as they are bound to change anyway. A long IP block (depending on discretion) could be 1-3 months, 6 months for particularly long-term cases (or open proxies or such). — surjection ⟨?⟩ 20:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

There are some cases where the same vandal has been using the same IP for years which might justify a 1-year block. Other than that, I absolutely agree with you.

Another thing to watch out for is indef-blocking an account with auto-blocking enabled. As a check-user, I have yet to deal with an innocent IP hit by an unrelated autoblock- and I want to keep it that way.

Also, for IPv6 static IPs, it's a good idea to block with /64, since most ISPs assign that much address space to each customer. The exception is some mobile providers- especially AT&T Mobility. They tend to assign IPs completely at random. I've had cases where I did a checkuser on an IP in the New York area, and saw edits using the same IP by 2 or more unrelated accounts- including some fairly regular contributors. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Good to know, I'll keep it in mind. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your greek

Thank you for correcting the ety for so many greek words. Although i don't do etys, sometimes I have to add them, so, i make notes of your corrections as models. Thanks Mnemosientje! --sarri.greek (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sarri.greek: You're welcome, although I suspect you have added far more Greek content than I have, so thank you as well! — Mnemosientje (t · c) 09:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Sranan Tongo

Thanks for the recent clean-up in Sranan and starting WT:ASRN. You're getting more into the language? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo Well, my RL is quite busy (social, work and thesis) which kind of prevents me from actively learning it or systematically contributing new words (currently my leisure time slot for language learning is occupied by Russian anyway). However, recent discussions and activity surrounding the language made me look into it a bit, allowing me to standardize some of the existing entries during a couple recent bouts of procrastination (as our coverage of Sranan is not yet so broad that batch edits of entries can't be done in a couple of hours). I do intend to at least read a bit more about it, yes, and perhaps later contribute a bit more on Wiktionary as well. I especially like its influence on Dutch slang. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, good luck on your thesis. Do you already know SIL's site with dictionaries for Surinamese languages? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Pronominal adverbs in Gothic?

Does Gothic have any pronominal adverbs like hierdoor, daarin, waarvoor etc? —Rua (mew) 18:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Rua I haven't seen any pronominal adverbs stricto sensu (going by how it is defined on Wikipedia). Gothic typically uses adverbial suffixes (similar and often related to the ones found in Ancient Greek) as e.g. at 𐍈𐌰𐌸𐍂𐍉 (ƕaþrō) or case endings applied to pronominal stems as e.g. at 𐍈𐌴 (ƕē). — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete request for Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/bʰh₂erdʰeh₂

Hey, someone put a deletion request on this page which you have contributed to, can you take a look? - TheDaveRoss 14:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@TheDaveRoss Sorry for the slow reply. I am not sure about the page either, as I don't know a whole lot about PIE - my edit was mostly superficial. (Both this form and the one it now redirects to are weird to me in that they lack any accents at all, but the lemma now redirected to has stood for quite a while apparently without challenge so what do I know?) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 17:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Mediation request

Hello, I picked you at WT:A as the most recently active administrator.

May I ask you to mediate between me and User:SemperBlotto with respect to an apparent conflict. --194.29.44.131 07:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems @SemperBlotto banned you. Anyhow - I don't think the WT:EL section you linked in the discussion on SB's talk page forbids usage notes without references. I interpret it as meaning that one should be able to provide references for claims in usage notes sections if another user disputes them. Perhaps you should (after your block, which I find a bit heavy-handed but whatever, it's only a week) contact the person who added the usage note to ask where they got their information from instead of edit-warring on it. Or perhaps you could bring it up in a more general discussion space, such as WT:Tea room, where more users can easily weigh in. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 07:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

טוב * IPA^(key): /ˌtʊf/

Hi! What was wrong with the IPA? Best Regards Michael Baumgartner

{HE root|טוב}} From Proto-Semitic *ṭāb-.

Pronunciation

• IPA^(key): /ˌtʊf/ Michbau (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked. There's a couple of issues:

1. You added the pronunciation to the entry without making clear whether the added pronunciation is for tov (w/ holam) or for tuv (w/ shuruk), so the implication is that that is the pronunciation for both (which is obviously wrong);
2. The pronunciation itself is off. The sound /ʊ/ is definitely not used in Hebrew broad transcription for either shuruk or holam and I've never seen it used in narrow transcription of Hebrew either (shuruk = [u] in Modern Hebrew, holam = [o(:)]) - I'm actually quite certain the sound just doesn't exist in Hebrew;
3. The letter vet is not /f/, it is /v/.

Thus tuv would be /tuv/ and tov would be /tov/ in broad transcription. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 09:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanations. to 3) It is not unusual, that the phonetic didn't corespond to the supposed phonetic of the letter. Michbau (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Improving Dutch

Hi Mnemosientje!

Thanks for the welcoming message, this is appreciated. :)

I am currently using the wiktionary to extract Dutch words and group them by declension. In the process of doing so, I noticed that a few "declension groupings" do not start with the same letter.

For instance, Berbers was grouped with schilder because it was marked as plural of schilder. This is obviously wrong and easy to fix, but since I do not speak any Dutch at all, there might be a few mistakes in what I'm going to change.

Feel free to review/edit/rollback my changes as you wish. :)

I apologize if some of them might be wrong. That said, the list is not big (30 words tops).

Thanks! — Jojva

@Jojva Yeah, mistakes like on the Berbers page typically arise from editors copying and pasting entries; probably the editor who added that mistake intended to replace the word "schilder" with "Berber" but forgot to do so in the process of creating the entry. Stuff like that happens sometimes - if you see it and fix it, that's absolutely very helpful. That said, if you don't know any Dutch at all, I would urge caution in cases that aren't clear-cut mistakes or where you aren't sure: you can always ask me or some other active editor who seems to know Dutch. I'll try to keep an eye out for your edits to catch any mistakes and inform you of them. So far all edits seem good, fortunately! The only comment I would make is that benul doesn't actually have a plural - but that wasn't a mistake you introduced (you just corrected the previous plural to its hypothetically correct form without realising the noun is uncountable). — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay I'm done! There are two things I'm not sure about: my contribution to "ambigu", and what to do with this page: https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%C4%B3zervreter&redirect=no. It redirects to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ijzervreter, which is the same but with a different 'i' at the beginning! I don't think it's important though. Thanks a lot for the help. ;) — This unsigned comment was added by Jojva (talk • contribs) at 15:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC).

Your edit on ambigu looks fine. That ijzervreter entry uses a special character <ij> (which is one character) instead of the regular <ij> (which is just a regular i + j), which we normally use. It's fine the way it is. Lastly, there was one word which again is actually uncountable but wrongly had a plural, identiteitspolitiek (again not a mistake you introduced - I did actually, out of carelessness earlier when I created the entry). I've fixed it. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 17:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jojva, P.s., don't forget you can sign your message by adding four tildes to the end! That way a signature with timestamp is auto-generated. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 17:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Understood. ;) Jojva (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

" […] probably the editor who added that mistake intended to replace the word "schilder" with "Berber" but forgot to do so in the process of creating the entry." Can verify that this is true, and that I suck. ;) ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Tbh, considering the sheer amount of entries you've created, a few small mistakes here and there really are no big deal — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Templates

Where may I find templates for creating new articles? — This unsigned comment was added by ПростаРечь (talk • contribs) at 13:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC).

@ПростаРечь First of all - no need to ask on ten admins' talk pages in one go! In the future, you might also pose questions at Wiktionary:Information desk, a page which is specifically intended for general questions and assistance with topics like these. You can have a look at the following page: Wiktionary:Welcome, newcomers. I have also added the generic welcome template to your talk page, at User talk:ПростаРечь. Beyond that, though, I can give the following specific advice:

• You can find buttons to create entries for various types of words using a standardized template when you look for a non-existing page using the search function. These buttons only work for English and a couple of other languages, though.
• For other languages, your best bet would be to see how the entries in that language are laid out and edit an entry to view and copy the code. Then, once you have copied it, paste it when creating a new entry, editing the relevant parameters of the code and adding the correct definition and so forth.
• The page Wiktionary:Entry layout contains comprehensive advice as to what elements should be on a page.

Whatever you try, feel free to ask me for further advice. If you go ahead with editing, I'll have a look at some of your edits to weed out mistakes and alert you of them, so you can improve your editing skills. Good luck! — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8C#Old_Church_Slavonic) OK? — This unsigned comment was added by ПростаРечь (talk • contribs) at 15:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC).

Well, I don't know much about Old Church Slavonic, but I checked it out. It looks like a contraction (kind of like who'll or don't), is that correct? I have formatted it like a contraction for you. The entry was missing a headword-line template, in this case the {{head}} template you can see I have added below the header "Contraction" (it always goes below the part-of-speech header). I also hid the quotation, as we always do with quotations. You can see in the page code how I did that. Can you verify if the etymology I added is correct? — Mnemosientje (t · c) 08:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I see some people more knowledgeable than myself have been discussing this on your talk page and Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2019/September#I want to add Church Slavonic terms; I defer to their judgment. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Windows Vienna is real.

Please don't revert my edits. They belong to its pages. 176.88.99.245

I have no doubt these codenames may have existed, but they don't belong in a dictionary; see also WT:BRAND. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 09:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Windows Vienna was released in December 12, 2008 with a RTM build number of 6.1.7000. Windows Vienna do belong in a dictionary. 176.88.99.245

doekoe

The Woordenlijst Nederlandse Taal apparently claims that this word is masculine (so some dictionaries likely follow suit). Attesting this with a definite article isn't very straightforward, but doekoe die and doekoe dat seem about as common on Google (though this makeshift test probably includes a good deal of false positives). Do you think a masculine gender should be added? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: I am honestly not entirely certain where I got the neuter gender from back then; it seems to me now that "de doekoe" is far more natural than "het doekoe". The former gets far more Google hits (>3500 hits) than the latter (<200 hits), too, and the same can be observed for "die doekoe" (>2000) versus "dat doekoe" (<200). I've changed it to masculine. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 09:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

It could be due to it being a synonym of geld (poen can also marginally have a neuter gender as an alternative) or perhaps it was a typo, otherwise I have no idea. Anyway, thanks for looking into it. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

language group

The list of 4000 languages has at least two categories (Translingul and Chinese) that are not actually languages. If Chinese were a language, it would be included in this list [2], but it is not. [3] "Chinese is a group of related, but in many cases mutually unintelligible, language varieties, forming the Sinitic branch of the Sino-Tibetan language family." --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Even 'Mandarin' itself is considered a language family in the list I link above. Please make sure that you aren't just looking down on me and confirm that your next revert is in conformity with the reality of the situation. Be the academic that you are. "Never let yourself be diverted either by what you wish to believe, or by what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed. But look only, and solely, at what are the facts. " "To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle." --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

'There is no unique "Chinese language".' [4] Make sure you know what you are doing and that you are diametrically opposed to the consensus of the academic community if you feel compelled to revert my edit. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Context for readers: diff

1. The list is auto-generated. Any changes to those language names are futile as they will be reverted as soon as it's generated again, as far as I know. This happens monthly.

2. Translingual is not really a language stricto sensu, correct, but hardly a "language group" either.

3. I am aware of your beef re:Chinese. I am also aware that on Wiktionary we have decided to treat it under one language header. Following that logic - of how the lects that fall under Chinese are treated elsewhere on Wiktionary - your edit introduces an inconsistency.

These were the reasons for my reversal. I'm too lazy to revert it again tbh, as I believe this will happen upon the next re-generation of that list anyway and I don't really have much of a stake in your grudge around the treatment of Chinese on Wiktionary. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

You make some good points and I will continue to consider them in the coming weeks and months. Now based on what you've just said (Translingual is not really a language stricto sensu) the statement "At that time, there were 4046 languages on Wiktionary." is essentially mistaken if it includes the Translingual header as a language, right? I think that that sentence needs to be altered permanently in some way (maybe "At that time, there were 4046 language headers on Wiktionary.") if what you said is true and we want to be technically and morally accurate. As for the beef you mentioned, yeah, I have had a few run ins here and there. I am trying to keep the website honest. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to wear people out, but I do think we need to be pretty careful about making sure sentences like the one I mentioned above actually mean to say what they literally say. There aren't actually 4046 languages on Wiktionary- that's a lie. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The exact nomenclature used on the Special:Statistics page is not a "moral" issue. I'll give it to you that the Chinese question is somewhat thorny (because you do seem to have something of a point, but Wiktionary also has a way of dealing with Chinese which has proven to be convenient and useful and which will probably not change anytime soon), but as for the whole Translingual thing - who cares? It's inconsequential, we refer to it as a language for convenience because that's how it's coded into the Wiktionary infrastructure and because we don't really have a better descriptor ("language group" is certainly not more exact). — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

eye dialect

My impression was that Wiktionary tends to use "eye dialect" narrowly meaning a nonstandard spelling indicating a standard pronunciation. Mogool and megool are what I'd consider slangy pronunciation spellings, they indicate a different pronunciation. But I believe there was recently a discussion about this where it seemed the support for using the narrow meaning wasn't that clear-cut. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Confusing. I wouldn't think e.g. mogool is necessarily a deliberate misspelling (as we currently have it), though. Plenty of people just can't spell or spell the word as they hear it (and most people do skip that -n- in pronunciation in regular speech). Same goes for megool which I just created, which just reduces the initial -o- to a schwa (which also happens commonly, as it is not stressed). — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I had a longer look at how we treat eye dialect. Our categories for it define it as "nonstandard spellings, which however do not change pronunciation, deliberately used by an author to indicate that the speaker uses a nonstandard or dialectal speech." I think in the case of mogool and megool that they can be both eye dialect according to that definition and a non-deliberate misspelling. They "do not change pronunciation" even though they drop the -n-, because the -n- in mongool is usually omitted in speech anyway. (Although, come to think of it, megool possibly goes a bit too far to be considered eye dialect according to that definition.) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd say that the spelling does change the pronunciation in that it precludes the pronunciation with /ŋ/, which is by far the most familiar pronunciation to me. Whether most people do skip the /ŋ/ is something I do not know. To me it also seems strange and at least a little dialectal or basilectal to pronounce, or to indicate the pronunciation of, a checked vowel before a /ɣ/ — but of course most northern Dutch speakers devoice that so there is nothing strange for them. Finally, I've only ever heard the variant without /ŋ/ for the sense "retard" as an insult, which may suggest it is somewhat deliberate (as the form is less common for the other meanings). ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I'll concede that one, so I've changed megool to also be a deliberate misspelling (&done the same for mogguh and mogge, btw). If I am not mistaken, forms like sjokola and sjofeur would then be proper eye dialect. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm all right with having mogool as simply an (colloquial/informal/slang?) alternative form; I'm personally not too keen on marking pronunciation-based variants as misspellings and you've made a good case that the nonstandard spelling is often not deliberate. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Tbh I thought about it some more and honestly, doesn't "misspelling" work best? These aren't necessarily deliberate at all, and they definitely are proscribed. Sure, the term misspelling has a prescriptivist bent to it, but I mean, readers deserve to know that those aren't typically accepted forms. (Paraphrasing another user here - I think Meta? -, being a descriptivist dictionary requires us to describe the status of a word according to prescriptive rules as well as actual use). — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, okay, it's not as if these spellings have ever been widely accepted in any way. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello!

Just saying hi! MiguelX413 (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@MiguelX413 Hello! To what do I owe the honor? — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

You added me to the whitelist thing and I just thought your profile, contributions, and interests were cool. Especially the Gothic! MiguelX413 (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah thanks, that's kind. I didn't add you to the whitelist though - Metaknowledge nominated you (I just gave the green light). — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

you idolt

how dare you.

--86.154.78.81 12:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I often wonder about this myself — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Normalised spellings (Proto-Germanic *arbijô)

Why repeat the mistake of old and treat normalised or assumed spellings as if they are attested? If you don't like "arpeo", fine, but then it should be "*arbeo". That's what the atterisk is for after all. This is especially true when we have complete lists of the attested forms, as we do for many letters of OHG and, God willing, soon will for all of it (Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch). I don't think your policy is right in this regard. Has this been agreed upon? 178.4.151.74 06:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I mean normalising "uu" to "w", vocalic "v" to "u", consonantal "i" to "j", "ů" to "uo", and suchlike, is totally fine of course. But as soon as these spellings represent actually different pronunciations and dialectal forms, it gets very problematic imo. 178.4.151.74 09:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

This is currently a point in which Wiktionary normalisation falls kind of short; we don't want to treat these as reconstructions in the full sense the way PIE words are reconstructions (and when we link to an entry with *, it automatically directs to the reconstruction namespace which we try to avoid for normalized words which are attested under an "abnormal" spelling) but you are right that they are not always directly attested in their normalized form. By the way, User:Rua is trying to get a discussion started about certain aspects of our normalisation scheme, perhaps you can join it and give your thoughts on that too: Wiktionary talk:About Old High German. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd come up with that argument in favour of your position myself in the meantime... It could indeed be confusing to use the normalised form with an atterisk. Might make people wonder "how can this common word be unattested?" So, yeah, if you think you need normalisation, I suppose using these forms without atterisk in lists and so on may be fine. But when creating actual entries, I'd recommend -- or humbly ask -- that you check the Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch (as far as it reaches by now) and when necessary indicate those forms as being not technically attested. Thanks for your reply. 178.4.151.74 14:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)