Appendix talk:Latin/lucta

RFC discussion: November 2015
The page claims this word is reconstructed, but has the same sense. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, it seems should be RFV'd. If it passes,  should be deleted, if it does not pass, then  should be deleted. The contents should be merged in either case. --WikiTiki89 16:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I’m hoping we can avoid that if one of the Latin contributors can check and resolve it speedily (since it wouldn’t involve removing content, just moving it around). — Ungoliant (falai) 16:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that's any different. We're not removing content even if we RFV. It will get more attention at RFV than here. --WikiTiki89 16:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * According to our rules, this and this should serve as proof of ’s existence. I know of no reason why should have a separate entry unless we are going to start creating separate VL entries for all Latin words that descend into Romance. We could implement such a policy change, or we could just start putting VL information and inflections in the mainspace when the VL form directly continue the Latin form. — JohnC5 17:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Gaffiot has it. It irritatingly translates it has French which has quite a lot of meanings. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

In Portuguese, luta was spelled lucta until 1911 (and even later in Brazil). There's no way this should be starred because that would mean it'd be a reconstructed form, which it isn't.