Appendix talk:Proto-Baltic/akmens

Is this entry, the way I last edited it (in case Pereru edit wars some more), what you are ok with? What should be done with the entry name and language header? As it is now, it's impossible to link to this page because there is no more Proto-Baltic language. —CodeCat 21:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My idea was a hard redirect to Appendix:Proto-Balto-Slavic/akmō, where the deprecated form would be listed under ===Alternative reconstructions===, as in this revision. Otherwise, we will end up with needless duplication.
 * The PBS entry would perhaps have a link to WT:About Proto-Balto-Slavic where we would explain why we have deprecated Proto-Baltic as a matter of policy. --Vahag (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

RFDO discussion: August 2015–February 2016
Proto-Baltic was deleted as a language just recently after a Beer Parlour discussion which had majority support. But now Pereru seems to be hell-bent on creating this page and making it appear like a real language as much as possible (and reverting my attempts to change it). And then working around the fact that there is no longer a language code for this language (which means no way for any page to link to the entry and no use of ) by other means. I think this makes no sense; we delete the language, but then we pretend it's not deleted by giving it its own entries and categories?

Aside from all this, the reconstruction itself is wrong too. The Lithuanian nominative singular does not come from, it comes from the older form , a direct continuation of PIE. It's only Latvian that has reformed the nominative analogically. —CodeCat 22:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The discussion is not even 12 hours old (let alone a day.) Don't you think a bit hasty? And I actually think this might not be such a bad idea and I think WikiTiki kind of (unless I misread) suggested that too (other uninvolved parties have yet to post there.) Neitrāls vārds (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to the Proto-Balto-Slavic reconstruction. Proto-Baltic is not valid, but to the extent that people may look for it, a redirect should solve the problem. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)