Reconstruction talk:Latin/avere

RFD discussion: September 2017–April 2019
Redundant to. —Rua (mew) 21:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not redundant. And some redundancy could be removed by giving VL *avere/*aveō as descendant of habere/habeō and putting (some, not necessary all) Romance words in the VL entry only, as e.g.: Latin habere -> VL *avere -> Old Italian avere -> (New) Italian avere, and Latin habere -> VL *avere -> Old French [...] -> Middle French avoir -> (New) French avoir. -84.161.5.32 03:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not delete if there are reliable references. It is in at least 12 etymology sections. --DelvecchioSimone12 5 96 (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The 12 etymology sections are in bourguignon, catalan , french , italian , old french , old occitan , old spanish , portuguese and romanian . In spanish , instead, is used the conjugated form . --DelvecchioSimone12 5 96 (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Totally irrelevant. We can remove that in no time. Per utramque cavernam 12:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not rindundant because / is different from /. --DelvecchioSimone12 5 96 (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Lol. Per utramque cavernam 12:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - again, if it's properly sourced to credible material, we keep it. if there are conflicting opinions in sourced material, we include information about the conflict. we shouldn't be making the call on which is "right", that would be original research (though debating/arguing about it is fun! ^__^). Lx 121 (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, we do not keep sourced material if it can be shown to be rubbish. We've done so in the past, this case is nothing special. In this case, the sourcing isn't even the issue, it's the fact that we have a reconstructed alternative form of a term that is actually attested. Our normal practice is to keep descendants on the lemma, which is . —Rua (mew) 13:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Shown to be rubbish" - who decides that & how? I said sourced to credible material (i.e.: legitimate sources). If the information is adequately sourced, then it should be included in our coverage of the subject, whatever page you put it on. That is just basic, obvious principles. Lx 121 (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Whatever gives you that idea? Do you have a source for those principles themselves? —Rua (mew) 16:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Deleted —Rua (mew) 16:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)