Reconstruction talk:Latin/circlus

RFD discussion: June 2017–April 2019
We already have, so this is just an unattested alternative form. —CodeCat 17:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see no reason not to move the descendants to circulus and delete this. If we wanted to maintain a distinction between descendants  and those , we could do that in . - -sche (discuss) 06:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. Would you delete this, but keep simply because it's attested? --Barytonesis (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Um... pretty much, yes. That's kinda how Wiktionary works. But the inflection table with unattested forms should be removed, and the descendants placed at the lemma. —CodeCat 13:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * About the inflection tables, I think I agree. But why do you want to move the descendants back to the Classical ? I thought we strived for the proximate derivation?
 * As for the deletion debate: it's not just a problem with this entry; the whole Vulgar Latin situation is messy right now. Why pick this particular entry? --Barytonesis (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Deleted —Rua (mew) 16:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)