Talk:آهو


 * Persian åhu deriving from Persian åhu makes no sense. It is also a convention here not to list Tajik and Dari forms as descendants of the Persian ones. Guldrelokk (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It would make sense if you actually work in this field. Modern Persian is descended from Classical Persian, as is Dari and Tajik. When a Classical Persian form has borrowings from that period, we list all the forms in descendent tree, as these descent trees are also referenced from other pages using desctree. Though this entry needs cleaning, deleting the forms outright was the wrong move. --Victar (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Examples? Guldrelokk (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Category:Proto-Iranian lemmas --Victar (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not these; examples of Persian lemmas referencing themselves as their descendants. Guldrelokk (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to fish out examples from there. --Victar (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have: lists Persian گرگ as a descendant of Classical Persian گرگ. However, the entry  does not list itself as its descendant. The reasons are clear – the entry heading says Persian and not Classical Persian, the forms are identical, and making a Persian word its own descendant would make no sense at all except introducing confusion. Guldrelokk (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You're not understanding. There is no such thing as Classical Persian entries, and therefore no Classical Persian entry headers, as Modern Persian and Classical Persian are merged into one. There reason any Persian entry will have descendents is because it's reflecting Classical Persian descendents. --Victar (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I know there are no Classical Persian entries, and for this reason does not list itself as a descendant. No Persian entry does. If there were a Classical Persian entry آهو, then listing Persian آهو as its descendant would make sense; now it does not. Guldrelokk (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Modern 🇨🇬 descends from 🇨🇬, and therefor is not descended from itself. It seems you are trying to make the argument that all Persian entries represent Modern Persian, and that is incorrect. If an entry is representative of Classical Persian, is makes complete sense to list the Classical Persian descendents and borrowings. --Victar (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m not trying to make this ‘argument’. These entries are representative of both Modern and Classical Persian; for this reason they should not reference itself as a descendant. And they don’t, expect this one. The fa-cls vs. fa trick works in other entries that link Persian ones: they can specify which exact variety is meant, but this does not mean that the same entries should list themselves as their own descendants. No English entry lists itself as its own descendant (meaning, of course, that the modern form comes from an identical EME form), and no Persian entry list itself as a descendant, except, again, this one and only. Guldrelokk (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The reason why we don't have many examples on this is because a) we currently don't have many PIr entries for it to pull Persian descendents from using using desctree to begin with, as was done using this example, and b) the entries we do have haven't all taken advantage of this feature, as some pages the descendents are just on the PIr entry, some only on the Persian entry, and some where the content is duplicated and often mismatched. So a lack us usage of desctree is not a fair argument against the practice, if that is indeed your argument. --Victar (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I want the notion of self-descending entries to be discussed in general somewhere. It is not what is usually done: either the entries are separated, or they are considered the same, spanning different time periods as do all words. It is illogical as it is now: the entry heading says Persian, and one of the descendants is Persian, being the very same word. You have also not shown that it is a common practice for Persian – just because it would allow to use desctree is not a good argument either. Guldrelokk (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Our readers don't "actually work in this field". We need to use context labels or usage notes or something to explain that this is both a Classical Persian and Modern Persian form. Right now there's nothing to tell the reader that this isn't just Modern Persian. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a valid point, which has been discussed an fought over many times without complete resolution. --Victar (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, desctree can't use such things unless you can find a way to avoid a template loop. See . Chuck Entz (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've edited the entry to illustrate what I had in mind. If I knew the distribution of the senses among the Classical, Modern and regional forms, I would also have used lb. All the previous discussion has been about changing the infrastructure. Until that's resolved, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't use things below the level of infrastructure changes to clarify this confusing situation. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

This is absurd. "Classical Persian" is part of "Modern Persian" or "New Persian". There is no such thing as "Modern Persian" meaning Persian of the 20th century. There's Old Persian, Middle Persian, and Modern/New Persian, of which latter "Classical Persian" is (if it is anything) a subdivision. In the case of Tajik it is a dialect that is divergent enough -- of course chiefly in terms of spelling -- to be considered as an independent language. And we have it as an indepedent language. But linking Persian entries in the descendants list back to the very same lemma you're on, is just a new level of lunacy in this project. Way to go. 84.57.154.54 23:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

RFC discussion: July 2018–April 2022
Persian. Notably, the entry lists itself as a descendant. argues that it’s normal on the talk page. In any case it doesn’t provide the script for some reason. Guldrelokk (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Some cleanup has occurred since 2018. The descendants still don't have script, but that can be dealt with through the request categories. This, that and the other (talk) 10:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)