Talk:mollarum

@This, that and the other: Did you create a RFV section for this? I'm not seeing it. This looks more like a candidate for speedy deletion in my opinion, since it's pretty much morphologically impossible for "mollarum" to be the genitive plural of mollis/molle and no dictionary records an alternative form mollus/molla/mollum. Urszag (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Then again, there are some weird hits for mollarum in Google Books: 1, 2, so maybe the entry should be kept after all--Urszag (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Urszag Yes, it seems to be a second-millennium solecism, so it has to be kept. I feel that, as a dictionary, we haven't really worked out how to handle these. Personally I think that Latin terms attested only after, say, 1500 should be subject to the same inclusion criteria as WT:WDLs. This, that and the other (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)