Talk:paleo-

Note: Both paleo- and palaeo- are used for many words and users will look for both. If you contribute either, please also generate an entry using the template. SemperBlotto 10:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

RFC discussion: November 2012–August 2017
Paleo- / palaeo- words are a bit of a mess. Many words have definitions under one spelling and alternative forms under the other (and vice versa); some have ===Alternative forms=== sections but many have not; some have definitions under both spellings; many have etymology sections that specify the prefix, but not all. It would be great if someone was bold, decided which should be the main entry and which the alternative form - then implemented this across all affected words, creating the missing forms as appropriate (you need to look at "All pages with prefix" to find them all). Perhaps a quick look on Google should be used to decide which is the form to use (but it really needs to be consistent across all of them). Good luck. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Does it need to be the same for all of them? Not sure if that is feasible, or even desirable. Ƿidsiþ 09:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have only done a few, but I'm planning to go through them when I have time. I am making all palaeos alt-forms as they are almost always rarer, most especially in newer publications. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 07:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Moving to "paleo-" as the set of primary entries might be a good thing, given it seems to be more common even in British English. See Google Ngram View for American English, paleoanthropology vs. palaeoanthropology and Google Ngram View for British English, paleoanthropology vs. palaeoanthropology. A similar search should better be done with other paleo-/palaeo- terms. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The two entries look good now. --WF on Holiday (talk) 07:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)