Talk:proove

Not a misspelling
How is it be an obsolete spelling and a misspelling? Shouldn't it just be an obsolete spelling? But then, the quotes are modern and I think intentional. The etym that was remoovd is different than the etym for prove which is why I think he had it there. Here it is for anyone interested:

===Etymology===
 * From, from , from , from , from , from , + . More at , . --AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * ...? The etymologies do match, they're not different. - -sche (discuss) 22:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * My bad, I misread the one under prove ... or was looking at someone else's. Anyway, the erstwhile writeup was much better than this one. The editor put a lot of work into it only to hav it arbitrarily undone and then mislabell'd. Poorly done. The etym should hav been left there. Nonetheless, it's still not a misspelling.--AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

RFC discussion: September 2012
We don't usually have conjugation tables in our entries for English verbs, do we? Would we like to start, or can we just give this verb's conjugation in its headword line, like every other verb? - -sche (discuss) 04:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * More to the point, why do we have etymology and all that other stuff for an alt form? It looks like it originally had everything in the headword line (I mean everything) and Doremítzwr responded to an rfc by making a table out of his excessively detailed list of conjugated forms. I also find it odd that it's tagged as 16th-18th c., but has only cites from this century (though one is quoting texts from earlier centuries and the other two look like typos)- I wish editors would discuss things rather than pile contradictory stuff on top of what's already there. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Doremítzwr was a bit of a valuable editor, but also POV-pusher, promoting rare/archaic spellings where standard 21st century spellings would have been more appropriate. In this case, can't we just remove the etymology and so on and use . The inflections are pretty standard so they can go in . Also the past tense is supposedly, I'd quite like to see some citations. Is there any evidence for prooved and prooven, for example? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I added, as that's really what the three citations back up. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've detagged it, I think it looks good now. - -sche (discuss) 07:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)