Talk:staunch

2. sturdy
2. Solidly built or substantial --Backinstadiums (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

staunch
do we really need to list every definition of stanch on staunch? This seems like unnecessary duplication. Ioaxxere (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


 * No, this kind of duplication is bad and defeats the purpose of having alternative-form-of templates. I am also undoing it and stanch. Sgconlaw, please don't do this. Where there is real ambiguity, e.g. one word is an alternative spelling of another word that has multiple etymology sections (of the same POS) and the alt form only applies to one, add a short gloss; please don't duplicate every sense. - -sche (discuss) 05:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Verbiage like "verb sense 1.1.1" should also be avoided btw because it is bound to break whenever someone reorders the senses, adds a sense, etc. If it's necessary to specify a specific sense, a short gloss (summarizing, not repeating the whole definition) is more futureproof / resistant to breakage, but in this case it seems unnecessary since it's doubtful the noun would be restricted from referring to the other verb senses anyway (except by pragmatics). - -sche (discuss) 05:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * thinking about this again, I suggest leaving staunch as the lemma for the adjective and stanch as the lemma for the verb, since that seems to be the more common usage these days. I’ll then remove the subsenses in each “alternative form” entry (that is, no subsenses for the verb sense of staunch and for the adjective sense of stanch. How does that sound? — Sgconlaw (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think no subsenses on alt forms is the way to go. Ioaxxere (talk) 05:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)