Template talk:xlp-decl-noun-ā

Template:xlp-decl-noun-table
I'm nominating all five of the Lepontic declension tables for deletion. Lepontic is a barely attested language whose declension patterns have to be cobbled together on the basis of a small number of words. The attested endings are listed at, and that information has been added to WT:AXLP. But very few if any words are attested in more than one case, meaning that (almost) all the forms in such tables, apart from the lemma itself, will be hypothetical, not attested. In addition, many of the tables contain false information. (For example, the table for the o-stems includes endings proper to the n-stems.) The mistakes are fixable, of course, but given the futility of providing declension tables for words that are attested in only one case-form, it seems simpler to just delete the tables. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. — JohnC5 19:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Why remove it? The language HAD declensions, to remove them would just make it pointless to even host it here. UtherPendrogn (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You might want to note that this is a discussion about deleting dedicated templates for declension tables; no one is suggesting deleting the declensions themselves. The amount of attested data does not seem to be large enough to require a template of its own to format. --Tropylium (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I lean toward delete per Tropylium. With so little known about the language having declension tables based on a small number of attested forms is extrapolation beyond what is reasonable and therefore I think, misleading. Our declensions might be spot on or they might be completely wrong. We just don't know, that's the point. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * All RFD failed. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 07:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)