User talk:WrongCentury95

Attestation of Gothic inflected forms
A while ago, romanized versions of all words found in texts were created as entries. So that means you shouldn't create any new ones, except if they are for lemmas. Since did not exist before, it is not found in Gothic texts and shouldn't have an entry. Can you please mark the unattested terms for deletion with the template? Thank you. —CodeCat 21:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Whoa, you didn't have to mark all the forms for deletion! Only the ones that you created a romanization entry for. The ones where a romanization entry already existed, are the forms that are attested, so those certainly should have a Gothic-script entry, too. —CodeCat 23:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I did not know that there was a system in place that allowed romanizations for only attested words. My intention was to add all inflections for the purpose of language study. Would it be beneficial to create inflected form entries for all words or only romanization and inflected form entries for attested words (or is there no need)? Thank you. WrongCentury95 (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Generally, for languages with little material, the practice is to show what exists rather than what might exist. So that means only the existing forms can have their own entry. We allow some leeway for lemma forms, which may not exist even if there are forms that do, but then it's generally possible to infer the inflection type and the lemma form from the other forms. For Gothic specifically, all attested forms have had romanization entries created for them by an automatic script. This means that if a romanization entry exists while a Gothic script entry does not, it's fine to create the Gothic script entry. But you should avoid creating new romanization entries, as well as Gothic entries where a romanization entry is not present. As I mentioned, an exception exists for lemmas: if the lemma form has no romanization entry (meaning it's not found in Gothic texts), you can create it. —CodeCat 01:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)