| | :::: Exactly, but why only pronunciation? Surely an etymology with steps encompassing the middle, old and/or proto etymons or a full Related terms section are also proxies for a complete entry. As for my opinion, it's appropriate to waive the pronunciation requirement when even those who who study the language professionally would be unlikely to come up with a pronunciation (Lusitanian), or don't agree on it (PIE). — ''[[User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV|Ungoliant]] <sup>([[User Talk:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV|Falai]])</sup>'' 02:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC) | | :::: Exactly, but why only pronunciation? Surely an etymology with steps encompassing the middle, old and/or proto etymons or a full Related terms section are also proxies for a complete entry. As for my opinion, it's appropriate to waive the pronunciation requirement when even those who who study the language professionally would be unlikely to come up with a pronunciation (Lusitanian), or don't agree on it (PIE). — ''[[User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV|Ungoliant]] <sup>([[User Talk:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV|Falai]])</sup>'' 02:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC) |
| | ::::: Well, we have excellent entries without etymology. Who here knows about [[Ankave]] etymologies? I wouldn't know where to look. I did read a short paper on Ankave phonology, which is pretty straightforward, so I can pronounce it. Lusitanian was a good choice for waivement, and I had forgotten that we'd done that. I guess we can follow in that style, and sign languages needing videos or a succession of still shots seems good to me. As for PIE, proto-langs are still not allowed. I think you said that you'd try to get consensus for that? —[[User:Metaknowledge|Μετάknowledge]]<small><sup>''[[User talk:Metaknowledge|discuss]]/[[Special:Contributions/Metaknowledge|deeds]]''</sup></small> 02:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC) | | ::::: Well, we have excellent entries without etymology. Who here knows about [[Ankave]] etymologies? I wouldn't know where to look. I did read a short paper on Ankave phonology, which is pretty straightforward, so I can pronounce it. Lusitanian was a good choice for waivement, and I had forgotten that we'd done that. I guess we can follow in that style, and sign languages needing videos or a succession of still shots seems good to me. As for PIE, proto-langs are still not allowed. I think you said that you'd try to get consensus for that? —[[User:Metaknowledge|Μετάknowledge]]<small><sup>''[[User talk:Metaknowledge|discuss]]/[[Special:Contributions/Metaknowledge|deeds]]''</sup></small> 02:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC) |
| | + | :::::: I think you might have misunderstood what I mean (or maybe I am misunderstanding your understanding of what I mean?). I'm not suggesting we require that every FWOTD have an etymology ''and'' pronunciation ''and'' related terms ''and'' etc., I'm suggesting they be required to have ''either'' etymology ''or'' pronunciation ''or'' related terms ''or'' etc., instead of ''[[like it or lump it|pronunciation or lump it]]''. |
| | + | :::::: Call me selfish but I regret having added that question to the vote. Still, it's better than risking having some experienced Wiktionary seeing a reconstructed FWOTD and throwing a tantrum against us. IMO it's still too soon to ask it again. I'll wait a few more months, but if you're in a hurry and start the discussion I'll totally support it. — ''[[User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV|Ungoliant]] <sup>([[User Talk:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV|Falai]])</sup>'' 03:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC) |
