Talk:پولو
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Metaknowledge in topic RFV discussion: March–April 2017
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
- former title: پﻭﻝﻭ
Seems to have been created in error, per User:Wyang at WT:Etymology scriptorium/2017/February#polo. The attested spelling is polo in Latin script; if we want to keep this entry in its current script, it should be moved to پولو. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm biased but... delete this entry, unless someone can be bothered to dig into Balti literature. Wyang (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- As far as I know, Sprigg is trustworthy and is also the only Balti dictionary I have on hand, so I think we should just go along with it, considering that we have independent confirmation in Matisoff. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- In that case, we can perhaps keep it at پولو, and use this Unicode document as a rough guide on the correspondence between the various Balti scripts. I'm not sure how to keep the multiple scripts though, since the same word in different scripts do not map to each other - a tough situation like Mongolian, which also needs to be discussed. Wyang (talk) 08:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Odd. In پﻭﻝﻭ, only the letter پ (p) is normal. The other three letters are Arabic presentation forms. Arabic presentation forms are not used by any language. —Stephen (Talk) 03:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- In that case, we can perhaps keep it at پولو, and use this Unicode document as a rough guide on the correspondence between the various Balti scripts. I'm not sure how to keep the multiple scripts though, since the same word in different scripts do not map to each other - a tough situation like Mongolian, which also needs to be discussed. Wyang (talk) 08:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- As far as I know, Sprigg is trustworthy and is also the only Balti dictionary I have on hand, so I think we should just go along with it, considering that we have independent confirmation in Matisoff. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- I moved the entry, but the RFV is still in effect. --WikiTiki89 14:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- RFV passed based on the references in the scriptorium discussion. Further handling of the entry awaits discussions of how to deal with Balti. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)