Talk:giuen

Deletion discussion

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

giuen

An insignificant typographical variation. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 21:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Refer to #auec (to be archived at Talk:auec). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep, it's attestable Leasnam (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I feel almost certain that we had a policy somewhere saying that variant letters like this u/v should not get separate entries. Did I dream it? Or is it in a tentative non-official policy? Or...? Equinox ◑ 03:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not aware of such a policy. WT:About Latin says to prefer v in Latin, but practice/precedent has been to keep entries like this as alt-forms, both in English (Talk:vp, Talk:euery) and in Latin (Talk:dies Iouis, Talk:uacuus). The argument for deletion and the argument for keeping seem to be summed up well in this exchange, IMO:

I just reject the idea that vp is an obsolete spelling of up. The spelling is identical, the difference is encoding, not spelling. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
And you don't think it's a problem that the ‘encoding’ happens to be in the form of a different existing letter of the alphabet? Ƿidsiþ 16:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep per precedent. Alternation of two separate, still-used letters is not something that can be predicted accurately by human users (especially non-native speakers) or by the site functions we use to software-redirect things like diſtinguiſh. - -sche (discuss) 04:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep DCDuring TALK 17:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 14:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)