Talk:uinom
Add topicLatest comment: 8 years ago by Metaknowledge in topic RFV discussion: September–November 2016
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).
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.
This was just moved from the Italic script to Latin script. Is it attested in the Latin script? —CodeCat 17:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Isn't Italic covered by the romanization of ancient scripts vote? If so, of course, we shouldn't exclude the Italic script version. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know, I thought it was just Gothic. Note, though, that for old Italic languages other than Latin, the Italic-script version is customarily printed in bold in sources, while Latin-script attestations are in italic. So sources do distinguish the scripts, and we generally do too for these languages. Lepontic, however, is a Celtic language, and I don't know if it's attested in Latin script at all. —CodeCat 17:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- To clarify that, both scripts of these languages are printed in Latin script in (at least) etymological and grammatical sources, but the font style (bold vs italic) points out the script it's actually attested in. —CodeCat 19:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- As MG said, we had a vote about this. Let's keep all the Latin script forms and create Italic entries as needed. Editors can choose where to lemmatise without sending them to RFV and risking deletion just because nobody dug up the cites. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- I believe these are all attested in only Old Italic. I would prefer them all moved to OI. —JohnC5 19:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Actually Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-09/Romanization of languages in ancient scripts 2 doesn't mention Italic script. I can't find a more up to date version of that vote (we don't seem to categorize closed votes at all, by the way) so this actually seems to have no protection, per CodeCat. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for not pinging me. Yes, a lot of these words are attested in Latin script. It seems to me that those that aren't should be given in Latin form with the Old Italic as a tr= next to it, for easier comparisons and easier to consult lemmas. uinom • (𐌖𐌉𐌍𐌏𐌌) UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Created this, though admittedly don't know if I have the right to or not. If an admin/mod/other person could take care of it, that would be good. Laid down the basics. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wikitionary:Votes/pl-2016-09/Romanisation_of_Lepontic UtherPendrogn (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- @UtherPendrogn Why not go for all Italic script entries? It's what I'd do. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Created this, though admittedly don't know if I have the right to or not. If an admin/mod/other person could take care of it, that would be good. Laid down the basics. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wikitionary:Votes/pl-2016-09/Romanisation_of_Lepontic UtherPendrogn (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for not pinging me. Yes, a lot of these words are attested in Latin script. It seems to me that those that aren't should be given in Latin form with the Old Italic as a tr= next to it, for easier comparisons and easier to consult lemmas. uinom • (𐌖𐌉𐌍𐌏𐌌) UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- I've moved the entry back to the Italic script, added a citation, and made the Latin-script entry a "romanization of" entry. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Resolved. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)