Category talk:Cuneiform

RFC discussion: December 2010

 * this had been an unresolved-RFCs-from-2007 entry which still needed attention

Almost everything in Category:Cuneiform needs substantial cleanup. — Beobach 18:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ... or deletion on the grounds that there is "no usable content given". — Beobach 18:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

RFC discussion: October 2015–March 2017
These entries don't conform to our standards; they don't have headword lines. Well, they do, but they also have a whole lot of other information spread over several lines, that doesn't belong there. They're also lacking definitions. —CodeCat 00:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Cuneiform is hard. Almost as hard as Chinese characters, in terms of variation of how they're spoken, what languages they're used in, and what meanings any one glyph might carry. It will be a non-trivial project to make the Cuneiform entries comprehensible to anyone who doesn't already know what they're looking at, which project will probably involve coming up with a standard and user-friendly format with which to present the relevant information. (I would ask what you mean by "doesn't belong there", by the way. Which information, and do you mean "belongs somewhere else", or do you mean "I don't understand it so we should delete it"?) --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 02:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Left as-is. - -sche (discuss) 16:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)