Talk:ǃɢa̰n-ǃɢa̰n

RFC discussion: October 2012–March 2019
The usage note describes a different orthography than the one the entry actually uses. Should the entry be moved, or should the usage note be changed? - -sche (discuss) 19:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ʻǁnāhu a̰a, ǃqhàa gǀqhùã a̰a, kxʻāo a̰a, ǁkxʻân a̰a, !ʻûĩ ǂnṵn and several other entries have the same issue. - -sche (discuss) 00:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the usage note is describing "ǃɢā̰n-ǃɢá̰n", and that they weren't sure whether they could/should represent both diacritics on the same vowel. So the answer is: c) neither. Just change the display form and remove the usage note. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The usage note says grave accent, not acute accent, on the second a. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 12:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, then it's "ǃɢā̰n-ǃɢà̰n". Good catch. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But why only change the display form, why not move the entry? ǃqhàa gǀqhùã a̰a has accents over its letters, so if they aren't part of the language, they should be stripped from that entry, whereas if they are, they should be added to ǃɢa̰n-ǃɢa̰n. - -sche (discuss) 17:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically, it seems like all these should be moved. - -sche (discuss) 01:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and moved all of these and a couple more I found., before archiving this, did you have a fuller list of entries with this problem? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I just noticed how long ago this was., could you perhaps generate a list of !Xóõ entries with 'Usage notes' sections? I could comb through those to find the ones that still need to be moved. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User:DTLHS/ǃXóõ DTLHS (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks to DTLHS's list, all done. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)