Talk:𒀸

RFC discussion: June–October 2007
This is a symbol, right? --Connel MacKenzie 23:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a letter, used in cuneiform languages. However, it's also a word, and so does require all the separate language sections that it has.  Unfortunately Dbachmann was one of the few people on Wiktionary who knew enough about these characters to write a proper entry on them.  My suggestion is to simply leave them as they are.  While they are rather garbled, I believe they do contain a fair bit of good information.  Hopefully, someone will come along, in time, who knows enough about cuneiform languages (and is willing to follow Wiktionary formatting policies) to create a better entry.  Atelaes 23:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Cuneiform is a script used to write long-extinct languages. While research exists for these languages, most of it seems to be heavily copyright protected research.  Two of the 19 references listed on Cuneiform seem OK, but are written in German.  The notion that we should wait for a native speaker come along and flesh out these entries is not reasonable.  The information that is there offhand seems highly suspect; either it is is translated from German (where it might violate NOR,) or is gleaned from copyright-protected sources.  Simply leaving it alone seems precarious.  I suppose the argument could be made that the information has been "common knowledge" since 1841, but I wouldn't believe that the whole body of research was, personally.  The fact that the "contents" of the entry is unintelligible (codes cross-referencing modern research texts, presumably) make this more suspicious.  Move to RFD?  Or to WT:BP?  --Connel MacKenzie 01:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)