Talk:cõtempt

RFD discussion: April–June 2015
Manuscript variant, not a truly different spelling, right? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmm. One could compare this to Mʳ or Govʳ, but whereas superscript r is not a letter in English or French and ʳ is included in Unicode as a "modifier letter" rather than a plain "letter" — leading to the conclusion that this is better encoded as Govr, not as Govʳ — õ is a letter even in English (in a few loanwords). That makes cõtempt seem more like vp: it's using one letter to spell something that would now be spelt with a different letter(s). And we couldn't automatically redirect õ spellings like we do long-s spellings, because they are standard in some languages (e.g. bõ is probably attested both in Vietnamese as the word for "old male servant" and in older French as a variant of bon). Compare also WT:T:ADE, where I note that there are hand- and typewritten works that contain things visually similar to dafuͤr and dafűr, and ask if it is good to use those Unicode codepoints to represent those things. I'm on the fence... - -sche (discuss) 21:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems silly to delete it while we have things like for  — which I'm in favor of deleting by the way. I'd add  to this as well as it's the same thing. Same in Middle French that I've seen, and thus, very early modern French as -sche points out. You could have  and  in the same text, even in the same sentence you could encounter both. I would treat these are typographical variants not spelling variants and delete these, however I think precedent is against me in terms of . Renard Migrant (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * After thinking about it: keep. Cõtempt isn't an ersatz encoding like Govʳ is: it's using the tilde for something the tilde is designed to be used for, namely replacing n. So, like vp, it's using one letter to spell something that would now be spelt with a different letter(s), and that seems like an includible phenomenon. - -sche (discuss) 22:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Does that mean we should have ↄtempt as well? --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 22:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Its a form of that soft redirects. It has one WT:CFI attestation – that more than many other pages. It is a good example of what a soft redirect should be. Unicode value only represents the literal, i.e. the glyph. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 21:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)