The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion.
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.
Wernescu continues to add already existing words using different diacritics. The word aţâţa already exists .
--Robbie SWE 18:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- There's no apparent consensus on this, is there? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I agree Mglovesfun, but this does not solve the problem at hand. It has been brought to Wernescu's attention that he adds already existing articles using different diacritics (read his talk page; Krun gives a good example). Where and when will it end? Are we going to allow ațâța, aţâţa, ațîța, aţîţa, atâţa etc.? In the Romanian Wiktionary only aţâţa exists, not Wernescu's variant. --Robbie SWE 11:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, Mglovesfun, I see them as different. ațâța has commas beneath (is that what they're called?), not connected to the t's, whereas aţâţa has cedillas, connected. Just BTW.—msh210℠ (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- But they're as different as the open-tailed g and the close-tailed g. Latin-2 was created with the idea that both Turkish and Romanian could use the same s,t with cedilla below, but the Romanians insisted on having separate letters with commas below, for what I believe to be purely political reasons. I've got a copy of Abecedar, published by Editura Didactică Şi Pedagogică (1996), and either this was created by incompetents--and it doesn't look it--or the forms are in free variation in Romanian, because in this book designed for children learning to write, both forms appear in printing, with the cedilla form predominating. (Only the comma form appears in handwriting.)--Prosfilaes 02:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)