Talk:vp
Latest comment: 4 years ago by -sche in topic Related discussions
RFD[edit]
The following information passed a request 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.
Not an obsolete spelling of up, simply v and u were typographically the same at that stage in English. I'd compare it to the debate on Romanian unicode (comma forms versus cedilla forms). --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, it appears v and u had similar rules to the long ſ, and I doubt we need to include all of those spellings. Fine, go ahead and delete this. 75.142.190.21 13:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. U and V are now different letters. This is therefore only an obsolete spelling of (deprecated template usage) up. Same goes for all such variants; although this one is of little use, some (I think I mentioned (deprecated template usage) yuie before) are more valuable. Ƿidsiþ 14:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Can you state your reasons? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know what else to add. U and V were always seen as separate characters, they just happened once to represent the same phonemes. (deprecated template usage) vp is a perfectly valid former spelling of "up", in fact (deprecated template usage) up so spelled would not have been acceptable till, I dunno 1600 or so (because V was always used at the beginning of a word). We can't hard redirect (as we can for long-s) because U and V are both still distinct letters which are in use in English as well as other languages. Ƿidsiþ 16:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Then I just reject the idea that vp is an obsolete spelling of up. The spelling is identical, the difference is encoding, not spelling. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- And you don't think it's a problem that the ‘encoding’ happens to be in the form of a different existing letter of the alphabet? Ƿidsiþ 16:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's a problem, I just don't like this solution to it. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- And you don't think it's a problem that the ‘encoding’ happens to be in the form of a different existing letter of the alphabet? Ƿidsiþ 16:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Then I just reject the idea that vp is an obsolete spelling of up. The spelling is identical, the difference is encoding, not spelling. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know what else to add. U and V were always seen as separate characters, they just happened once to represent the same phonemes. (deprecated template usage) vp is a perfectly valid former spelling of "up", in fact (deprecated template usage) up so spelled would not have been acceptable till, I dunno 1600 or so (because V was always used at the beginning of a word). We can't hard redirect (as we can for long-s) because U and V are both still distinct letters which are in use in English as well as other languages. Ƿidsiþ 16:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Can you state your reasons? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, essentially per Widsith.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with User:Widsith, keep as an alternative (obsolete) spelling. I do see a counterargument, the Question of whether we should have alternative-form-of Entries for Nouns in their previous Spellings with capital Letters — but {{also}} and "Did you mean" redirect readers from Execution to execution, whereas vp → up is opaque. - -sche (discuss) 02:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, for example [[The]] and [[THE]] are attestable forms of the. I did speedy delete an entry once; Accusative or something similar that said "alternative spelling of accusative with a capital letter". Mglovesfun (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- In fact it was that, and it said "common misspeling of accusative", which AFAICT it less true. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, for example [[The]] and [[THE]] are attestable forms of the. I did speedy delete an entry once; Accusative or something similar that said "alternative spelling of accusative with a capital letter". Mglovesfun (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with User:Widsith, keep as an alternative (obsolete) spelling. I do see a counterargument, the Question of whether we should have alternative-form-of Entries for Nouns in their previous Spellings with capital Letters — but {{also}} and "Did you mean" redirect readers from Execution to execution, whereas vp → up is opaque. - -sche (discuss) 02:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept for no consensus, or weak consensus to keep. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Related discussions[edit]
Talk:vpon, Talk:euery, Talk:dies Iouis, Talk:uacuus, Talk:auec, Talk:giuen. - -sche (discuss) 04:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- See also Talk:cõtempt (also cōtempt). - -sche (discuss) 04:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- An RFV discussion which will be archived to Talk:deiuos also touches on this. - -sche (discuss) 23:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)