This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi, you appear to be the contributor who originally added this comment to viz.:

<!--

NOTE: According to E. Cobham Brewer 1810–1897. Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, the same

abbreviation mark was used for habet (hab3) and omnibus (omnib3).

I suppose it is not a Tironian note but I'll not modify the article until I will

find for sure.

-->

That HTML comment is currently a note.

I have tried to look this up in this online copy of Brewer's, but have not been successful and have not found any reference to what you said in that copy of the book. Could you clarify precisely where it says what?

Also, this may not be on you, but the note in its current form is somewhat misleading as it suggests the ⁊ ( Tironian et) was used in both cases, while I think what you meant to say was that the Ȝ ( yogh) was used for both.

I have posted a related comment here: Talk:Tironian notes#Z in viz.: Tironian et or yogh?

Thank you. — ReadOnlyAccount ( talk) 01:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The article Conceptronic has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No independent sources. Doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. jlwoodwa ( talk) 18:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)