From C64-Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search


It is correct to write Datasette with one or two s. In the [1] it will be written with 2 s. What is the right one? --Jodigi 04:17, 25 October 2007 (CEST)

It is even in the English Wikipedia not clear if one or two s is correct. The producers themselves used both version see here on the packing (the links are taken from a link in the English Wikipedia):

1s and here 2s. Probably both versions are correct, I would prefer the "datasette" with one s only because it looks more familiar to me. On the other hand, a reference guide mentioned in the discussion in the English Wikipedia spells the word with two s's. We should use one version only, maybe the one which has been used more often until now? --Camailleon 10:55, 25 October 2007 (CEST)

Maybe we should include this "problem" into the article as it was done in the English Wiki? --Camailleon 11:04, 25 October 2007 (CEST)

"Datassette" is derived from "cassette", which explains the double S, and personally I'm prone to write it this way. But since there's some confusion about the exact spelling, I'll go along with your suggestion: Let's keep the current single-S spelling, mention the spelling ambiguity in the article, and make sure we have a redirect from the double-S spelling back to the existing article. BinaryDane 11:37, 25 October 2007 (CEST)
The redirect from Datassette to Datasette was automatic created by the article-move from Jodigi. So I think now all is now o. k. --Sledgie 09:09, 27 October 2007 (CEST)
Datassette C2N
"Datasette" is a typing error, it's only used on one batch of the boxes they did not want to dispose off. It was spelled with two Ss from the second (completely black) C2N, so the redirect has to be from Datasette to Datassette. EOT — Moiree 11:36, 28 January 2010 (CET)
I wonder where you can get information about production batches (sometimes I am curious :)). If the redirect is the wrong way, then don't hesitate to change it, if it is more correct with the two "ss" (I didn't want to do it, as I see you are still working on the article). --Camailleon 19:08, 28 January 2010 (CET)