Talk:セマ

Invalid headword?

@AG202, I see some problems here.

• Baekje was not written in katakana.
• The referenced entry at 斯麻#Baekje appears to claim that this セマ spelling is cited to the Nihon Shoki. However, this is impossible — as also detailed at w:Katakana#History, the katakana script was not even developed until the 800s, about a century or so after the Nihon Shoki was written.

These two facts together seem to indicate that this entry at セマ should be deleted. Could you explain your thinking in creating this entry? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Eirikr: I followed the guidelines found at WT:About Baekje. Though looking at it now, the katakana spelling should probably be listed as solely an alternative form. We allow alternative scripts if the original script is unavailable on a case-by-case basis. I'll ping @Saranamd though, as he made the guideline. AG202 (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@AG202 – Thanks for the explanation! FWIW, Chuterix also chimed in about this over on his Talk page (since he's currently blocked temporarily from mainspace), over at User_talk:Chuterix#Talk:セマ:_an_answer_to_セマ. I just replied there, laying out my argument for why katakana doesn't seem appropriate here. That said, if katakana is the only recorded form for a given Baekje word, I could be open to argument. But then again, if it's the Nihon Shoki we're talking about, the original text couldn't have been written in katakana since the script hadn't been invented yet... Anyway, cheers! 😄 ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)