Talk:䖦

More information

More information about this character:

《唐韻》職悅切，音拙。蟲也。　又《集韻》曲勿切，音屈。《說文》蛣䖦也。或作𧌑。《爾雅·釋蟲》蝎，蛣𧌑。《註》木中蠹蟲。　又五忽切，音兀。義同。 考證：〔《爾雅·釋蟲》蝎，蛣䖦。《註》木中蟲也，或作𧌑。〕　謹照原文䖦改𧌑。蟲也改蠹蟲。或作𧌑三字移於爾雅上。

71.66.97.228 21:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

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.

---

䖦

Does this actually make any sense to anyone? SemperBlotto 21:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It's just a rudimentary first attempt at bluelinking one of the thousands of rare/archaic-Chinese-character redlinks we've had for many years, with little effort on anyone's part for turning them into bluelinks. This particular one is a type of insect or arachnid. 71.66.97.228 21:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be attested. - -sche (discuss) 22:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It is in several reputable databases, with examples of usages from classical Chinese literature. Why make a statement like this if you haven't already checked those databases? 71.66.97.228 22:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

@71.66.97.228, you should probably rejoin Wiktionary and have the Babel box, so people know that you're a native speaker, or use your account. Was it blocked or something? What was your user account again? As for the rare characters, do we to attest them? I think we need to attest characters only if there is a serious doubt about theire existence. Google has many hits. --Anatoli 23:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not used on Usenet and the only Google Books hit is a scanno, hence my statement. If it's attested elsewhere, that's great. - -sche (discuss) 23:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Please be serious. The classical Chinese corpus includes hundreds of times more texts than are available on the Internet. We Wiktionary editors (some of us having been here nearly since the beginning of the project) do actually use libraries and paper books in addition to the Internet, which often makes unavailable certain more rare CJKV characters simply due to the arbitrariness of coding systems, and the coders who have decided to leave certain lesser-used characters out of the Unicode system entirely. 71.66.97.228 23:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Paper sources can be used as attestation just fine but as I said, it's not a contentious issue, so no citations may be required. -sche has agreed with this, so no need to get upset. --Anatoli 23:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Right. :) So, in answer to SemperBlotto's question, yes, we should have this. - -sche (discuss) 00:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I made a clean-up request for it, if anyone's interested. --Lo Ximiendo 01:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

@71.66.97.228, you don't have to answer in such a shirty way. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

kept -- Liliana • 03:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)