Category talk:Cia-Cia lemmas

RFV discussion: February 2017–February 2018
According to the Wikipedia article , writing Cia-Cia with hangeul has never been official and seems to have been already abandoned. Isn’t it just a linguistic experiment rather than actual use? I’m afraid they don’t meet our criteria. Japanese Wikipedia has decided to delete them. : do you have a source of Cia-Cia words in real use, not a word list? — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, a linguistic experiment. I do not believe that Cia-Cia was ever written in Korean Hangeul. I read somewhere that there were 190 students (out of 79,000 speakers) recruited to try to learn it. I believe that the individual who originally proposed the idea wrote some sample transliterations in Hangeul. Supposedly there is a little Cia-Cia book that used Hangeul, but I could never locate a copy of it. Perhaps the original proponent of the idea wrote an example text, transliterated it into Hangeul, and printed a few copies on his inkjet printer. That would explain why I was never able to obtain a copy of the book. That would mean that the Hangeul examples are simply protologisms. The specific booklet that I was searching for was a story called 뼁겜발라 돔바 마이 스리갈라 (penggembala domba mai surigala, "the shepherd and the wolf"). I can’t find the book. —Stephen (Talk) 09:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It is in the book “바하사 찌아찌아 1” but I can only find Korean translations: [//books.google.com/books/about/?id=LCUHywAACAAJ&redir_esc=y], . — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, we only need one citation, and many of these entries are cited. I'm really not sure what the best course of action is here., any thoughts? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 21:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If the citations are valid, i.e. the book in question contains Cia-Cia text written in hanguel, then AFAICT it is fine to have these entries, but according to what has been said above, they should all be alternative forms of Latin-script entries, rather than main entries. (If the issue is the categorization of the entries into the "lemmas" category, that seems unavoidable without a shift in what we consider lemmas for the purpose of categorization, not just in this language but also with regard to e.g. Arabic-script Afrikaans, which is currently in the Afrikaans lemma category.) - -sche (discuss) 21:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * RFV-passed on that basis. Anyone who wants do the work of turning the Hangeul spellings into alternative forms of Latin spellings should do so. - -sche (discuss) 18:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)