Talk:佦

RFV
RFV-sense "protect". Bumm13 (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How precisely do we go about verifying a translingual Han character? We could verify a Mandarin definition, but there isn't one added yet. I'm not sure what to do in this case. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My understanding of previous discussions is that Translingual sections of Han characters should not, in an ideal world, have any (or at least, nearly as many) meanings; the meanings should be moved to every specific language they're found in. For historical reasons, however, a very large number of Han characters have Translingual sections with definitions in them, and proposals to remove them all by bot have rightly been shot down because semi-misplaced information is more helpful to readers than no information. But whenever it's possible to correct an entry by hand, we should. If this character means "protect" in Mandarin, let's move the sense. And if it doesn't mean "protect" in some language, it'll fail RFV. - -sche (discuss) 03:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's see: the only language on the page is Mandarin (because that's the only language Unihan lists). I have no idea how they got the pīnyīn value "shi", though, or even the character. My Mandarin dictionary does not have it, and there are no BGC hits, excluding scannos. So unless surprising new evidence emerges, I reckon we ought to delete the entire page, and fix if it links to it. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Must be a very odd character if it occurs neither in Kangxi nor HDZ. Chances are, it's a mistake that somehow slipped into Unicode. -- Liliana • 02:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 23:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)