Talk:塤

RFV discussion: December 2013–May 2014
Rfv-sense for "simplified variant of 壎" definition; the 塤 character is already a traditional character for its primary definition and this instance isn't cited or in the Unihan database. Bumm13 (talk) 10:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That's right. The simplified version of 塤 is 埙 and 壎 is both traditional and simplified. It's not the right way to display simplified/traditional equivalents, anyway. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 10:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * RFV failed on the sense: no quotations provided. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)