Talk:갂

RFV discussion: July 2011–March 2012
Tagged for speedy deletion, but does not seem to me to meet any criterion for speedy deletion. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It does need to be cleaned up. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 23:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed most of the content as RFV-failed. Because the symbol itself does exist, I've left it on RFC, where it will presumably languish for years. - -sche (discuss) 04:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

RFD discussion: April–May 2016
Yeah delete meets critere for speedy deletion Johnny Shiz (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The deletion reason is "It is not a word. And even this letter is never being used in any korean sentence. Someone said anyway it is a valid symbol, but not always can papers be made for all valid symbols which is compound and not used." It does appear that the user has a point: searching for the character here turns up nothing of interest, and the character doesn't have an entry on Korean Wiktionary. There are 120,000 Google search results, but since I don't know anything about Korean I don't understand the significance of that. What do we do in situations like this? This, that and the other (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems to find some use at least as part of words: . This would suggest that it's a valid glyph, even if it isn't used in isolation, and as such, it merits inclusion here much as other glyphs like B or ん.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 06:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The Google hits are all typos. This character is never used. The hangeul block contains all logical combinations. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 09:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Shinji, I'm curious -- digging around in Google Books brought me this book, which does clearly seem to show this glyph in use. Is this also a mistake?  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am interested too. Also, the verb, onomatopoeia (cutting with a knife).  Are these words valid? Are there other words with "-갂-"? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a valid word, but as a Unicode symbol, it better to keep it. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 05:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 깎다 is a valid word (including 깎아내리다), but it contains 깎, not 갂. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article does not claim it is a word. Korean syllables are routinely kept. Wyang (talk) 07:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know where it says that. Wiktionary covers all words in all languages, and this is, as you correctly said, not a word. The standards we use for alphabets can not be applied to syllabic scripts like Korean is. -- Liliana • 23:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a Unicode symbol first, just like A, B, C, and then a meaningless syllable, which has phonetic value but it's not a word. Users will want to know how to read it when they find it in a combination. It's easy to see that this combination is used. Keep. I think we should keep all solid Korean hangeul syllables, even if they are meaningless. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * See Talk:났 and Talk:놰. Wyang (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep all attested Unicode symbols. We're not limited by space, so it seems a natural extension from what we already document. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The Unicode code point for is U-ac02. Although it's made of jamo symbols ᄀ ᅡ ᆩ and this is how it's entered using native input methods, it shouldn't be considered a string of characters but one symbol. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. In Talk:놰, Stephen (ko-2) said: "Korean syllables, even when there is no meaning, are still needed for identification and pronunciation in the same way that we have the individual letters of the Roman, Greek and Cyrillic alphabets." As for CFI, WT:CFI says "A term need not be limited to a single word in the usual sense. Any of these are also acceptable: [...]". As an auxiliary aid, above, Wyang (ko-3) says keep, and Anatoli (ko-2) says keep. I find the arguments presented plausible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, while I fear a bit of falling into the ad hominem fallacy, the nominator was blocked on Wikipedia per W:User:Johnny Shiz, which was caused in part by the unequivocal W:Special:Diff/710258916. This does increase the chance that he is pulling our leg more than anything else. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is anything to be disbelieved about his nomination, other than the fact that this entry doesn't meet any "speedy deletion criteria". The discussion has been worth having. This, that and the other (talk) 03:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * RFD kept per consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

RFC discussion: April 2010–February 2016
headings / POS / templates / categories Mutante 06:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * , can you check if this entry is valid and well-defined? Someone tagged it saying "It is not a word. And even this letter is never being used in any Korean sentence. Someone said anyway it is a valid symbol, but not always can papers be made for all valid symbols which is compound and not used." - -sche (discuss) 22:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)