Talk:Kangxi

RFV discussion: May–August 2015
Rfv-sense

Does anyone really refer to the Kangxi Dictionary as "Kangxi", or 釒 as a "Kangxi"?


 * It is common to refer to radicals in the Kangxi Dictionary by “Kangxi radicals”. The noun sense should be deleted. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * (OP) I removed the request for verification of the "dictionary" sense. —suzukaze (t・c) 05:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

For reference, in two senses were tagged with rfv-sense:
 * A dictionary and cross reference of Chinese characters, first published in 1716 at the behest of the Kangxi Emperor, and used to the present day.
 * One of 214 modern Chinese radicals, as organized in the Kangxi dictionary.

I think the recent addition of "Abbreviation of Kangxi Dictionary" and "Abbreviation of Kangxi radicals" to the senses should be undone; I do not want to see e.g. "Abbreviation of vocative case" in the definition line of vocative. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I've adjusted the formatting of the entry, and deleted the "radical" sense as RFV-failed. The other sense is uncommon (most Google Books hits for e.g. follow it with dictionary); it has only two citations at the moment. - -sche (discuss) 03:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)