Talk:hanjaeo

hanjaeo
We do not allow Korean in Latin script. -- Prince Kassad 19:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually thought we did, if for no other reason that we have quite a few, try Category:Korean nouns. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. —Ruakh TALK 00:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WT:AKO doesn't help much. It talks about romanization, but not whether these romanizations meets CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but it does mention various templates that should be used, such as and, and gives examples of what they look like. These templates all linkify hangul and hanja but not romanizations. I take that as a pretty clear indication that only hangul and hanja are presumed to merit entries. —Ruakh TALK 22:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Mostly-irrelevant comment: I'm gonna add to some of the Wiktionary:About pages that we don't accept transliterations as entries. This should prevent this sort of thing from happening. Or more precisely when it does happen, we can speedy delete the entries. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Korean section, English section remains. Mglovesfun (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

RFV discussion: May–June 2020
A term derived from Korean, sense "transliterated Korean hanja" - this seems inaccurate is the only sense listed so I was not sure whether to add the whole entry or just that one sense. I do not speak Korean but given the meaning of the equivalent Chinese characters in Chinese, and the Korean word linked in the Etymology section (which says: (linguistics) Sino-Korean words; Korean words etymologically from or influenced by Chinese), it seems irrelevant and inaccurate. I think it is possibly confusion between the etymology and the definition. Hkbusfan (talk) 02:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)