Talk:嶜

RFV discussion: March–June 2014

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

嶜

Rfv-sense for "lofty" definition (specifically, the "personality" sense) as I can't find any sources that give this sense and no reference for it was given. Bumm13 (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• I can't even find any JA sources that list this character at all. It's apparently only listed in KanjiDic and in the Unihan database (which JA information seems to be cribbed from KanjiDic), but that doesn't satisfy CFI, and it's not in WWWJIDIC, it's not in any of my dead-tree resources to hand, google books:"嶜"+"は" comes up with nothing, and most of google:"嶜"+"は" appears to be either Chinese, or other online dictionary echo chambers.

My guess is that this character shows up in some obscure ancient text that was used to help compile KanjiDic, and that it hasn't been used at all since then. Given that I cannot find any citations in Japanese, I strongly suggest that we expand this RFV to include the JA entry for this character. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. - -sche (discuss) 20:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The Japanese source for this character is the Dai Kan-Wa Jiten (Morohashi dictionary), specifically entry 08481 (from Unihan database entry) Bumm13 (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• If that's the only place it appears, as it currently seems, then this entry fails citation requirements. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• RVF failed on the sense of "lofty" and on the complete Japanese section: no attesting quotations provided. Done in diff. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)