Category talk:Old Korean appendices

Deletion discussion

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Deletion of Middle/Old Korean, Silla, Goguryeo and Baekje

As per Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion#All_Goguryeo_words_in_the_main_namespace, I would like to repeat my call to delete all extinct/reconstructed words from the Korean Peninsula, including Silla, Goguryeo and Baekje. No evidence has been presented for the existence of those words and User:DolphinL has not responded to my inquiry. The deletion would be all words under the following categories:

• Category:Middle_Korean_language
• Category:Old_Korean_language
• Category:Silla_Old_Korean (this is actually a subcategory of Old Korean)
• Category:Baekje_language
• Category:Goguryeo_language

As cool as these entries are, reconstructed terms qualify only for inclusion in appendices (Wiktionary:CFI#Reconstructed_languages) and for extinct terms, "one use in a contemporaneous source is the minimum, or one mention is adequate subject to" certain requirements (Wiktionary:CFI#Number_of_citations). All of these terms fail to qualify for inclusion. --BB12 (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

A closer look will show that Category:Middle_Korean_language was created- in its entirety- by Visviva (talk • contribs) (who should know a thing or two about CFI), and not by DolphinL (talk • contribs). There are also IPs who created many Old Korean entries 61.99.164.37 (talk), 61.99.165.2 (talk) and 61.99.166.138 (talk) are the first ones I ran into, though there may be others- though I suppose they might just have been DolphinL (talk • contribs) before he/she had a Wiktionary account. There's even at least one Goguryeo entry in there created by Joseon814 (talk • contribs). This may require a more complicated approach than the previous rfd Chuck Entz (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. We already know that Joseon814 is not reliable. I have left a note on Visviva's page. These are extinct words without any citation and are therefore subject to deletion if Visviva or someone else does not provide a citation for each. --BB12 (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. Here's my three cents:

Middle Korean: Middle Korean is reasonably well-attested, though like most "Middle" languages it suffers from massive ambiguity in terms of how it is defined, and the entries are a pain in the butt to write & cite due to inconsistent orthography &c. The extant 15th-century hangul texts are definitely Middle Korean, and most authorities would extend that definition either backwards to include the idu and gugyeol texts of the Goryeo period, or forward to some later point in the Joseon dynasty, or both (Korean Wikipedia considers OKM to cover the 10th through 16th centuries, which jibes with my general impression of the consensus).

By way of example, for 귀믿터리, two citations (from the same c. 1481 text) are presented here; however, in order to transfer them to Wiktionary, I would need to a) install that accursed PUA font that Naver et al. use for precomposed Middle Korean glyphs, and b) painfully reconstruct those syllabic blocks in the Wiktionary-approved Unicode-compliant fashion. It looks as if I went through this process once or twice (see ᄆᆞ니다), but then decided the hell with it. I don't expect I'll be revisiting that decision.

I would not fault Wiktionary for deciding it didn't want to be bothered with having OKM entries, or Middle English or Middle French entries for that matter -- but I think they do (or at least can) meet CFI.

Old Korean / Sillan: There are some extant texts in Sillan, including inscriptions and some quoted passages in the old chronicles. Many of the hyangga poems are also believed to date from the Silla period (although the texts in which they occur are of slightly more recent vintage), and are therefore used as source material for the study of Old Korean. The European analogy that comes to mind is Gaulish: extremely spotty but attestable.

IMO these OKO entries can meet CFI as well. On the other hand, AFAIK no Sillan entries have actually been properly cited, and I'm not likely to take up that challenge myself, so it probably wouldn't harm the project terribly if they were all deleted.

Baekje / Goguryeo: There are no extant texts in these languages, although individual words are occasionally glossed in Chinese chronicles or readily deducible from proper names. The European analogy that comes to mind is Pictish, and I think that these categories (if retained at all) should probably be as empty as that one. The only reason Wiktionary has these entries now is that moving them to their actual quasi-recorded form seemed, at the time, like a reasonable compromise with the user who had been dumping putative hangul (!!) entries in these languages (and Sillan) into Wiktionary; see this very brief discussion from 2008. But IMO the project would be better off without any Baekje or Goguryeo entries at all. -- Visviva (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Added: Balhae_Old_Korean should also die a swift and painless death. -- Visviva (talk) 05:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

If you have a dictionary which contains some of these, name it in the references section of the entries, and they're sufficiently verified without you having to write out any complex characters — since extinct languages are allowed in with only one use or mention / reference work. :)

And if you can link to citations of Middle Korean words, I would consider it rather unconstructive if someone RFVed the entries to demand that you actually compose the gylphs. When people link to Google Books citations of words on RFV, I often pass the terms without making them type up the citations. - -sche (discuss) 06:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

"although individual words are occasionally glossed in Chinese chronicles". I thought we now allowed mentions in extinct languages? So such mentions would be enough. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

As long as the entries provide the source, that is not a problem. There is, of course, the additional issue that since (I assume) only Chinese characters are used the actual pronunciations cannot be very precisely determined. --BB12 (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

As 10 months have passed and no citations have been provided for any of these languages, I would like to request all entries in all of these languages be deleted. --BB12 (talk) 04:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll put them in appendices in the next day or two and then request deletion again :) --BB12 (talk) 04:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

---

I have moved all the Middle Korean entries to Category:Middle Korean appendices, and deleted three entries that are just sections of pages that have other information: 어른, 누, 쇼. Could an administrator please delete the following pages? I have all of them to the appendix as well.

ᄒᆞᆫᄢᅴ, 구레, 구룸, 굴에, 귀믿터리, ᄆᆞ니다, 갈아디다, 고ᄋᆞ다, 괴오다, 기드리다

--BB12 (talk) 08:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Request for Category:Balhae_Old_Korean words to be deleted: 基下, 太妃, 老王, 聖王
• Request for Category:Silla_Old_Korean words to be deleted: 居西干, 麻立干. I deleted the Old Korean sections for 干, 忽 and 薩 myself.
• All of these terms can be found at Category:Old Korean appendices.

--BB12 (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Request for deletion of words in Category:Baekje_parts_of_speech: 久知下, 吉支, 固麻, 夫里, 扶蘇, 斯麻, 於羅瑕, 於陸, 珍惡, 鞬吉支

--BB12 (talk) 06:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• All done. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Struck as resolved. bd2412 T 16:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)