Talk:蒐证

蒐证

Non-standard simplified form. How should we deal with it? Redirect? Soft redirect (current)? Delete? @Wyang. Dokurrat (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems have some internet usage (Can it pass RFV criteria?); I think this may be comparable to 祕闻. Dokurrat (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

google:"蒐证" -"蒐證" -"搜證" -"搜证" has some citable resources, but I'm not sure if they are reliable. @Justinrleung may have some input. By the way, I think the wording of "out-of-standard" can be improved. Wyang (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Wyang, Dokurrat: There aren't that many hits on Google Books. I can't confirm any of them because there are only snippet views. There seem to be some valid hits from Google News, especially from Singaporean/Malaysian newspapers (published in simplified Chinese). I've listed three citations from different newspapers here. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 23:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Wyang, Justinrleung: I used phrasing “out-of-standard simplified” because I thought “non-standard simplified” may sound stigmatic. Well, how about using “non-standard simplified” or “leitui simplified” or something else? I also used this phrasing to desribe characters like 渖 (shěn) and 𪠽. Dokurrat (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: I think nonstandard is fine. That's what I've been using. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)