Talk:乙那

RFV discussion: August 2016–October 2017

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

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.

---

乙那

加

originally listed as Category:Buyeo lemmas

—suzukaze (t・c) 02:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

See Category talk:Old Korean appendices. I think both Appendix:Old Korean deleted entries and Appendix:Baekje deleted entries should also be deleted, moving unattested terms to an appendix is not a solution to things. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm relisting this as RFvs of the only two entries in the category. If they can't be cited or moved to better titles in a month, they can be deleted. Wikipedia says some Buyeo words are attested, so the category itself seems fine. - -sche (discuss) 21:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the second entry, the New history of Korea (2005) by Hyŏn-hŭi Yi, ‎Sŏng-su Pak, ‎Nae-hyŏn Yun, page 111, says "When Wigeo was king, his uncle was in the position of uga. For this reason, the maga, uga, jeoga and guga, collectively called the daega officials, were appointed from among the king's relatives. In Eastern Buyeo, governors, called "ga" in Korean," as if the word is Korean and not Buyeo. - -sche (discuss) 21:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

RFV failed.__Gamren (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)