Talk:㚻片

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Justinrleung in topic RFV discussion: June 2019–March 2020
Jump to navigation Jump to search

It's a bird, it's a plane, it's ...

[edit]

@Wyang! Also, see 水芋仔. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 11:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5 John Cena. Wyang (talk) 11:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

RFV discussion: March–June 2018

[edit]

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.


RFV because my impression is currently that there used to be (still is?) some weird dude trying to spread the 㚻 character on Wikipedias. There seems to be usage on Google but I'm not sure that I'm convinced yet. —suzukaze (tc) 16:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'd propose that this is coined to disambiguate from the delicious 鸡片 (see Google Images, not NSFW). #donotbelievethis Wyang (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Deleted. Wyang (talk) 03:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)Reply


@Tooironic. —Suzukaze-c 16:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

[1], [2], zh:㚻片. —Suzukaze-c 01:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

RFV discussion: June 2019–March 2020

[edit]

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.


See talk. —Suzukaze-c 01:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

There are some hits on Google, but it's probably not verifiable in durable sources. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Reply