Visviva wrote: "please check cite, does not contain headword." It does indeed contain the headword and is so bolded. This citation is particularly excellent because it 1) it shows the pronunciation, 2) defines the word with its own citation, 3) lists the previous form given in the etymology, and 4) says that /yukata/ is a current slang abbreviation. I have another citation that I will add next. Remember that the lexical term is /yukata/, not 浴衣. Even if you find a citation for 浴衣, that does not show how is was actually pronounced. (That is why lexical terms should be created by their reading, not kanji... But that battle is way too late.) This is a huge problem when it comes to Japanese lexicography. Surely you are aware that pre-Hangul Korean literature also this problem. Regards, Bendono 06:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, due to the structure of Wiktionary, each attestable form gets its own entry, so normally I would expect a citation for 由加太 to be there, not here. That aside, it would be very helpful to: a) list 由加太 here as an alternative form, along with any other common alternative forms, and b) include a romanization of the cited text, so that the connection with the headword is obvious. The Japanese "slice" of the English Wiktionary is equivalent to a Japanese-English dictionary; thus, much of its target audience consists of language learners with little or no background knowledge. Obviously some content will be beyond such users, but ideally they will at least be able to understand why it's there.
- In the case of Korean, I would normally want to limit the idu and gugyeol forms to the Etymology section of a Hangul entry, particularly since they pertain mostly to Middle or Old Korean. I suppose this leads into the question of how to properly handle the distinction between OJP and JA, but I would have to leave that to the specialists. :-) -- Visviva 06:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)