[20220918] Would you mind explaining your rationales for doing so?

    @Justinrleung, 沈澄心:
    |*| https://en.wiktionary.org/?diffonly=1&diff=prev&oldid=69315263
    |*| https://en.wiktionary.org/?diffonly=1&diff=prev&oldid=69315449

- MasterQuestionable (talk) 00:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“There's significant likelihood that the character is related with the meaning of "pass".” is what was written in the etymology.
This piece of information is not related to etymology.

The links you added were also not well-formatted, and typically we do not link to those sites.

- Justinrleung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps depending on how you define "etymology". But this does not affect the factual validity of the statement.

    How? Even if so I believe poorly formatted better than nothing at all, in this case.
    .
    Are there significant factual inaccuracies in the linked contents invalidating their eligibility for inclusion?

- MasterQuestionable (talk) 10:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]