⿰魚昂 is stable and right while 𩹡(U+29E61) is wrong but widely spread because 《汉语大字典》.

⿰魚昂 is stable and right while 𩹡(U+29E61) is wrong but widely spread because 《汉语大字典》.

Agree to unify. Suggest China to propose a horizontal extension for the character in the future.

suggest to remove the UCV.

Simplified form should not be unified to traditional form.

Suggest not to unify. Discussion needed.

Agree with comment #5493. For ideographs used in registered residence system of government, it's better to unify them not just based on the rationale from a very professional view. We should handle characters used in registered residence systems in a more practical way. I recommond member bodies agree with this point to submit a proposal together and add following principles in IRG PnP( a rough draft).
For ideographs used in Government Administration System, if
1. There are structual differences which can cause the change of radical;
2. The different structures are non-cognate with each other in modern times and have major stroke differences(in this case, it is 方 and 又);
The two unifiable ideograph can be disunified under the request of Regional or national member bodies.

Back to M-set because non-cognate. Please see:
IRG N2770R

Back to M-set because non-cognate. Please see:
IRG N2770R

It doesn't have to be an error form. It is reasonable that 䬙's left component changes to 票 in word 飘䬙.

If this can be questionable, then all 类化字 can be questionable.

The 飘䬙 form of 飘飖 is very common in ancient books. It is reasonable to say that ⿰票䍃 is a Leihua character(类化字).
民國新纂雲南通志

嘉靖寧波府志

嘉靖徽縣志

嘉靖尉氏縣志

光緒增修甘泉縣志

佩文韻府，清康熙武英殿本

太平御覽，四庫全書本

文山集，四庫全書本

春在堂詩編，民國春在堂全書本

Also seen in personal name. Evidence provided by @蛋其.

The glyph is very reasonable and the glyph is not misidentified.
⿱丶冂 is a variant of 门

The glyph in the index:

More cases in the book:
闼，U+95FC

𮤬，U+2E92C

𮤸，U+2E938

We think the first evidence is enough for encoding ⿰氵⿱𮅕马 since the traditional form is encoded and ⿰氵⿱𫂁马 and ⿰氵⿱𮅕马 are obvious variants.
The evidence is clear.

Though I don't understand why it has to be unclear or an error because ⿰氵⿱𫂁马 and ⿰氵⿱𮅕马 are obvious variants and it is very normal that variants replace each other in texts, I'd like to add a new evidence for the ideograph.
The evidence is from 2008年第3版，2012年月第39次印刷(3rd edition, 39th printing), page694. This proves that ⿰氵⿱𫂁馬 has been changed to ⿰氵⿱𮅕马.

Academically, 𮅕(算) is the phonetic component of this ideograph. So it is clear that 𮅕 is better than 𫂁.
《集韵》 from 异体字字典.

宣统《楚雄县志》：


云南省楚雄市地名志(1983), page188

Yes.

陆丰县人民政府：广东省陆丰县标准地名录，page272

More information:
⿰卵鸟是什么字？—王谢杨的回答

Yes. And we have asked local people to confirm.

高更生：现行汉字规范问题，商务印书馆，2002年12月，page139

Evidence provided by @純狐.

1932年《黑龙江志稿》卷二 讷河县图

We think the current evidences are enough for encoding. But we also welcome other experts to add additional evidence for them.

It is not rare in old books, I'd like to provide two pieces of evidence here:
弇州四部稿，卷一百七十，说部，宛委余编十五，日本早稻田大学图书馆藏，page24

北山酒经，文渊阁四库全书本，page3

Agree with Huang's comment #8514.

Seen in 《浙江省地名库外字代码对照表》

I think that IRG experts had agreed that captions couldn't be the only source of the evidences for submitted ideographs in IRG meeting #62. So unless other evidences can be provided, the ideograph should be postponed.
The decision about using captions as evidences was clearly stated in the meeting so this kind of situation should not have happened.

We think that this ideograph should be postponed if no more qualified evidence can be provided. For more comments, please go to:
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2024/app/?find=UK-30621

The UK still has not been able to provide evidence from historical document or other high-quality sources for this character. On the contrary, the UK has been providing evidence of the use of this character by one or two users on unstable carriers, and such evidence is not sufficient to support the encoding of this character. We have made it very clear that the evidence of this type provided by the UK is not sufficient to support the encoding of this character. However, the experts from the UK seem unable to understand what we mean and they are still insisting on providing evidence of the same type with insufficient quality, and also insisting on saying things that are obviously inconsistent with the facts. This kind of behavior is of no benefit to the review work and cannot make these characters be removed to the M-set.
At the last meeting, we have already suggested that if the experts from the UK believe that this character is not a newly self-created character and has the value for encoding, they can simply publish a paper that includes this character and vouch for these characters with their own reputation. Let me be more straightforward. It should not be a difficult task for the experts from the UK to publish a paper. If the experts from the UK are not willing to risk their own reputation, they should not insist on using evidence that obviously does not meet the requirements to request the encoding of this character in the IRG.

英国（UK）至今仍未能提供这个字的历史文献证据或其他高质量来源，相反，英国一直在提供由一两个使用者在不稳定的载体上使用该字的证据，这些证据并不足以支持对该字进行编码。我们已经说得很清楚，英国提供的这种类型的证据不足以支持编码该字，但英国的专家似乎无法理解我们表达的意思，仍在坚持提供相同类型、效力不足的证据，坚持说一些明显与事实不符的话。这种行为对审核工作没有任何益处，也无法让这些字从 D-set 返回 M-set。
在上次会议上，我们已经建议：如果英国专家认为这个字并非个人新造，且有编码的价值，完全可以自己发表一篇包含此字的论文，以自己的声誉给这些字作担保。让我把话说的再直接一点：发表一篇论文对英国专家来说应该不是什么难事，如果英国专家不愿意拿自己的声誉冒险，就不应该坚持在 IRG 以明显不符合要求的证据来要求对该字进行编码。

China thinks the evidence is still not sufficient and the character should be kept in D-set until better evidednce is provided.

I think that IRG experts had agreed that captions couldn't be the only source of the evidences for submitted ideographs in IRG meeting #62. So unless other evidences can be provided, the ideograph should be postponed.
The decision about using captions as evidences was clearly stated in the meeting so this kind of situation should not have happened.

It is not the matter of the defination of caption or lyrics. It is the matter of the quality of the evidences. It is ridiculous to dicuss the defination of caption here but focus on the quality of the evidences.
Evidence of GDM-00507 and GDM-00508 are from at least two different buildings, which stands in the real world. The buildings are not something easy to change or vanish. What's more, the two ideographs are used by many local people so they can be used in the plaques of the temples, which are sacred.
However, the evidence of this ideograph is from a vedio created by someone on the Internet and the vedio can be edited or deleted by the uploader at anytime he wants. The vedio, which is too weak for encoding, is not even from a published material.
https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1Ki4y127Cm/
If this can be accepted as evidence, then we may be going to submit all this to IRG, there are even pronounciations and definations:
https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV198411s7Ft/


Moreover, I don't think IRG have to write every this kind of unstable thing, for example, captions, lyrics, articles, instructions, notes... in PnP, which is unnecessary and endless.

I think nonce or not should be proved by undoubted evidences. I'd like to help the submitter to find evidences meet IRG requirements but the current evidence can not prove that ⿰久闹 is differernt from ⿱因八 or ⿱中分 in "nonce or not".
It should be noted that our center proposed a document "Application for encoding some ideographs used in Chinese geographical names(IRGN2649)" to IRG before, which was pointed out by an expert that it is not suitable as the only evidence for encoding. Our center is a formal institution established by Sichuan International Studies University, which is belonging to The People's Government of Chongqing Municipality(重庆市人民政府). It will be very offensive and so unacceptable if videos on the internet are considered more trustable or suitable for encoding than an application with our seal on it.

The new evidence still shows no running text but only a screenshot of a computer font.

Screenshots of computer fonts and vedios from the internet are absolutely not qualified evidence for IRG. If no other evidence can be provided, then this ideograph should be postponed.

IRG PnP Version 17, page 11-12
Currently, IRG mainly accepts evidence from printed material if they are accepted as IRG sources.
In general, IRG DOES NOT accept multimedia material as IRG sources.
Note: the acceptance of the multimedia material, the popularity of the material, cultural influences, and other factors that warrants its acceptance.
We can't find a sentence in IRG PnP states that being posted on Instagram, Twitter or Bilibili once by any uploader will warrant the evidence's acceptance.

Furthermore, the screenshots of computer fonts prove nothing but the font producer has made the font. This cannot prove the shape is actually used in texts or even exists. As far as we know, the uploader of the vedio use ⿰久闹 just because he saw the font in a friend's computer without knowing the pronounciation or meaning.

I'd like to point out that using these as evidences is against UK's general requirements for the quality of evidences. I really don't think other experts will accept these two images as qualified evidences even if I were persuaded. So please find qualified evidences for the ideograph or postpone it.

Thank John for pointing that out and I am sorry that I made the mistake. But I still can't find a sentence in IRG PnP states that being posted on Instagram, Twitter or Bilibili once by any uploader will warrant the evidence's acceptance of IRG.
Comment #2304 says:"Also it is colour code so the lyrics are in red and the pronunciation and meaning in black. Therefore it is clear that the uploader understands the meaning and pronunciation."
I think it is obviously wrong. Logically, I can use 鹿 with pronunciation mǎ and meaning 马 in my vedio. It will be very ridiculous to say that 鹿 pronounciates mǎ and means 马 just based on my vedio. The paired pronunciation and meaning in the vedio proves nothing but only the uploader used ⿰久闹 with that pronunciation and meaning in the vedio. This fact warrants nothing.
I'd like to say that I am kind of sure that the uploader didn't know the pronunciation or meaning before using it. So please find qualified evidences for the ideograph or postpone it as experts will suggest in IRG meeings.

Comment #2304 also says:"It should of course go almost without mention that the evidence conforms to the requirements of the UK."
Comparing the evidences for this ideograph with the evidences for most of other ideographs, we still think that the evidences for this ideograph is against UK's general requirements for the quality of evidences. It would be very worrying if the quality of them were the same.

In comment #2798, it says "Furthermore since the up-loader of the video in 2022 was around 20 together". I think the submitter should provide the screenshot of them all to prove that this is true but not provide comments in texts only. Still, it is so clear that the quality of internet video uploaded by random uploaders is too weak for encoding.

Search result of 172画 huang in Bilibili
Should we encode huang? The number of the uploaders of huang is far bigger than 20.


Comment #2798 says:
Evidence 1 has many strengths:
- it is a primary source of evidence
- it shows the character is used in running text
- it shows clearly the shape of the character
- it accurately gives the pronunciation and meaning of the character
The second evidence:
- confirms the shape of the character
- shows the pre existence of the character
- shows that multiple fonts contain the character (the font used for the video is not that shown in the computing article)

However, even evidence 1 itself is suspicious, how can we assure the information in it is correct?
The second evidence is also too weak for encoding. In the process of making fonts for ideographs used in books, many errors can be found. Since both of the evidences are not qualified for encoding, these two evidences cannot be used to prove anything else.

Sorry about the request. I thought that there are 20 people who use ⿰久闹. If 20 is the video that the uploader uploaded, then it cannot prove ⿰久闹 is valid to any extend.
Anyway, it will be too ridiculous for me to believe that vast majority of IRG experts will support encoding ⿰久闹 in the current situation.
Although I am not angry about the personal attack in Comment #2880 at all, but I still hope that there won't be any more.

Same kind of evidence like before. The uploader is also the same as the existing evidence. More convincing evidence needed.

The UK still has not been able to provide evidence from historical document or other high-quality sources for this character. On the contrary, the UK has been providing evidence of the use of this character by one or two users on unstable carriers, and such evidence is not sufficient to support the encoding of this character. We have made it very clear that the evidence of this type provided by the UK is not sufficient to support the encoding of this character. However, the experts from the UK seem unable to understand what we mean and they are still insisting on providing evidence of the same type with insufficient quality, and also insisting on saying things that are obviously inconsistent with the facts. This kind of behavior is of no benefit to the review work and cannot make these characters be removed to the M-set.
At the last meeting, we have already suggested that if the experts from the UK believe that this character is not a newly self-created character and has the value for encoding, they can simply publish a paper that includes this character and vouch for these characters with their own reputation. Let me be more straightforward. It should not be a difficult task for the experts from the UK to publish a paper. If the experts from the UK are not willing to risk their own reputation, they should not insist on using evidence that obviously does not meet the requirements to request the encoding of this character in the IRG.

英国（UK）至今仍未能提供这个字的历史文献证据或其他高质量来源，相反，英国一直在提供由一两个使用者在不稳定的载体上使用该字的证据，这些证据并不足以支持对该字进行编码。我们已经说得很清楚，英国提供的这种类型的证据不足以支持编码该字，但英国的专家似乎无法理解我们表达的意思，仍在坚持提供相同类型、效力不足的证据，坚持说一些明显与事实不符的话。这种行为对审核工作没有任何益处，也无法让这些字从 D-set 返回 M-set。
在上次会议上，我们已经建议：如果英国专家认为这个字并非个人新造，且有编码的价值，完全可以自己发表一篇包含此字的论文，以自己的声誉给这些字作担保。让我把话说的再直接一点：发表一篇论文对英国专家来说应该不是什么难事，如果英国专家不愿意拿自己的声誉冒险，就不应该坚持在 IRG 以明显不符合要求的证据来要求对该字进行编码。

China thinks the evidence is still not sufficient and the character should be kept in D-set until better evidednce is provided.

I think that IRG experts had agreed that captions couldn't be the only source of the evidences for submitted ideographs in IRG meeting #62. So unless other evidences can be provided, the ideograph should be postponed.
The decision about using captions as evidences was clearly stated in the meeting so this kind of situation should not have happened.

We think that this ideograph should be postponed if no more qualified evidence can be provided. For more comments, please go to:
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2024/app/?find=UK-30621

The UK still has not been able to provide evidence from historical document or other high-quality sources for this character. On the contrary, the UK has been providing evidence of the use of this character by one or two users on unstable carriers, and such evidence is not sufficient to support the encoding of this character. We have made it very clear that the evidence of this type provided by the UK is not sufficient to support the encoding of this character. However, the experts from the UK seem unable to understand what we mean and they are still insisting on providing evidence of the same type with insufficient quality, and also insisting on saying things that are obviously inconsistent with the facts. This kind of behavior is of no benefit to the review work and cannot make these characters be removed to the M-set.
At the last meeting, we have already suggested that if the experts from the UK believe that this character is not a newly self-created character and has the value for encoding, they can simply publish a paper that includes this character and vouch for these characters with their own reputation. Let me be more straightforward. It should not be a difficult task for the experts from the UK to publish a paper. If the experts from the UK are not willing to risk their own reputation, they should not insist on using evidence that obviously does not meet the requirements to request the encoding of this character in the IRG.

英国（UK）至今仍未能提供这个字的历史文献证据或其他高质量来源，相反，英国一直在提供由一两个使用者在不稳定的载体上使用该字的证据，这些证据并不足以支持对该字进行编码。我们已经说得很清楚，英国提供的这种类型的证据不足以支持编码该字，但英国的专家似乎无法理解我们表达的意思，仍在坚持提供相同类型、效力不足的证据，坚持说一些明显与事实不符的话。这种行为对审核工作没有任何益处，也无法让这些字从 D-set 返回 M-set。
在上次会议上，我们已经建议：如果英国专家认为这个字并非个人新造，且有编码的价值，完全可以自己发表一篇包含此字的论文，以自己的声誉给这些字作担保。让我把话说的再直接一点：发表一篇论文对英国专家来说应该不是什么难事，如果英国专家不愿意拿自己的声誉冒险，就不应该坚持在 IRG 以明显不符合要求的证据来要求对该字进行编码。

China thinks the evidence is still not sufficient and the character should be kept in D-set until better evidednce is provided.

The top of this ideograph should be the same as 甪. So the first stroke should be in contact with the bottom component as the two evideces show.

Suggest to normalize the glyph to ⿺尾童 instead of changing the IDS.

We'd like to keep the current glyph.
Mr. 朱永⿰贝睿 write his name like current glyph.

Source: https://www.mmcs.org.cn/kxjfc/kxjfc/zybr/bd/art/2023/art_310b238dedb6424298d5e31ac79134ae.html
What's more, 《康熙字典》 has 丿 as the third stroke of the 睿 part. Currently, this ideograph is mainly used as person name and people are more likely to use the glyph in 《康熙字典》.

We'd like to keep the current glyph. It agrees with the glyph used on Chinese ID cards. Personally, I recommend UTC to keep its current glyph, too.

Agree with Eiso.

《汉语大字典》 is a very famous dictionary and many schoolars have been studying it. As a head character of 《汉语大字典》, even it is an error, it can be used in many publications.
Personally, I suggest to seperately encode ⿰魚昴 and ⿰魚昂. The case of ⿰鱼昴 and ⿰鱼昂 is more complex. Personally, I think it is better to encode them seperately. But I think it may also be a choice if the glyph of 𬶘(U+2CD98) will be changed to the original correct one and we won't submit ⿰鱼昴 to IRG in the future.
Evidence for 𩹡(U+29E61) and 𬶘(U+2CD98):
𩹡(U+29E61)
王宏源：康熙字典（增订版），page2010

中华字海，page1711：



𬶘(U+2CD98)
张叶芦：编余存疑录，浙江师范学院学报，1983年第1期，page85-88

吴承恩：西游记 上，长春：长春出版社，2022年6月，page492

This special case should be discussed by experts.

Agree with Eiso's comment #2576.

Please see my comments under ⿰魚昂

04402

魚 195.8.2

GCCPP-00034

TS 19 · IDS ⿰魚昂

Common simplified form of 磐U+78D0.

Agree with Eiso and Lee.

To John's comment #10593:
Yes, very likely.
I have scanned the book again recently and the quality is better. Thank you for bringing the issue out.

What's the difference between them?

Should not be postponed.

NUCV idea is good.

NUCV idea is good to me.

The character was also used in the same word 螺～ with the word in the evidence provided.

Suggest no change.

Suggest no change.

应劭 is a famous schoolar of the Han Dynasty. So ⿰召刀 is absolutely a variant of 劭.

No government can make all window staff understand the source of Chinese characters and the corresponding relationships between various shapes like IRG experts. However, the window staff are one of the main groups who will use the characters after the characters are encoded.

Evidence No.3 is from 道光(1821-1850) 《潯州府志》, the glyph in it is ⿺虎戌.
Evidence NO.2 is 同治（1862-1875）《潯州府志》, the glyph in it is ⿺虎戊.

Thanks for that. I will check my books these days, too.

As far as we are concerned, actual evidences are more credible than expert's experiences. Expert's experiences are very helpful when qualified evidences are provided. But the experiences can also be harmful if they are over relied. Thus although we have many excellent experts here, qualified evidences are still needed for this character(UK-30621), ⿰大老(UK-30639) and ⿰丫要(UK-30620).

If there are other subbmitted ideographs whose evidences are only from online video, we think that they should be postponed too if no more qualified evidence can be provided.

China, as a member body of WG2, disagreed to let the character go back to M-set because the current evidence is not sufficient. It is astonishing that this should be neglected so easily in the last day's meeting.
It is also astonishing that the three characters were added back to the M-set even if the evidence shows that the characters (especially the other two, ⿰丫要 and ⿰大老) are used only by one or two ordinary people in unstable internet vedios, and no one have seen the characters were used in historical document. Are these vedios have been considered authoritative evidence by IRG? Is this the way to ensure the quality of the standard is great? I really cannot understand it.
I just want to say that if the three characters (i.e. ⿰久闹, ⿰丫要 and ⿰大老) are added back to M-set based on the current evidence, our center will draft official documents to the Guangxi University(广西大学) to verify the origin of ⿰久闹 in the font and if its experts' comments were right. What's more, we will also draft official documents to the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of the People's Republic of China(中华人民共和国工信部) stating the situation here.

Suggest to keep the current glyph which is the same as Mr. 余云华's article.

According to IRGN2622, the proposed glyph can be unified to the glyph in the books. This means it is OK to normalize the glyph to the proposed glyph.