Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)/Archive 3

message: This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)/Disputed names.  -- Visviva 03:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed names 

message: Would it be a good idea to re-order the (few at this point) S.K. Wiks?  I know there are always difficulties with alphabetizing  Korean and Western names, but maybe it might be of use when the list gets bigger.  By the way, at the top of the South Korean Wikipedians page, there is a note to also add to the gen. Wik'n page - but when I link thither, the only place I see to list is the SKW page that I just came from. 211.225.34.177 01:27, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Alphabetizing South Korean Wikipedians

message: The article for the period between about 1900 and 1950 was changed into History of Korea (1900-1950), since (afaik) colonialization was not NPOV enough. Should we update the convention here accordingly? Kokiri 28 June 2005 23:13 (UTC)
Can we have an open discussion about this section? Most of the convention came into existence by observing how we Wikipedians do things. Some of the issues have been discussed at some length, but there are three sections that have just stood here unchallenged. I hope we can discuss these sections in the light that Wikipedia:Naming convention is now official Pedia policy. Kokiri 16:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The change to 1900-1950 is a problematic one, particularly since it obviously overlaps with the Korean Empire and Divided Korea periods.  I'd like to see us discuss that further.  The move was well-intentioned, but the Talk page suggests that those who did it didn't really know what they were getting into.  -- Visviva 23:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Periods: Colonialization 

message: * Korean Cultural Insights by the KNTO: Old Joseon (Bronze Age) - Buyeo (Iron Age) - Samhan - Three Kingdoms (Silla, Goguryeo, Baekje; Gaya) - Unified Silla - Goryeo Dynasty - Joseon Dynasty - Daehan Empire (proclaimed; overlap with Joseon) - Japanese colonial rule - SK/NK
* {{History of Korea template: Gojoseon - Samhan - Three Kingdoms (Goguryeo, Baekje, Silla) - Unified Silla and Balhae - Later Three Kingdoms - Goryeo - Joseon - 1900-1950 - Divided Korea
:The change to 1900-1950 is a problematic one, particularly since it obviously overlaps with the Korean Empire and Divided Korea periods.  I'd like to see us discuss that further.  The move was well-intentioned, but the Talk page suggests that those who did it didn't really know what they were getting into.  -- Visviva 23:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical divisions as used by

message: This is another section that was never really discussed, afaik. I believe it is modelled after articles on monarchs elsewhere in the world? Kokiri 16:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (monarchs).  Originally the two were in disagreement, with this page calling for (title) (name) of (kingdom), but this was changed a while back to be in compliance with the general standard.  This change was proposed, although not really discussed, on this page -- see the first archive.  -- Visviva 23:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Names of monarchs

message: Another such section. Do we really need the standard link See also List of Korea-related topics, now that we have categories? Kokiri 16:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it, and would like to keep it, although I guess we don't really need it.  AFAICT, we had categories when the template was created, hence the :Category:Korea link, but I wouldn't really know about that.  ;-)  Basically the link is just a reciprocal one; since all KRT's should be linked from the LKRT, a reciprocal link to the LKRT seems reasonable.  -- Visviva 23:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Korean article template

message: Manhwa(K,漫畵) vs. Manga(J,漫画); Soju(K,燒酒) vs. Shochu(J,焼酎); Gayo(K,歌謠) vs. Kayokyoku(J,歌謡曲)....
I somewhat support, with a few reservations.  It seems like I'm in twilight zone, getting caught between Korea & Japan, trying to believe that these are to be considered COMPLETELY different things.  But I don't mind deleting Hanja for these.--Endroit 22:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: [with the change in the wording of the question, this becomes a straw man, since nobody proposed "complete elimination of hanja." i also oppose complete elimination but the discussion is about infoboxes, which this poll does not resolveAppleby 01:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Complete elimination of Hanja for Parallel Korea/Japan terms (20th century & beyond)

message: I don't know where else to suggest this, but I'd appreciate it if someone who has an understanding of Korean linguistics could add a box to Paekchǒng. Sarge Baldy 09:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paekchǒng