Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)/Archive 2

message: I made a new template at Template:Koreanname. Please comment. 
I found the pink color and left align of the first column too obtrusive. If there are now objections, I will begin implementing it. --Jiang 23:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Jiang: could you do one page with an example?  I'm just concerned that there are so many (literally hundreds) of articles with the old-style table - and many of them are highly custom jobs that will be difficult to redo (like the city, county, and province articles).  -Sewing - talk 01:08, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: P.S.: I agree the new table looks nicer, however.  I replaced the "image" variable at the top with "title," since generally we put the full name of the article's subject (which is sometimes different from the page title) in the top of the box.  Of course, if there's an image for the article, then something has to be done with it....  -Sewing - talk 01:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I have experimented with the new box on Three Jewel Temples of Korea and Eight Provinces (Korea).  The problem now is that these 2 articles have the nifty, new box, while the other 498 or whatever still have the old box....  -Sewing - talk 02:27, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I would prefer to keep the romanized spellings on top.  Most Wikipedia users would not know how to read the Hangul, although more than a few would be able to read the Hanja.  -Sewing - talk 02:55, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I appreciate all your concerns, but Kokiri, WhisperToMe, and I put a lot of work into these boxes.  I would like to keep them as close to the previous format as possible.  With or without an image, they are absolutely essential, because they have completely eliminated the long strings of variant romanized spellings, Hangul, and Hanja that used to plague the opening sentences of countless Korea-related articles.  -Sewing - talk 03:36, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I'm concerned because now we're going to have half the articles in the old style and the other half in the new style.  I have no time, energy, or desire to start going through all the Korea-related articles now just to change their tables.  And what about the excellent tables at Chopsticks and Go (board game)?  They are convertible, I suppose, but only with a lot of work....  -Sewing - talk 03:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: How can we deal with the North Korea article and still remain in compliance with the wikiproject template? It occurred to me yesterday as I was browsing that for me (personally) the boxes make the article harder to read. The first thing I want to do after I see the bolded first word is to look up the Hanja, but the boxes force me to look all the way to the far right and then look back and start over with the article because i lost my place. I think it's easier to skip over the stuff on the first line (especially if you can't read it) than to have to switch left and right and left again and face the mental strain of doing so. Our average reader is probably an illiterate anglophone so we shouldn't be too worried, but hey.... --Jiang 04:58, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I see that the project page has been updated, presumably by Jiang, to reflect the new name table.  This seems fair, since the editors who expressed reservations have become dormant.  I'm starting a countdown until I do a forced march through the List of Korea-related topics updating all name tables to the new format (creating variants as needed).  It doesn't make sense to have one kind of table in the Naming Conventions, and another in almost every Korea-related article.  -- Visviva 13:17, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  New name table 

message: I didn't want to just jump in and monkey with the project page, but it seems like the list of historical periods is a bit out of whack, and also not congruent with the History of Korea article:
* There's a separate entry for Goguryeo, which was one of the Three Kingdoms.  Seems like this should be removed.
* There is no mention of the pre-Three Kingdoms periods, even clearly historical ones such as Wiman Joseon or the subsequent period of Samhan and the Chinese commanderies (doesn't currently have an overview article).
* There's no entry for Unified Silla, which followed the Three Kingdoms period.
* There's no entry for the Later Three Kingdoms period which came between the fall of Silla and the rise of Goryeo.  (Granted, this was a fairly brief period, but longer and arguably more significant than the "Empire of Korea").  
So I would propose removing Goguryeo from the list, and adding Wiman Joseon, Unified Silla and Later Three Kingdoms... and also adding Samhan and the Chinese commanderies when we get a little better coverage of them.  Any objections?
PS -- I am working on improving our coverage of the periods I mentioned... it's a slow process, as I don't have a whole lot of time.
Cheers!  Visviva 02:44, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: ... kinda quiet in here.  I'll change the list of periods based on the new History of Korea template by Ryuch.  -- Visviva 04:32, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Periods, Revisited 

message: Currently, per the project page, all Korean monarch articles have the format (Title) (Name) ((the Great)) of (Kingdom), as in King Uija of Baekje or King Bojang of Goguryeo.  However, this is a bit redundant.  With the exception of a few names like "Taejo" (which means "great progenitor" and was therefore applied to several dynastic founders), most Korean royal names are unique.  There is only one King Uija, only one King Bojang, only one King Muyeol, etc.  The current policy results in article titles and initial sentences that are far more unwieldy than they need to be.  
For the sake of elegance and simplicity, shall we change the formula to (Title) (Name) ((the Great))?  The "of (Kingdom)" part can be added/retained in those few cases where disambiguation is needed. 
I support this idea, which was originally proposed by User:Ryuch.  If anyone has objections, please voice them here. --Visviva 04:32, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The redundancy is in accordance to the WP-wide naming policy of royalties. e.g., there's only one Elizabeth II in the world, ever. But, the article is called Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom anyway. --Menchi 06:10, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, consistency is a good thing.  Although I don't really understand what's so great about redundancy in these cases.  ... However, I guess maybe the best thing to do is simply to keep the redundancy in the article titles, but follow the example of the QE2 article and use the sensibly shortened form in the text. -- Visviva 14:28, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: This proposal appears to have been put into action by User:Mel Etitis.  Since no comments have been made here in the past six months (sigh), I will adjust the guidelines.  -- Visviva 16:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  King names