Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)/Disputed names

message: On this page we are not discussing the name of the article Sea of Japan nor the Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan.
Why are we not discussing the name of the article, when this is a very fundamental issue? This deserves treatment in both entries.Cleric71 12:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What we are NOT discussing here

message: I've archived the old discussion, after re-reading it once again. We all know the arguments, so hopefully we can start afresh. Currently (16:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not talking about that article here, I'm afraid. If you want to change the name of that article, start a discussion on the talk page there. Kokiri 08:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote on the order of the names

message: *East Sea (Sea of Japan)/East Sea of Korea (Sea of Japan)
# Visviva 16:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: East Sea first

message: * Sea of Japan (East Sea)/Sea of Japan (East Sea of Korea)
#Masterhatch 20 July 2005. I support this because "Sea of Japan" is the official name and most common name in all contexts (including Korean), new or old, in English (and most other languages). The vast majority of reputable sources use "Sea of Japan" and many have compromised by using "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" and I feel that that is a fair compromise.
#Sea of Japan is at the moment the more common term, so should take precedence. When (and if!) this other term supercedes it we can have this discussion all over again. Also it is the more accessible name, and WP aims for man-on-the-street readability. When I see "Sea of Japan" I know it's, duh, the waters around Japan, but when I see "East Sea" I'm not ashamed to admit that I can't instantly see where it is in my mind's eye. Maybe after a bit of thought (if even then), but certainly not instantly. GarrettTalk 11:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sea of Japan first

message: Proposed article title: Dispute over naming the body of water between Japan, the Koreas and Russia
*  Yes I disgress in that voting is the way to solve such heated argumentation. I believe the article already takes a side on the issue by merely titling itself according to one of the sides in the argument, when what is at stake is describing the controversy, not becoming partisan to one side. Therefore, I suggest ridding the article name of any topological or semantic nomenclature, and describing it solely based on geographic accidents that make the sea unique. My proposal is Dispute over naming the body of water between Japan, the Koreas and Russia --Yonghokim 18:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not talking about that article here, I'm afraid. If you want to change the name of that article, start a discussion on the talk page there. Kokiri 08:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A non-topological, but rather geographic, description 

message: Currently, there is a dispute about the name of the body of water that separates Korea and Japan in Korean contexts. The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) simply says that there is in fact a dispute. Posters have tried to resolve the dispute through discussion. That was going no where fast. So, Kokiri requested a vote.
At 16:16 on 18 July 2005 Kokiri requested a vote on whether East Sea or Sea of Japan should be used on Korean articles. Prior to the vote, it was agreed by various posters that for international and Japanese contexts, only Sea of Japan needs to be mentioned. For articles relating to Korea and Japan, Sea of Japan (East Sea) (or in the case of North Korea Sea of Japan (East Sea of Korea) is acceptable. It was also agreed that the "other" name need only be mentioned once at the first mentioning.
On 26 July 2005, I asked Kokiri for a closing date on the vote. Kokiri never responded and at the time of me writing this, he hasn't made a post since 23 July 2005 on Wikipedia. I had suggested 2 August 2005 as a closing date. That would have been about 2 weeks. On 4 August I made a post saying that 8 August would be a good closing date as that is three weeks from the start. I then asked if anyone objected if I closed the voting on 8 August. Only one person responded and that was Kojangee. He is in favour of me closing the vote. Since there are no objections, I am officially closing the vote now.
There were a total of 12 votes cast. Eight in favour of Sea of Japan first and 4 in favour of East Sea first. I believe that gives a mandate to use Sea of Japan first on all Korean context articles with East Sea following. So, the following will be the new naming convention for the disputed body of water:
#For all international articles use: Sea of Japan
#For all Japan articles use: Sea of Japan
#For all Japan/Korea and South Korea articles use: Sea of Japan (East Sea)
#For all Japan/North Korea articles use: Sea of Japan (East Sea of Korea)
#For all Korea and South Korea articles use: Sea of Japan (East Sea)
#For all North Korea articles use: Sea of Japan (East Sea of Korea)
As per the conditions of the vote, use (East Sea) only once at the first mentioning of the sea. Masterhatch 8 August 2005 14:33 (UTC)
This is a very inadequate way of deciding on the naming for the article. It looks like a vote was somehow conducted among 12 interested people. The fact that 8 people voted for a particular name over another proves absolutely nothing! The name should reflect the dispute - we should have "East Sea/ Sea of Japan" and "Sea of Japan/ East Sea" used alternately to be fair.Cleric71 12:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an easy question to answer. The name of the article follows the Wikipedia:Manual of Style which basically says that the most common name be used for articles. Sea of Japan is the official English name and the most common English name. Only in Korea is it disputed. Besides, the name of the article wasn't being voted on. The vote was about the order of the names in articles. Read the archives. It was a messy situation for quite sometime. A vote was the only way to solve it in a civil manner. Masterhatch 20:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I am closing the vote

message: Five years since the last vote..wow time flies. Anyways, looking around the English world, East Sea never gained the naming popularity that the Koreans expected it to. I still see almost exclusively either just "Sea of Japan" or "Sea of japan (East Sea)". Except for things published by Koreans, I have never seen "East Sea" stand alone. I can't see a reason to change the naming convention because it reflects current English usage (albeit not Korean Englsh usage). Masterhatch (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's simple, use the Russian name. "Японское море" is the Russian name, which is "Japan Sea". Since Russia borders this sea, and is neither Japan, China or Korea, that satisfies your complaints about Sinophiles, Nipponophiles, and also Koreaphiles which you didn't bother to mention. "Japan Sea" and "Sea of Japan" are equivalent names under English rules of gammar, and "Sea of Japan" is more common in English than "Japan Sea", so the body should therefore always be referred to as "Sea of Japan". 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: my two bits

message: I'd like to know whether these piped link used by Korean editors are acceptable or not. Sea of Japan (East Sea) This one is used on South Korea#Geography. Another version is Sea of Japan (East Sea) the Sea of Japan (also called East Sea) which was used in Korea Strait. See this too. `Probably these are used more in Korea-related articles. IMO, it is undue weight on the naming dispute. I think clarification of the use of these piped links is needed. Oda Mari (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I see nothing greatly wrong with Sea of Japan (East Sea), it doesn't exactly cause an issue and in fact may be advantageous due to explaining why the bracketed name is there. Sea of Japan (East Sea) however is clearly bad and should be changed. There's absolutely no point in not allowing a link to the article on the body of water itself (which would be the self-evident point of the wikilink). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

text: I think both of them are problematic (though the second is more serious), because they take the reader to somewhere they would not expect from the visible text.  The relevant section of the WP Manual of Style deals with this issue.  Kanguole 23:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Current Korea Strait setup is still bad, Sea of Japan (also called East Sea), phrases such as also called is not justifiable on articles where the body of water in question is not a large topic. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I corrected it. I thought it was an international article as one of the categories was International straits. Or is it a Japan/Korea and South Korea article? Oda Mari (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Korea Strait article includes both international and Japan-S.Korea border categories.  Using one over the other to justify a particular usage does not work in that WP:NC-SoJ #3 says to use both names when the topic covers both countries.  In that the strait is the K-J "border", has been the avenue of approach into Japan for many centuries, and will someday have a tunnel between them, #3 is the more pertinent category.  Deletion of East Sea can only rile up the EastSeaophiles. Including East Sea (in parens with a link to the naming dispute article) is more NPOV.--S. Rich (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with S. Rich here, that this is primarily a Japan-Korea article, so it should get the treatment for category three.  I also agree with everyone else that the piping through to the naming dispute is not appropriate.  Qwyrxian (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Question