Talk:Hwacha

message: The hwacha was initally developed in China and later transferred to Korea.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.34.168 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 18 October 2005
::Can you source it please?HappyApple 21:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin

message: I think we need this to be deleted. (Wikimachine 14:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you think so? Pedant 06:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hwacha in games 

message: :It is perceived this vote may be invalid. For more information see: Wikipedia is not a democracy.
Support for obvious reasons above. (Wikimachine 13:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hoho. You believe so? Reread the Wikipedia rules on votes and community consensus. (Wikimachine 04:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote on Whether To Delete Popular Culture Paragraph

message: In the opening sentence, why does it say, that, the Hwacha is of Chinese and Korean origins? A hwacha was invented by the Koreans, and is therfore named by the Koreans. I know China did own hwacha type weapons, but this a Korean article on the Hwacha only. If we're going to put down "chinese origins," put it on a Chinese weapons article, not a Korean one. It is misleading. Oyo321 15:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hwacha-Korean

message: Ok, HappyApple and Wikimachine stop arguing. The Hwacha article can be very stable if we just work together.
Firstly, about the game section. I agree that Hwacha's should be noted for their use in games. However the section should be kept at a basic level and not detailed. Also there shouldn't be any game ads stained all over the article itself.
It is true that the hwacha is an ingenious invention, much more different than the Chinese one and a lot better than the Chinese one too. Hwacha's are Korean and Korea developed it. Good friend100 23:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ok guys 

message: I edited the entire article. The games section is ok the way it is since it doesn't describe how hwachas are used in games. I suggest a picture of a hwacha from a game wouldn't hurt since pictures make articles a lot better. Good friend100 00:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have continued the work that Good friend100 started a couple of days ago, and i expanded the subsections and i properly referenced each paragraph as suggested by user:Wikimachine, i also suggest to stop arguing and work to make this article improve. I hope all my contributions can be nicely welcomed :-) --HappyApple 10:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extensive edits 

message: To the editor who posted Chinese Military support
The hwacha in several ways is similiar to the Chinese one. BUT the hwacha is purely Korean and it is not a copy. It was designed and created by Korean engineering. Good friend100 13:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese military support 

message: This is absolutely amazing! (more amazing if you would delete the last section on popular culture)
But about references and notes, what are the differences between them? I say we merge them. 
This is absolutely amazing. (Wikimachine 16:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Job! Now onto the Reference 

message: This is a dispute about if or not games that feature the weapon, a Hwacha, should be mentioned in this article.
;Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
*While i respect your point of view i disagree, in fact, i would be very instructive to a user or reader to find information which is bidirectional instead only monodirectional. References should complement to each other, like Brownian motion and Tyndall effect, and i feel games are part of it. --User:HappyApple 15:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The inclusion or exclusion of games from the article Hwacha

message: User:HappyApple is not a native speaker of the English language and has requested an advocate's assistance so that the user may be clearly understood. User:HappyApple believes that established policy supports inclusion of the text in question, in part because of the following points:
#The general consensus of the entire wikipedia is that information which is factual and relevant and verifiable is included, not excluded.
#User OrbitOne is misrepresenting 'general consensus' regarding inclusion of games being non-notable.  General consensus cannot be determined by discussion on one single article, it is determined by the overall consensus wikipedia-wide.  The links in question are to other existing wikipedia articles.  If the games in question were not notable, there would not be wikipedia articles on them.  This shows that there is a general consensus that the topics are notable.  Otherwise the articles would be deleted.  Discussion of notability should take place on the articles themselves.
#User OrbitOne is misrepresenting the policy "Wikipedia is not a link exchange", which has no bearing on the inclusion or non-inclusion of internal links.
#User OrbitOne mischaracterizes the removed material as:
##A link exchange, see the applicable policy here which states in part: "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article".
##A list, which it demonstrably is not, the material was in paragraph form.  Unless the paragraph is kept, it cannot be expanded by other editors.
##A directory of games, which again it demonstrably is not, on the contrary it is a mention of related articles, showing the title subject with respect to popular culture, a very common and accepted wikipedia practice, see: Trebuchet for an example of an article on weaponry with links to other articles about game, See the policy on directories here  which contains the relevant text:  "(Wikipedia is NOT)  Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guide or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally shouldn't list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules etc. (although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable). Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article." This policy has nothing to do with the text in question. User:Pedant 20:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from [[User:HappyApple]]'s advocate

message: I think the general concensus is to delete that section, so let us take a second vote and add that onto the previous vote and see what the concensus is. But it is non-binding if it is proven the section is covered by policy one way or another, but this is to make those who oppose the deletion happy. In the previous vote, it was Two for deletion and Three against. OrbitOne  [Talk|Babel] 07:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you cannot have it both ways:  It needs to be deleted because it is incomplete/and/it needs to be cut back. Are you saying it needs to be bigger or are you saying it needs to be smaller? The section isn't what is meant in the policy re directories, go read it and see. User:Pedant 04:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you figure that representing that a 2-3 vote in favor of keeping is a consensus to delete is not mischaracterising the vote?  Answer that in any meaningful way and I will eat a bug.User:Pedant
#I stated, I am willing to talk about the issue on this talk page, but it requires more than I myself to have a discussion about keeping it or not. Persistent revertions is also a drain on the wikipedia community and if there is to be an expection that I respect HappyApple's opinion, then he must come here onto the talk page and discuss the issue, otherwise his opinion of concensus or relevance, when stated in the edit summary and only in the edit summary, can and will fairly be ignored.
--OrbitOne  [Talk|Babel] 22:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Concensus vote

message: #Consensus (a guideline)  does not override policy , the policy is that material that is verifiably factual and relevant to the topic is included.  The use of consensus is a guideline, see: Wikipedia:Consensus
#Votes do not determine consensus, see the guideline: vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate (Wp:consensus#Consensus vs. supermajority)
#In any case, the previous vote was for keeping the material. User:OrbitOne is mischaracterising the consensus as being to delete, and wants to "add this vote to the previos vote", a process which I have never seen used and which is decidedly not supported by policy or guidelines.  A vote here for deletion will have no effect on consensus, guidelines and policy, which is clear.  
#Persistent unwarranted deletion of this material will result in an unnecessary drain on the wikipedian community at large through escalation to formal dispute resolution processes, such as WP:RfC, WP:Mediation, and WP:Arbitration, as user HappyApple has already attempted informal resolution as required by policy. User:Pedant 21:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you cannot have it both ways:  It needs to be deleted because it is incomplete/and/it needs to be cut back. Are you saying it needs to be bigger or are you saying it needs to be smaller? The section isn't what is meant in the policy re directories, go read it and see. User:Pedant 04:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you figure that representing that a 2-3 vote in favor of keeping is a consensus to delete is not mischaracterising the vote?  Answer that in any meaningful way and I will eat a bug.User:Pedant
#I stated, I am willing to talk about the issue on this talk page, but it requires more than I myself to have a discussion about keeping it or not. Persistent revertions is also a drain on the wikipedia community and if there is to be an expection that I respect HappyApple's opinion, then he must come here onto the talk page and discuss the issue, otherwise his opinion of concensus or relevance, when stated in the edit summary and only in the edit summary, can and will fairly be ignored.
--OrbitOne  [Talk|Babel] 22:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes re: second vote

message: #Delete For stated reasons above. --OrbitOne  [Talk|Babel] 07:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes

message: The following was left on my (User:Pedant) talk page.  since it bears on this discussion, it seems unhelpful to hide it on my talk page and I am copying it here to reply: User:Pedant 23:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  comments copied from my talk page: 

message: Your acceptance of me as HappyApple's advocate is irrelevant to this issue.  I do not resort to mudslinging.  I mereley stated, as above, that you are mischaracterising the consensus as being 'to delete', which you are, there is no consensus to delete this entirely appropriate material, and your characterisation of a 2-3 vote against deleting it as being a consensus to delete it is in fact a mischaracterisation.  
There is nothing unorthodox about HappyApple's position to include the verifiable factual and relevant material which you seem insistent upon removing.  There is no middle ground. (it can be deleted or not deleted)  Consensus is clear on including cultural referents such as these.  
Voting is specifically not a part of the consensus process.  Consensus is reached by discussion of the matters, not by votes, or second votes, or trying to combine a first and second vote.  Your position of wanting to reach consensus by multiple votes and combined votes about whether verifiable factual and relevant material should be excluded from this one article and not from any other is unorthodox and further, is not according to policy, guidelines, custom, or tradition.  
As an advocate I am bound to be civil, and not to misstate facts or to draw unwarranted inferences.  It was not being uncivil to state " the previous vote was for keeping the material. User:OrbitOne is mischaracterising the consensus as being to delete, and wants to "add this vote to the previous vote", a process which I have never seen used and which is decidedly not supported by policy or guidelines. A vote here for deletion will have no effect on consensus, guidelines and policy, all of which are clear. I never in any sense made the claim that you "resorted to any underhanded or misleading tactics".  
I am assuming good faith on the part of all parties to this dispute, as policy dictates that I do.  
However, it is factual that the previous vote was inconclusive, and that the majority did not support your position.  By characterising the discussion as a consensus to delete, you were in fact mischaracterizing the the consensus.  (I made no accusation that this was intentional on your part.) 
Consensus on this talk page is unclear -- however on a global, wikipedia-wide scale the consensus is clear, that wikipedia articles include, and include only, verifiable factual and relevant material.  This is a matter of such firm consensus that there is in fact official policy regarding the inclusion of verifiable factual and relevant material.  If you disagree with that policy, the talk page of the relevant policy is the place to express such disagreement.  
If you have something to say about Hwacha, this is the place to do it.  Let's keep this discussion here on this page, and let's resolve this through discussion.  
I have seen no discussion on your part as to why this material should be excluded from this article.  Let's discuss that, instead of treating this as a dispute, let's treat this as a collaboration.  If this material harms the article in any way, let's talk about that.  Certainly we should all agree that the goal here is to write a good article using verifiable factual and relevant material, right? User:Pedant 23:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My ([[User:Pedant|User:Pedant]]'s)reply:

message: :Fair enough.
:Lets take this issue one by one.
#It was argued that such sections are common and this valid. I and other editors disagree. This is can be seen on the VillagePump where I proposed the deletion of such sections as policy. I will also point out, although it may be common to have such a section, the work of a few users can make such a section common, the inclusions of such sections need not have been with concensus.
#Several essays support the deletion of Fancruft, irrelevant sections and policy demands the deletion of directories or information added with out discrimination. Essays, although not policies, are a guide to understanding the intent of policy on Wikipedia. Essays therefor are the proper understandings of policies of Wikipedia.
#The section is poorly writen. The games mentioned are without context. There is no mention as to why it is notable or interesting beyond that the weapon is featured in one form or another.
#Policies call for the deletion of software directories. The section is a list of games with little or no context. The section can be rewritten without loss of context so it is a classic software directory. Because it can be rewritten into a software directory without loss of context or content, it already is a software directory, even if poorly written.
#There have been no solid arguments or explinations as to why games are relevant.
--OrbitOne  [Talk|Babel] 00:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Orbit One:

message: To address point 5.
Not everything that features a Hwacha is automaticly relevant to the historical weapon. The games never have had an effect on peoples factual knowledge of the weapon past that it existed. A good test of relevance is to ask, would the article change significantly, or at all past the games mention, if the games never featured this weapons? If it would not change, then the game is not relevant. If it would change, then it would be relevant. Also, the section is missing context as to how it is relevant to the historical weapon. If you wish to explain in what context the games are relevant, then please do.
But the point of Knight being linked to in Chess is a questionable argument. The knight is a featured and important part of that game. Applying the test mentioned, the article would be significantly changed if the knight was never part of the game. Likewise, the games that feature a Hwacha should link to the article Hwacha if the use of the weapon in the game is significant to game play, but this still does not make the games relevant to the Hwacha.
To address point 2.
*Wikipedia:Fancruft
*Wikipedia:Notability
*Wikipedia:Listcruft
To address point 3.
If you wish to suggest a rewrite, then I must insist that it also has some context as to why it is notable. Would you care to explain how it is notable?
To address point 4.
As I said, the section can be rewritten into a software directory without any loss of context or content. If it can be rewritten into a good directory without any loss of either context or content, then it is a directory, no matter how poorly written. Also, the claim that Wikipedia's examples of a directory are the only kinds of directories is short sighted. Wikipedia cannot list every kind of directory and instead gives a few examples so there is an understanding as to what a directory is. It is my understanding this is a directory.
--OrbitOne  [Talk|Babel] 06:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concensus on pop culture sections was reached, although disputed by some, on the villagepump. I never stated the editors said the games section here was irrelevant or any concensus was reached on the villagepump in relation to this very article. Please read the village pump so you can see the discussion. --OrbitOne  [Talk|Babel] 06:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did read that discussion, most of the text was contributed by you, and nowhere is there a mention that a consensus has been reached, and in fact there is no consensus.  There was no vote.  There were people who made comments on 'both sides' of the discussion.  Roughly half of the entries in the discussion were you, and you can't reach a consensus by yourself.  Much of wht you wrote dealt with 'software developers using wikipedia to plug there software' -- again, a blatant characterisation of one thing as another very different thing.  Or do you allege that HappyApple is in fact a 'developer plugging games'?   Please, can we have a rational logical discussion without such... (well excuse me but the only way I can describe it is) 'trickery'?  Consensus cannot be reached by manipulation, we are, or should be, trying to resolve this in such a way that it will stay resolved: other editors will come along, and if we do not reach a good understanding of consensus, they will just edit the content back in, or remove it or whatever, however if we gain an understanding of what the whole group of editors think is appropriate, and not just the 10 or so in this discussion, it will be of more lasting value.  I'm not arguing against you, I am arguing with you.  Please join me and lets argue together.  In that way we can neither win nor lose. User:Pedant 18:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OrbitOne 

message: I think this dispute it is likely to will move forward to an advanced level of dispute resolution process. I tried in all ways and terms to solve this apparent dispute in an informal way contacting an advocate who can represent me in presenting my arguments but it seems OrbitOne's insistence would force this dispute move to a formal level, and i think it is quite baseless because he had mischaracterizatied Wikipedia policies.
#In my point of view, and the years i have edited so far on Wikipedia, i have never seen such flames or disputes regarding popular culture or games, in fact they seem to be widely tolerated by wikipedia community.
#OrbitOne has used this words : "Since we are going into wikilawyering, I can play the same game."
*First of all we are not playing a game, we are discussing if Popular culture and the games included on the section it should be keep or delete. In my opinion there are many articles, such as Trebuchet, Piltdown man, Turtle ship, and even Dromon (which was recently deleted by OrbitOne) and so on which featured a popular culture trivia created by editors which maybe in some cases were not experienced ones, but they indeed felt the inclusion of such information was valuable to the article because showed readers how this or that weapon or article was related to another one. 
Although readers would focus their attention on how the weapon was designed and how it was used, this doesn't mean that games or popular culture wouldn't gather their attention too. 
In fact if we see documentaries on television from National Geographic and even the A&E's famous Biography, we can see that after all the professionalism there is a popular culture reference near the end of the program.
Back to Wikilawyering, i think OrbitOne is not figuring Wikilawyering it is not a good thing, and i quote: "Utilization of the word "Wikilawyering" typically has negative connotations, much like the term "meatpuppet"; those utilizing the term should take care that it can be backed up and isn't frivolous." 
and for this i believe OrbitOne isn't taking this dispute seriously.
I am in favor to get to an accord instead going into a tedious process of dispute resolution. And i want to quote Pedant's words. We are working together, Wikipedia it is about team work, not a feudal system. I appeal to editors being tolerant, finally i want to quote Matt words which i feel are very important on this issue, "Deleting content that other people have worked on does not encourage anyone to contribute to Wikipedia. Do not let your personal prejudices / intellectual snobbery persuade you that many other members' contributions are worthless." HappyApple 18:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I will walk away from this dispute for one week. HappyApple 19:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, got here late, I guess, too late I guess to interject with my opinion before everyone already disengaged, though I did have the page on my watchlist I don't always check over the weekend.  In the future, it might be nice to let a vote go more than two days, especially when they are both weekend days, before declaring an impass and "disengaging." Komdori 15:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I am a little disturbed by how silent both camps are, but I will put faith in my advocate and have patience, although it isn't unlimited. But the jist is, I still am here waiting. --OrbitOne  [Talk|Babel] 16:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's engage back in the discussion. (Wikimachine 03:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Then, as per that section, we need to delete the junks about the games and museums. (Wikimachine 00:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then is it okay to remove the section now? --OrbitOne  [Talk|Babel] 16:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not fine. See WikiProject Military history's guidelines? (Wikimachine 23:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: HappyApple:

message: The next stage of dispute resolution is to disengage for a while, see WP:DR I am advising HappyApple to take one week off from this dispute, and I encourage anyone involved to do so as well.  Let's get together in a week and see if we can achieve a resolution. User:Pedant 18:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I will walk away from this dispute for one week. HappyApple 19:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, got here late, I guess, too late I guess to interject with my opinion before everyone already disengaged, though I did have the page on my watchlist I don't always check over the weekend.  In the future, it might be nice to let a vote go more than two days, especially when they are both weekend days, before declaring an impass and "disengaging." Komdori 15:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I am a little disturbed by how silent both camps are, but I will put faith in my advocate and have patience, although it isn't unlimited. But the jist is, I still am here waiting. --OrbitOne  [Talk|Babel] 16:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's engage back in the discussion. (Wikimachine 03:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Then, as per that section, we need to delete the junks about the games and museums. (Wikimachine 00:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then is it okay to remove the section now? --OrbitOne  [Talk|Babel] 16:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not fine. See WikiProject Military history's guidelines? (Wikimachine 23:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Note from HappyApple's advocate''' second step:disengage

message: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-13 Hwacha popular culture. (Wikimachine 03:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request to Meditation Cabal

message: So here is what I am going to do. I am going to push a compromise that bainer neglected to do.
My worry is that companies will start linking the wiki pages to their games all over to boost their profile. But, if the games listed are limited to games no longer sold (old games), then any abuse of wikipedia for PR is cut down (leaves me happy) and games that do feature this weapon are still listed (leaving you happy). Will you accept this deal? --OrbitOne  [Talk|Babel] 21:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost faith in my advocat 

message: ...Then I will just take action and edit the article myself. --OrbitOne  [Talk|Babel] 11:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not being ignored. I waited for the cabal case & since it's closed, I thought that the general consensus was that it would be deleted. I'll delete it. (Wikimachine 16:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I shall remind both this case isn't closed yet, and the article is still ongoing debate, please don't accelerate things.--HappyApple 02:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If I am going to be completely ignored... 

message: "but the coriolis effect and weather conditions during a battle generally shortened their striking distance to about 100 meters. [13]"
I really doubt that the coriolis effect would matter on a projectile weapon with a max range of 100 meters. And the link the citation is broken. Can anybody confirm? Ledtim 13:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have fixed / matching problem. Now, the citation link refers to Ancient and Medieval Siege Weapons in the note. --Kusunose 14:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference is broken again. --Apoc2400 05:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coriolis effect 

message: In the PC game Medieval 2: Total War, Mongol and Timurid faction do not have Hwacha or a similar unit, according to FUSIL and FAUST v1.2, the most well-known and up-to-date M2TW unit guides. The background of M2TW is geographically and historically different from that of Hwacha. If such unit exists, clarify its name, stat, what faction it belongs to, and source of the information.Hkwon (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hwacha in M2TW?

message: Mythbusters tested a 200 shot Hwacha at 500 yards, it worked and the arrows were grouped tightly, they also exploded with lethal force. --68.81.70.65 (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'spoilers' on the MythBusters reference were removed before - but were re-added. In my opinion they should not be there. Any objections?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobTheMad (talk • contribs) 02:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I feel like it could be useful here. Sure, a Mythbusters episode isn't anywhere near what I'd expect out of a peer-reviewed article in a major journal, but it is a published work. If you look at their Popularity and influence section, it's pretty clear that even though the work they do is more entertainment than science, that doesn't negate the fact that they do use science to entertain, and it could be useful. If I wanted to look into this topic, I'd want to know about that episode, because data is data. If nothing else, I could look at their methods and find ways to improve upon them. Major_Small (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hwacha tested at 500 yards 

message: Now it doesn't go to paste this hearty laugh article. 
The bulletin board of China waits for me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.38.42.157 (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Korean origin theory with painful stomach

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Suggest to split Watcha out of this wiki page since Watcha was founded as streaming platform in South Korea and Japan. It would be very confusing if Hwacha was mixed up with the streaming platform. VernardoLau (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split "Watcha" apart of Hwacha